Spiritual Rebirth

[Benighted]

i totally believe in the presence of soul, if that wasnt the case we wouldnt have dreams showing us things which we have never seen before or even heard of.... mind by itself cannot manipulate such information and show it to us (i mean it can but to an extent only), in my opinion this is the perfect sign of a soul.....

Some great minds beg to differ with you on this, while others seem to agree. The counterpoint here is that you can not dream of things you've never seen/heard/read about or experienced in any way whatsover, its actually just your brain fusing different parts of information in your head into a new a whole. Ideas aren't innate. They come with experience. You can not imagine something without first experiencing it in anyway. I guess we'll never know for sure..

Your standpoint regarding this comes from Innatism, I suppose?

 

[Gizmo]

i totally believe in the presence of soul, if that wasnt the case we wouldnt have dreams showing us things which we have never seen before or even heard of.... mind by itself cannot manipulate such information and show it to us (i mean it can but to an extent only), in my opinion this is the perfect sign of a soul.....

The Human Mind and subconscious are alot more powerful than you think.

 

[Dark Slayer]

One life is enough to do good deeds, if you intend doing'em. Even if I believe in rebirth and reborn to set things right, how would I know of my previous life

So in my humble opinion REBIRTH = Bull crap, no offense.

 

[Roark]

Hmmm strange concept, i for one don't believe in the idea of souls. We are all a combination of various physiological functions, i think the idea of a human possessing something that cannot be defined nor measured is too utopian. In all honesty the simplest belief that i have is that since there is no soul or any spirtual tag that identifies myself apart from my physical body it's impossible to have reincarnation.

If a soul did exist, it would have to be an entity. As a human my personality and thought processes have been dependant on my physical body and environment. Does a soul have the same personality or morality. If it has no tangible form or features how can my personality be retained. If my vanity is due to the fact that i'm good looking, how would my sould harbour vanity. It's all experiences, to believe a soul existed would also be to believe that we have to have a preformed psychological pattern.

It also goes into the nature vs nurture argument and can span masses of pages. I personally don't believe souls exist, if it does i've never felt or needed mine. It's just comfort thoughts to make us feel that existence is infinite.

Existence Is Finite.

 

[LordIT]

I personally don't believe souls exist, if it does i've never felt or needed mine.

By any chance, are you a Pakistani Politician?

 

[GrandCayman]

Well said my friend but still at some level I will disagree with you. If there is no soul then how would you separate computers from humans? One can say that a human brain is same as a computer but much much more complex but then how would you define human emotions. Love, joy, excitement, anger, sympathy, hate and lots of emotions we feel everyday, that a computer cant feel. Can it be programmed to feel all these emotions the exact same way we do?

Lets talk about babies, how can you explain a new born baby can recognize his mother. How does he know when to cry?

If there is no spirit then how can you define human curiosity? By nature we are all curious, curious to find answers to questions that havent been anwered. How would you define the need to succeed………………...................................................

 

[BumperJumper]

Well said my friend but still at some level I will disagree with you. If there is no soul then how would you separate computers from humans? One can say that a human brain is same as a computer but much much more complex but then how would you define human emotions. Love, joy, excitement, anger, sympathy, hate and lots of emotions we feel everyday, that a computer cant feel. Can it be programmed to feel all these emotions the exact same way we do?

Lets talk about babies, how can you explain a new born baby can recognize his mother. How does he know when to cry?

If there is no spirit then how can you define human curiosity? By nature we are all curious, curious to find answers to questions that havent been anwered. How would you define the need to succeed………………...................................................

The part about computers is stupid IMO, i mean computer lacks a REAL brain, the sense of touch, emotions and a lot of things. I bet you that once these things can be programmed into robots they won't be different than any living things. Yes, they can be programmed. Once technology develops we can see real emotions in robot. But a robot will never be perfect no matter how far in the future, as robots are created by Humans while Humans were created by Allah Almighty. Humans are prone to error no matter how perfectionist they are or how hard they try...

You know very well where babies come from, they spend a huge chunk of time in there so they can recognize their mother much better than any other..

 

[Roark]

Well said my friend but still at some level I will disagree with you. If there is no soul then how would you separate computers from humans? One can say that a human brain is same as a computer but much much more complex but then how would you define human emotions. Love, joy, excitement, anger, sympathy, hate and lots of emotions we feel everyday, that a computer cant feel. Can it be programmed to feel all these emotions the exact same way we do?

Lets talk about babies, how can you explain a new born baby can recognize his mother. How does he know when to cry?

If there is no spirit then how can you define human curiosity? By nature we are all curious, curious to find answers to questions that havent been anwered. How would you define the need to succeed………………...................................................

There are very simple answers to ur questions, emotions are all a product of various chemical and hormonal changes within the body.

