Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

Postby helparcfun » Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:16 am

Not only is there scientific evidence to support Buddhist belief in rebirth,


I think maybe you should supply details of this so called "scientific evidence" rather than simply relying upon what some so called scientist said. Otherwise, once again, like many other religious people, you are arguing from ignorance. That is, just because we don't have a scientific explanation yet about this and many other things, you are ignoring the possibility that there may well be another explanation which doesn't involve superstition etc.
helparcfun
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:11 am

Re: Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

Postby whynotme » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:49 pm

Hi helparcfun,

It seems that you missed the point of science theory. Science in its ultimate form, is not about evidence, it is a logical structure based on axiom. E.g you can't prove that nothing is faster than light, no one can prove that, we just accept it based on what we saw. Maybe in a galaxy far away there is something faster than light, who knows? The point is that you can't prove that there isn't anything faster than light, just bc everything we measured is slower than light then we have relative theory.

Science is a logical structure to explain the world, and if that model can predict other phenomenon then we accept it is right, until we found out phenomenon that model can't explain, then we try to find another model to explain those phenomenon.

By request evidence, you consider current model is the truth, but that approach isn't more scientific than building a new one. And I think the Buddhist model can explain the world very well. Or you can reject it, just like saying there is no evidence that nothing is faster than light.

Regards
Please stop following me
whynotme
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

Postby Mawkish1983 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:18 pm

Oh dear.
Mawkish1983
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Essex, UK

Re: Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

Postby daverupa » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:18 pm

whynotme wrote:Science in its ultimate form, is not about evidence


This is false, and looks a little like the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4505
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

Postby Alex123 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:15 pm

whynotme wrote:The truth is, quite frankly we don't need proof of afterlife. Quite the opposite, we need proof of death is the end, let the scientists prove this. And it is impossible to prove death is the end.


No one can disprove the existence of God who tests our faith by providing evidence to the contrary. So what we need to believe in Him simply because we cannot disprove such God? Better start going to Sunday classes than...
"dust to dust...."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2960
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

Postby helparcfun » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:47 pm

whynotme wrote:
Science in its ultimate form, is not about evidence


I don't really understand what you're trying to say?

This is what I take science to be:

Empirical Evidence:

o Refers to data being collected through direct observation or experiment.

o Empirical evidence does not rely on argument or belief.

o Instead experiments and observations are carried out carefully and reported in detail so that other investigators can repeat and attempt to verify the work.

Objectivity:

o Researchers should remain totally value free when studying; they should try to remain totally unbiased in their investigations. I.e. Researchers are not influenced by personal feelings and experiences.

o Objectivity means that all sources of bias are minimized and that personal or subjective ideas are eliminated. The pursuit of science implies that the facts will speak for themselves even if they turn out to be different from what the investigator hoped.

Control:

o All extraneous variables need to be controlled in order to be able to establish cause (Indepedent Variables) and effect (Dependent Variables).

Predictability:

o We should be aiming to be able to predict future behaviour from the findings of our research.

Hypothesis testing:

o E.g. a statement made at the beginning of an investigation that serves as a prediction and is derived from a theory. There are different types of hypotheses (null and alternative), which need to be stated in a form that can be tested (i.e. operationalized and unambiguous).

Replication:

o This refers to whether a particular method and finding can be repeated with different/same people and/or on different occasions, to see if the results are similar.

o If a dramatic discovery is reported but it cannot be replicated by other scientists it will not be accepted.

o If we get the same results over and over again under the same conditions, we can be sure of their accuracy beyond reasonable doubt.

o This gives us confidence that the results are reliable and can be used to build up a body of knowledge or a theory: vital in establishing a scientific theory.

So basically, once all the empirical evidence has been confirmed we have a theory. Notice that it is not just simply and "idea". It is a theory backed up with evidence. E.g. the theory of evolution is backed up with actual hard evidence etc.

I also think that the science phrase "correlation doesn't imply cause" is relevent here. The correlation of all these childrens stories doesn't imply that the cause was that they have been reborn. There may be another cause yet to be discovered.

Reading about all the stories of children talking about past lives reminds of the belief in miracles. This belief also relies upon people recounting what the saw/heard/felt etc. It relies upon the testimony of others and it is well known that the human mind can concoct all sorts of illusions if the conditions are right. No so called miracle has ever been scientifically proven.

So with all this in mind I would still like to read about what the scientific evidence is for the Buddhist belief in rebirth?
helparcfun
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:11 am

Re: Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

Postby Alex123 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:04 pm

helparcfun wrote:I also think that the science phrase "correlation doesn't imply cause" is relevent here. The correlation of all these childrens stories doesn't imply that the cause was that they have been reborn. There may be another cause yet to be discovered.


