the great rebirth debate

[dxm_dxm]

Who says biological reproduction can not be posible in "hell" ? What makes you think biological reproduction is the only way a conciousness been could be bring into existence?

What makes you think biological reproduction could not bring into existence a being that has lower dopamine, serotonine etc. levels that a person with major depression has ? (thus existing in hell, with fire and etc. or without)

[Lazy_eye]

Who says biological reproduction can not be posible in "hell" ?

Maybe it is possible. Did anyone dispute this? I don't see the relevance to the question being discussed here.

What makes you think biological reproduction is the only way a conciousness been could be bring into existence?

I don't necessarily think that. But what makes you think some other supernatural explanation is needed?

[dxm_dxm]

I do not think a supernatural explanation is needed but I think an explanation is needed because there is no effect without a cause. Whatever that explanation may be, do you agree that because of the cause you were born here and exist you will continue to be born an exist until that cause disappears ? Meaning you will continue to exist whatever the cause that bring you to existence now is will be destroyed ?

[Lazy_eye]

I do not think a supernatural explanation is needed but I think an explanation is needed because there is no effect without a cause. Whatever that explanation may be, do you agree that because of the cause you were born here and exist you will continue to be born an exist until that cause disappears ? Meaning you will continue to exist whatever the cause that bring you to existence now is will be destroyed ?

I would say that this somewhat illusory experience of "existing" or "being" depends on requisite conditions, yes.

But again, I'm not sure anyone in this discussion (at least in the last few pages) is disputing that effects require causes.

[dxm_dxm]

So if you exist now because of a cause, and that cause is not destroyed so you will exist in the future that suggest rebirth to be the only logical answer. The implication of you existing is that you will continue to exist in better or worse conditions than you are now, the extent of witch we can only imagine or maybe we are not even able to imagine how bad and good the other conditions of existence could be. There are conditions of existing so bad even here on earth that would scare anybody into wanting not to exist in the future and so vanish into nirvana. If you continue to exist, inevitably you will exist in bad states of existence too.


If your question is why would be karma responsible for the conditions we are and will experience there is no intelectual answer to prove that. If there would be such a thing, nobody would be a bad person here on earth. It is one of the few things in budhism that are not intelectualy proven and can never be. It is like string theory, you can never prove it or disprove it. Budha said that the answer to this question can only be find by meditating and finding for yourself if it is true/false. This is the nice thing in budhism, it does not require you to belive anything and just teaches the method to find the answers by yourself, otherwise the answers are useless or even imposible to find. (using intelectual thinking).

[Lazy_eye]

So if you exist now because of a cause, and that cause is not destroyed so you will exist in the future that suggest rebirth to be the only logical answer.

If the cause is not physical in nature, then yes, rebirth is a logical possibility. Other possibilities include "eternal life in Heaven/Hell", as monotheistic religions believe.

But this is not getting us anywhere. Because it just amounts to saying:

"if death is not the end of life, then there is an afterlife".

In other words, a circular argument.

[dxm_dxm]

If the cause is not physical in nature, then yes, rebirth is a logical possibility. Other possibilities include "eternal life in Heaven/Hell", as monotheistic religions believe.

Whether or not they are physical in nature does not matter, you will continue to exist because of the same cause you are existing now. I told you what the implications are of considering the only cause of existing is 2 persons having sex. The probability of an eternal life in heaven or hell does not exist because of the second scientific and budhist observation witch is that everything is impermanent. Also, there could not exist a reason for witch somebody could exist for eternity in a good or bad state in the context of morality witch all religions imply. Any bad deed has a limited effect and can not be punished with unlimited punishment, same aplly for good deeds. More scientifically speaking any action has a limited effect so it can not produce an infinite effect. An infinite effect requaires an infinite cause.

if death is not the end of life, then there is an afterlife".

It is a circular argument if you argument it by saying "there is an afterlife so death is not the end". If you argument it by proving logically that death is not the end, then the fact that there is an afterlife is just a logical conclusion.

[Lazy_eye]

If you argument it by proving logically that death is not the end, then the fact that there is an afterlife is just a logical conclusion.

Sure. So how do you prove logically that death is not the end?

[dxm_dxm]

Because every effect has a cause, there is a cause for you existing. Until that cause will be destroyed you will continue to exist even if not in the same physical body you have now. If you say the only cause for you existing is 2 persons having sex then after you die 2 persons could have sex in hell and the building of atoms and etc. that creates you now will ramdomly assemble somewere and make you exist there, and this "there" could be hell and you could exist there for trilions of years if the only reason for your existance is a random biological proces. It seems counter intuitive to me. It would be so nice if we would disappear after, that would solve all the budhist are striving to achive but been here because of a cause and that cause not been destroyed there is imposible to stop existing as long as the cause that made you exist does not disappear. In budhism there is no soul, the human is a complex sistem of electrons, fotons etc. that creates the ilusion of you and until the reason for the existance of such a sistem is not destroyed it will asemble somewere else. The new asembeled sistem is not the same nor is it different from the one preceeding it, it is like a flame of a candle light up by the flame of another candle. It is not the same flame but nor is it different.

[Lazy_eye]

Because every effect has a cause, there is a cause for you existing. Until that cause will be destroyed you will continue to exist even if not in the same physical body you have now.