Curiousity is present iin alot of other animals as well, A baby usually associates the first person to care for it to be it's mother. Have you not seen animals mistaking other species for thier mother and even humans in cases.. If that was true an adopted child would inherently know that he's adopted and never need to be fooled.

Success and curiousity are actually individual traits, not a alot of people have the same level of curiosity and ambition.

 

[fareedusmani]

IMO metaphysics doesnt make better sense in any religion other then islam, after reading works of rumi, al-gillani, Allama iqbal etc... trust me, each and everything makes sense... but then again how can these things be explained to someone with a totally different school of thought.... gotta find ways

 

[Benighted]

Well said my friend but still at some level I will disagree with you. If there is no soul then how would you separate computers from humans? One can say that a human brain is same as a computer but much much more complex but then how would you define human emotions. Love, joy, excitement, anger, sympathy, hate and lots of emotions we feel everyday, that a computer cant feel. Can it be programmed to feel all these emotions the exact same way we do?

Lets talk about babies, how can you explain a new born baby can recognize his mother. How does he know when to cry?

If there is no spirit then how can you define human curiosity? By nature we are all curious, curious to find answers to questions that havent been anwered. How would you define the need to succeed………………...................................................

Off topic but, how old are you?

 

[GrandCayman]

There are very simple answers to ur questions, emotions are all a product of various chemical and hormonal changes within the body.

Curiousity is present iin alot of other animals as well, A baby usually associates the first person to care for it to be it's mother. Have you not seen animals mistaking other species for thier mother and even humans in cases.. If that was true an adopted child would inherently know that he's adopted and never need to be fooled.

Success and curiousity are actually individual traits, not a alot of people have the same level of curiosity and ambition.

It havent been proven that emotions are product of chemical and hormonal changes? As per my understanding, chemical reactions and hormonal changes are a result of emotions. They carry out emotion, having said that I would again ask where do emotions come from? Are they a result of complex brain structure or electrical signal in nervous system? How would you define the exact source of an emotion if you dont believe in soul?

A baby usually associates the first person to care for it to be it's mother. Have you not seen animals mistaking other species for thier mother and even humans in cases.. If that was true an adopted child would inherently know that he's adopted and never need to be fooled.

This is all because of love. A mother have enough love to give that she dont separate her adopted children from genetic children. A crying newborn baby usually stops crying in the arms of her mother…..

Success and curiousity are actually individual traits, not a alot of people have the same level of curiosity and ambition.

Does this mean there is no soul?

 

[r3v3rs3]

These are empirical laws that rule our lives. The study of these laws is known as Science, and the validity of these facts is judged based on consistency, evidence, proof, etc.

There is no such thing as a 'scientific proof'. In fact, it's fair to say that use of this term can be extremely misleading. It's not a difficult point to understand, but the discussion surrounding it can be interesting though. Not directly relevant to this topic though and probably warrants a topic of its own.

On the topic of emotions and such, in a strict sense, the sentience of others can never be shown (in principle). Undoubtedly such an idea exists as a further representation. But there is nothing unsettling or worrisome about it. Everything exists within an order of representations.

 

[Quadzilla]

Oh boy, I smiled my way till the final page, reading away as your 'intellect' serves as fodder to my amusement. No really, thank you so much guys for these 6 pages of candy.
I'm in my office and really needed a break! I feel refreshed already. The sheer variety and the spectrum of the opinions posted here are truly awe-inspiring.
The topic of the thread says 'Spiritual Rebirth' but what I see here is what I had predicted when I was posting my first response, that this discussion would feature the good 'ol classic; science vs. religion(or 'belief/faith' as some might call it). So does every other thread that has topics such as this, this thread is just another cliche.
The point is, belief is a universal entity, it's omnipresent, everyone has them and they are as unique as the individual himself.

Discussions such the one we are participating in tend to get serious, thus a clash of beliefs is realized. Here, one says that he/she is neutral but the fact is one is not, there is no such thing as neutral. It's you and your set of beliefs that you think makes you neutral, but in actuality you aren't. Furthermore, let me make it very clear that when you start bringing science in, religion goes out the window because there will always be room for argument.
Stick to your beliefs, regardless of what others point out and don't do what they do, don't point fingers because that will leave us with an end-less rant of fiery responses all around. You believe what you want to believe, that's the general rule. Let's not point fingers, act civilized and focus on the topic.

Spiritual Rebirth: My vote is no. I do not believe in the concept.



/peace

 

[cinderella man]

this is completely an opinion based topic, stop arguing with others -_-

as a muslim, i believe in what islam says, which i think i completely true and correct...period. >:-|

 

[Crow]

There is no such thing as a 'scientific proof'. In fact, it's fair to say that use of this term can be extremely misleading. It's not a difficult point to understand, but the discussion surrounding it can be interesting though. Not directly relevant to this topic though and probably warrants a topic of its own.

I understand where you're coming from, but I meant it more as:

If y=2, and x=4
Then, z=y+x=6

Does this make sense?