Right. Another possible explanation is some sort of ESP. While it is also mystical, it has less problems than rebirth.


helparcfun wrote:Reading about all the stories of children talking about past lives reminds of the belief in miracles...


Yes... And it can be used to justify other beliefs as well. A Christian may say that this is example of "speaking in tongues" or demon possession which just proves the existence of the Devil, and thus Christianity...

People of different faiths may use same phenomenon to prove different beliefs...
"dust to dust...."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2960
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

Postby BubbaBuddhist » Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:25 pm

I don't know whether or nor rebirth exists, but deja vu DOES.

(these rebirth threads are incontrovertible proof).

BB
I crack myself up
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
User avatar
BubbaBuddhist
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee

Re: Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

Postby Mawkish1983 » Thu Oct 18, 2012 3:46 am

BubbaBuddhist wrote:I don't know whether or nor rebirth exists, but deja vu DOES. (these rebirth threads are incontrovertible proof)
Oh, no, this one is different, this one is about, erm... awwww.

I've been duped :(
Mawkish1983
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Essex, UK

Re: Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

Postby whynotme » Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:42 am

Alex123 wrote:
whynotme wrote:The truth is, quite frankly we don't need proof of afterlife. Quite the opposite, we need proof of death is the end, let the scientists prove this. And it is impossible to prove death is the end.


No one can disprove the existence of God who tests our faith by providing evidence to the contrary. So what we need to believe in Him simply because we cannot disprove such God? Better start going to Sunday classes than...

Well, actually I don't care much about scientist because I know very much about it, I know very well about logic. So not much surprise from me at your explanation.

Here is the right explanation, since you can't disprove God and you can't prove god then you can't say he doesn't exist nor you can't say he exists, that's all, it is called logic.

And FYI, if you want to talk about God, we need a solid definition about him. What god are you talking about, the creator, the all knowing, or both or what? Since then we can define the possibility of going to Sunday classes. God of Christian is different to god of science, the first cause of the universe.

Regards.
Please stop following me
whynotme
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

Postby whynotme » Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:44 am

helparcfun wrote:whynotme wrote:
Science in its ultimate form, is not about evidence


I don't really understand what you're trying to say?

I know exactly what I said. Can you prove that nothing is faster than light? I will be here waiting for your proof

Regards
Please stop following me
whynotme
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

Postby helparcfun » Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:07 am

I know exactly what I said. Can you prove that nothing is faster than light? I will be here waiting for your proof


This is a complete non-sequitur. Explain to me how "science in it's ultimate form is not about evidence"?

Surely it's religion that is not about evidence, it is about "faith", as has already been mentioned.
helparcfun
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:11 am

Re: Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

Postby whynotme » Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:43 am

helparcfun wrote:
I know exactly what I said. Can you prove that nothing is faster than light? I will be here waiting for your proof


This is a complete non-sequitur. Explain to me how "science in it's ultimate form is not about evidence"?

Surely it's religion that is not about evidence, it is about "faith", as has already been mentioned.

Well, science is a tool used for prediction based on a model, a theory, e.g special relative theory. In relativity theory, we don't prove that speed of light in vacuum is a constant and the maximum speed that can be achievable. No one can prove that, we only accept it, so it is called an axiom. You surely will get a Nobel medal if you can prove c is the maximum attainable speed.

Every theory has axioms, which cant be provable. From axioms, theory is constructed without logical fault. And then people use that model for prediction and explanation, if it works then everyone accepts it. When a theory is accepted, people collect evidences to prove a phenomena is compatible to that model which they believe in. When there are phenomenon conflicting with a theory, they will try to find an explanation or try to rebuild the theory, e.g Newton physics to Einstein physics. That is the whole story of science from top to toe. Collecting evidence is from the lower end, for believer who believe in a model, or non believer who want to attack a model, while at the higher end, a theory is based on axiom and its logical structure, you can attack its axiom or find its logical faults. I called this end is the ultimate form

Come back to the rebirth stories, you want evidence for the current model which based on materialism. I don't care what you care, but my point of view looked at the heart of current model which it has a false assumption or a logical fault in its theory, the self is based on material. When a model has a logical fault, no matter who built it, no matter how many phenomenon it has rightly predicted or explained, it is wrong. I don't reject science at all when it comes to mechanics, electronics.. because the fault is not involved but I reject it when it relates to life and death and consciousness because the assumption has fault. I don't care much about scientists because I know exactly how science works, what is wrong in it, which step is wrong. I am not scientist, just an engineer but the scientific methodology is the same for both

Regards
Please stop following me
whynotme
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

Postby daverupa » Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:04 pm

whynotme wrote:When a theory is accepted, people collect evidences to prove a phenomena is compatible to that model which they believe in.


