Philosophical Vegan Forum

What are the arguments against it if:

You can be reincarnated into any animal.
There is no karma. It doesn't matter what you do in your lives. What animal you become is random.
You can't remember past lives.

@RanOverByATrain

Sorry I don't understand your question. Is your first line supposed to read "What are the arguments against the following:"

arguments against it means why might this be a bad idea? or why can't it be true?

RanOverByATrain wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 1:08 pm What are the arguments against it if:

You can be reincarnated into any animal.
There is no karma. It doesn't matter what you do in your lives. What animal you become is random.
You can't remember past lives.

How can that animal be you in any sense? The usual definition of a person in modern philosophy is some sort of psychological continuity.

teo123 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:50 am

RanOverByATrain wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 1:08 pm What are the arguments against it if:

You can be reincarnated into any animal.
There is no karma. It doesn't matter what you do in your lives. What animal you become is random.
You can't remember past lives.

How can that animal be you in any sense? The usual definition of a person in modern philosophy is some sort of psychological continuity.

This.

I mean, you can say this cat is the reincarnation of your grandmother, and by that mean absolutely nothing at all.

Meaningless claims like that aren't exactly false, because they carry nothing of substance that can be true. It's more or less just redefining the notion of reincarnation (and self) to strip it of any significance.
I would say, however, that if used in that way these are poor definitions because for most people they clearly mean something else.

RanOverByATrain wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 1:08 pm What are the arguments against it if:

You can be reincarnated into any animal.
There is no karma. It doesn't matter what you do in your lives. What animal you become is random.
You can't remember past lives.

Correct, which shows the foolishness of such a belief.

Regards
DL

Sorry it took so long so long to respond.

Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:26 pm arguments against it means why might this be a bad idea? or why can't it be true?

Against why it can't be true, why it's impossible.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:25 am

teo123 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:50 am

RanOverByATrain wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 1:08 pm What are the arguments against it if:

You can be reincarnated into any animal.
There is no karma. It doesn't matter what you do in your lives. What animal you become is random.
You can't remember past lives.

How can that animal be you in any sense? The usual definition of a person in modern philosophy is some sort of psychological continuity.

This.

I mean, you can say this cat is the reincarnation of your grandmother, and by that mean absolutely nothing at all.

Meaningless claims like that aren't exactly false, because they carry nothing of substance that can be true. It's more or less just redefining the notion of reincarnation (and self) to strip it of any significance.
I would say, however, that if used in that way these are poor definitions because for most people they clearly mean something else.

It's not reincarnation in the sense that most people think of it, but I don't know what else to call it. Normally reincarnation is more of a religious thing. I guess it's more "Are there arguments against your consciousness coming back again after you die?" I can't change the title though.

It's possible you guys will think it's dumb either way, but I didn't make it clear. When I say you, I'm not talking about your sense of self.

You change throughout your life, yet you're still the same person. Part of your sense of self is genetic (to pass on your genes) and part is your environment and experiences (to help you survive). You identify with that self, but I mean the you that experiences as you.

If you got a clone of yourself that's exactly like you somehow, you're still you. You're not in two places at once. If someone said something to your clone in private, you wouldn't know what was said.

The brain is what's experiencing and I assume that you'll just die if your brain dies. But to be fair, at one point you weren't there, then you were, and then you aren't. If you can come into existence, can't you do it again? Have you done that before?

I've read on here before that in advanced level physics there's proof there's no God, so I was wondering if there was proof against this.

RanOverByATrain wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:59 pm

I've read on here before that in advanced level physics there's proof there's no God, so I was wondering if there was proof against this.

This is a logical fallacy.

There is no way to prove a negative proposition like that unless one can look everywhere at the same time.

Only positive propositions can be proven.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:23 am

RanOverByATrain wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:59 pm

I've read on here before that in advanced level physics there's proof there's no God, so I was wondering if there was proof against this.

This is a logical fallacy.

There is no way to prove a negative proposition like that unless one can look everywhere at the same time.

Only positive propositions can be proven.

Regards
DL

Oh, I misunderstood.

RanOverByATrain wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 4:09 pm

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:23 am

RanOverByATrain wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:59 pm

I've read on here before that in advanced level physics there's proof there's no God, so I was wondering if there was proof against this.

This is a logical fallacy.

There is no way to prove a negative proposition like that unless one can look everywhere at the same time.

Only positive propositions can be proven.

Regards
DL

Oh, I misunderstood.

Thanks for taking a correction in the spirit it was given.

Scriptures say that correcting is the loving thing to do but many do not see it that way.

Regards
DL