If you strike a spoon, it makes a sound.
If you throw a ball on a wall, it will bounce back.

That sort of thing.

Rather than "Atom is the smallest particle. Oh wait, no, it's subatomic particles like Electrons, Protons, Neutrons. Hah, nope, it's quarks and such." and so on and so forth. This isn't raw accurate data, these are more or less estimations based on empirical data.

Whereas the former (raw empirical data) is accurate.

Hm perhaps this deserves a thread of its own.

I would like to know your side of it. If I've misunderstood you, please correct me.

 

[r3v3rs3]

OK I guess I will explain it here and put it to rest. The basic problem simply is that every theory, or for that matter, every generalized conjecture is not verifiable in principle.

The working of science can never be explained by the 'search for truth'. What science tries to do is to find local maxima. The only correct way to understand science (any discipline based on prediction) is to try to explain why we do what we do and why do we believe in certain things.

Even some deceptively simple statements can be unverifiable in principle. In principle, here means that it isn't the lack of evidence that's the problem, but no matter how much evidence we collect it's insufficient. For example a statement seeming as harmless as this: An object or whatever is traveling uniformly at a given velocity. This kind of statement is unverifiable in principle.

Traditionally science has worked along falsifiable statements. But in more recent times we have statements that lend themselves neither to any verifiability nor any falsifiability. Consider the idea of measurement of quantity (in discrete spectrum for this example). It assigns itself a probabilistic interpretation, meaning that certain values will occur (meaning will be read in the measurement) with certain probability. The problem here is that idea of limiting probability (range) is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. I think this may be why Popper was against the copenhagen interpretation? I haven't read anything about it so I could be wrong on this. Of course I am not denying that one could devise certain expectations or retrospective justifications (which is essentially to give this kind of statement some type of falsifiable sense).

Personally I think that while the criteria of falsifiability is necessary, it isn't sufficient. One needs a certain model of back and forth diffraction, with verifiability (of individual events) going into cycle of projection and re-projection. Of course it would only be possible to see it as a guideline. The fundamental truth is that of precession of model and of infinite growth.

If you strike a spoon, it makes a sound.
If you throw a ball on a wall, it will bounce back.

That sort of thing.

There are several aspects to this. First of all you have to ask are you making a universal generalization or not? If you are making the former then the assertion is of the form [for all i (pi-->qi)]. But this is not really the interesting point for me. The interesting point is that such a statement functions on the level where individual pi's and qi's have to be assumed as conjectures (with three values) instead of binary values. By the way this is where the temporal sense of an individual p-->q statement comes in (p must precede q) and makes sense, which is absent in a combinatory algebra description.

In any case, the reason words like proof can be used in a legitimate sense in a science book, but you would have to keep it in context. One statement assumed to be 'true' and then the other derived from it in a purely imaginary sense.

 

[Benighted]

^ So what you are basically saying is that, every theory first needs some basic assumptions upon which the entire theory rests on and remains 'true' only within the context of the very grounds of it?

 

[LordIT]

Rs. 1,000 say that Zardari is going to be re-born as a 3 legged dog in Pakistan. I will fucking adopt him and go all bestiality on his corrupt ass.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

 

[sshah]

Some of you - I will not point them out - need to differenciate between Religion and faith. Very very different concepts. They have nothing to do with eachother.

Coming back to the topic, Roark gave good comments. I would like to assert that there is a thing called 'self', even psychology acknowledges it. I also do not believe in eternity, it is a far-fetched idea which holds no grounds. Can anyone explain, what is forever and ever? Completely absurd. Every process is finite, even a cyclic one. BUT, energy can never be truly destroyed, or obliterated, it can be transformed however.

Now imagine your soul as a form of energy which one would called Life in simpler terms. In this world, you cannot feel it, see it – some people do claim that – or touch it, as it is not a tactile form. That energy might be the self that someone is born with.

At the end of its cycle, it leaves this bodily form, and then descends again into another form, because remember it is after all energy. I fail to see how countless souls would be created, and then left to roam around aimlessly after death. The process has to begin with a transformation, or metaphysical transition, which ends with another transition. That would make it a cyclic process, and any cyclic process, on a much grander scale is not finite, but infinite.

IMO metaphysics doesnt make better sense in any religion other then islam, after reading works of rumi, al-gillani, Allama iqbal etc... trust me, each and everything makes sense... but then again how can these things be explained to someone with a totally different school of thought.... gotta find ways
​

You are kidding me, right? Rumi was a mystic, who searched the “UNIVERSAL TRUTH” not Allah. Please get your facts straight.

 

[Normal]

Do you think it is possible that when we cross over, we are given an option to either move on, or be reborn to set wrongs right, find a better existence than the past life, fulfill desires, become something more etcetera…

Well, nobody knows that. I would just suggest people to stop waiting for the next life and start living this one.