But some people would say the cause is entirely physical. "You" exist because of the reproductive process, which results in an embryo that develops a brain, which sustains consciousness. When the brain dies, the cause is destroyed and thus you no longer exist.

Can you refute this explanation?

If you say the only cause for you existing is 2 persons having sex then after you die 2 persons could have sex in hell and the building of atoms and etc. that creates you now will ramdomly assemble somewere and make you exist there, and this "there" could be hell and you could exist there for trilions of years if the only reason for your existance is a random biological proces.

I still don't understand what you are trying to demonstrate here. Yes, if hell exists, then maybe people can have sex in it. And maybe they will give birth to hell babies. So what?

It seems counter intuitive to me.

Ok. But that doesn't prove much. Many aspects of the universe seem counterintuitive. For example, ancient people thought it was counterintuitive to believe that the earth revolved around the sun. Many people thought it was counterintuitive to think the earth was round. Several notable plane crashes (Air France 447, for example) resulted from pilots relying on intuition instead of on their instruments and training.

Intuition is an unreliable guide to reality.

It would be so nice if we would disappear after, that would solve all the budhist are striving to achive but been here because of a cause and that cause not been destroyed there is imposible to stop existing as long as the cause that made you exist does not disappear. In budhism there is no soul, the human is a complex sistem of electrons, fotons etc. that creates the ilusion of you and until the reason for the existance of such a sistem is not destroyed it will asemble somewere else. The new asembeled sistem is not the same nor is it different from the one preceeding it, it is like a flame of a candle light up by the flame of another candle. It is not the same flame but nor is it different.

Ok, this is a nice summary of some Buddhist doctrines, but it still isn't proving anything.

I sympathize with your wish to come up with a logical proof of rebirth, and am interested in the arguments that could be put forward. But to me, it sounds like you are trying to use the conclusion to support the premise. As I said before, a circular argument. You first need to establish that consciousness has a non-biological cause.

[Spiny Norman]

So without the brain, there is no consciousness..

I would say without a brain.

[Spiny Norman]

You first need to establish that consciousness has a non-biological cause.

Doesn't DO say that effectively mind and body are mutually dependent? Which sort of makes sense because a body without consciousness is just a ( dead ) lump of flesh.

[dxm_dxm]

k. But that doesn't prove much. Many aspects of the universe seem counterintuitive. For example, ancient people thought it was counterintuitive to believe that the earth revolved around the sun. Many people thought it was counterintuitive to think the earth was round. Several notable plane crashes (Air France 447, for example) resulted from pilots relying on intuition instead of on their instruments and training.

well you got a point here. I'll try not to use arguments like that in the future

But some people would say the cause is entirely physical. "You" exist because of the reproductive process, which results in an embryo that develops a brain, which sustains consciousness. When the brain dies, the cause is destroyed and thus you no longer exist.

Can you refute this explanation?

I do not think you understand the implications of this.

If you exist here in this state out of pure chance (why not be a mosquito etc.) and the only cause is the physical cause, just think about the implications of this.

This implies that YOU will 100% be reborn in another almost infinitly posibilites of existance. This is because the physical cause that bring you here will, with an 100% chance of success reborn you for an infinite number of times because that physical cause has an exact 100% chance of happening for an infinite amount of times over the course of infinite time. Like a monkey writing a shekspeare drama over the course of infinite typing at a computer that biological cause happening for infinity will eventually give rise to a complex sistem of electrons, fotons etc. that will give rise to a conciousness that will create you. The money typing at a computer is typing an infinite amount of words every second because there can exist an infinite number of universes just like ours. This idea also implies rebirth.

The only difference is that in this case, the rebirth is entirely random while in the context of karma it is not random but both lead to rebirth as the logical conclusion. Why this proces of rebirth is not random and is subject to the law of karma is another discussion as I said and it can not be solved using intelectual thiking, as least nobody managed to do that untill now. I am not a master in meditation to tell you that I found out for myself that law of karma is true/false or if meditation can provide us that answer, it is up to us to find out.

[Alex123]

So without the brain, there is no consciousness..

I would say without a brain.

Ok. In any case, if a certain brain is required for certain consciousness, then when the brain is gone, so is the consciousness dependent on it.

Doesn't DO say that effectively mind and body are mutually dependent? Which sort of makes sense because a body without consciousness is just a ( dead ) lump of flesh.

And if mind depends on the body, then when the body ceases, so does mind dependent on it.

[Alex123]

If you exist here in this state out of pure chance (why not be a mosquito etc.) and the only cause is the physical cause, just think about the implications of this.

It is NOT pure chance but billion of years of evolution on molecular and higher levels, plus the world developing in cause->effect for >12 billion years after Big Bang. There are specific reasons why you, I, and someone else was born.

This implies that YOU will 100% be reborn in another almost infinitly posibilites of existance.

For that to occur, your brain and its function would have to be totally duplicated. If the brain and its function develops according to the genetics that father and mother gave, then they would somehow have to appear again to give birth to you again. So would their parents, and parents of those, etc.

Basically the exact same Big Bang would have to occur if everything develops strictly according to cause->effect in order for you to be reborn. But the question is:
How is that different from the life you live now?