This is completely backwards. You do not understand how scientific inquiry is conducted.

Image

Evidence is primary, and sets the rest in motion.

:heart:
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4505
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

Postby equilibrium » Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:27 pm

There is a saying: "If one uses their eyes one is clearly blind!"
User avatar
equilibrium
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am

Re: Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

Postby Mal » Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:19 pm

Mawkish1983 wrote:
I'm scratching my head trying to understand what it is you're trying to tell me, Mal.



I'm trying to suggest that for many "big" questions there are no right answers, at least, not answers that you will find in this lifetime.

There might be something permanent, there might not be. There might be rebirth, there might not be. But if all you are seeking is less suffering and more happiness, then you can relax, you do not need to know, or crave, the answers to such questions.

The Buddha famously refused to answer when a monk asked if the soul existed - answers to such things are not necessary for walking the path.
Mal
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

Postby Alex123 » Thu Oct 18, 2012 3:09 pm

whynotme wrote:Here is the right explanation, since you can't disprove God and you can't prove god then you can't say he doesn't exist nor you can't say he exists, that's all, it is called logic.


Are you a Christian, Hindu, Muslim? Why or why not? You can't logically disprove cleverly taught religious teaching.
"dust to dust...."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2960
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

Postby Mawkish1983 » Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:32 pm

Mal wrote:you do not need to know, or crave, the answers to such questions.
I said,
Mawkish1983 wrote:I used to be very troubled by these discussions. I'm coming to terms with that now.
So I'm still failing to see the point you are trying to make.
Mawkish1983
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Essex, UK

Re: Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

Postby helparcfun » Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:26 pm

whynotme wrote:
helparcfun wrote:
I know exactly what I said. Can you prove that nothing is faster than light? I will be here waiting for your proof


This is a complete non-sequitur. Explain to me how "science in it's ultimate form is not about evidence"?

Surely it's religion that is not about evidence, it is about "faith", as has already been mentioned.

Well, science is a tool used for prediction based on a model, a theory, e.g special relative theory. In relativity theory, we don't prove that speed of light in vacuum is a constant and the maximum speed that can be achievable. No one can prove that, we only accept it, so it is called an axiom. You surely will get a Nobel medal if you can prove c is the maximum attainable speed.

Every theory has axioms, which cant be provable. From axioms, theory is constructed without logical fault. And then people use that model for prediction and explanation, if it works then everyone accepts it. When a theory is accepted, people collect evidences to prove a phenomena is compatible to that model which they believe in. When there are phenomenon conflicting with a theory, they will try to find an explanation or try to rebuild the theory, e.g Newton physics to Einstein physics. That is the whole story of science from top to toe. Collecting evidence is from the lower end, for believer who believe in a model, or non believer who want to attack a model, while at the higher end, a theory is based on axiom and its logical structure, you can attack its axiom or find its logical faults. I called this end is the ultimate form

Come back to the rebirth stories, you want evidence for the current model which based on materialism. I don't care what you care, but my point of view looked at the heart of current model which it has a false assumption or a logical fault in its theory, the self is based on material. When a model has a logical fault, no matter who built it, no matter how many phenomenon it has rightly predicted or explained, it is wrong. I don't reject science at all when it comes to mechanics, electronics.. because the fault is not involved but I reject it when it relates to life and death and consciousness because the assumption has fault. I don't care much about scientists because I know exactly how science works, what is wrong in it, which step is wrong. I am not scientist, just an engineer but the scientific methodology is the same for both

Regards


I'm sorry but I haven't a clue what your above post is about. :?

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. All I was doing was asking about evidence for the claim by Kusala that "Not only is there scientific evidence to support Buddhist belief in rebirth, it is the only after-life theory that has any evidence to support it."

As no evidence is forthcoming I can only assume that there isn't any, at least none that any decent scientist would put their name to.
helparcfun
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:11 am

Re: Neurosurgeon's visit to heaven - proof of afterlife?

Postby whynotme » Sat Oct 20, 2012 4:34 am

daverupa wrote:
whynotme wrote:When a theory is accepted, people collect evidences to prove a phenomena is compatible to that model which they believe in.


This is completely backwards. You do not understand how scientific inquiry is conducted.

Image

Evidence is primary, and sets the rest in motion.

:heart:

Maybe it is misunderstanding. I agree with you but evidence should change to phenomenon, by using evidence it means something already inclined to some views. Phenomena are not inclined. Scientists had false assumption in the past until they realize it and change the conditioned assumption

Regards
Please stop following me
whynotme
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lazy_eye and 11 guests