And you were clearly responding to this post:

↪Hanover
↪TheMadFool Karma can make sense without reincarnation to the extent one believes they will reap what they sow within this life. That is, I should expect the pain I exact on the world to be returned to me before I die.

Except we know they don't. Many horrid people who do terrible things die happy with everything they want, while many excellent people endure great suffering they did not deserve. Also, mass deaths counter the notion of Karma in life, as not only does not everyone in a plane crash or those being gassed in the Holocaust not deserve what they got, they can't possibly deserve the exact same thing. No two people do the exact same things in life.

when you wrote this:

People are wrong about what will make them happy, what will satisfy them and bring them health. No wicked person dies happy, and no good person dies miserable. It's a mistake to think that material circumstances are all that relevant. The more you treat others differently, the more you lie and cheat, the more alienated you become from yourself, and everyone else. You will always die in isolation and desolation if you lived an unjust life.

The world is just, dispute appearances.

I was only reading my following list, and came to the thread because of someone I followed, and gave my two cents based on where the conversation had gone based only on what they had written.

Yeah, right. I think you should go back and look at what you wrote about the perils of self-delusion.

Lol, believe what you want man... best just ignore me I think.

Lol, I don't just believe; I know. I think it's cute you don't even follow your own advice for happiness.

Ciao.

A field is a concept based in spacetime. The fact that the position of the particle cannot be determined through the use of the field indicates that there is activity outside of the field (not covered by the field), and quite likely outside of spacetime. — Metaphysician Undercover

An activity outside of spacetime? Activities take time.
Not exactly parsimonious to come up with a parallel universe of sorts. :)

An activity outside of spacetime? Activities take time.
Not exactly parsimonious to come up with a parallel universe of sorts. :)

Souls by their nature would act outside of space/time since the rules of space/time clearly don't apply to them. They neither move through time, nor exist in space, like the rest of matter. So, either a parallel universe with different rules or a supernatural dimension would be needed. Parsimony would demand the rejection of the theory of souls since neither scientific observation nor the rules of the universe bear them out; they are hardly the simplest explanation of things.

Samsara and Karma do not explain away the problem of evil and you haven't shown they have. — Thanatos Sand

In the absence of an omnibenevolent god, the problem of evil is moot. The evil in the world, suffering in other words, is just your past bad deeds catching up.

And it does not fit well within the general notion of causation, since there is no proof tying together the effects of events to a mystical moral judgment of causes. — Thanatos Sand

There's no proof of course. But it's not that much of a stretch to extend causation that is apparent in the physical world to the realm of morality. May be it is but the point is Karma sticks to the accepted truth of causality. Even Abrahamic religions are ''true'' in this regard that moral actions have consequences.

There may not be a central authority in Buddhism BUT it still has some truths that are universal in all its various branches. For instance, all Buddhists believe in Karma and Samsara. Let's begin from there.

I believe these two central precepts (Karma and Samsara) don't make sense without the existence of an indestructible soul.

I think you will make a great guru. You have the right attitude. Thanks for the real world demonstration.

, the plot thickens. :)
Souls are then defined as parts of us living in parallel universes?
But why, what's all this stuff for, what's it supposed to account for...?
And how would we differentiate it all from fiction?

Souls are then defined as parts of us living in parallel universes?
But why, what's all this stuff for, what's it supposed to account for...?
And how would we differentiate it all from fiction? — jorndoe

I don't believe anyone involved with Buddhism ever speaks of parallel universes. The concept of infinite upon infinite number of parallel universes and all of their inhabitants (including an infinite number of parallel souls of our own) it's strictly a fabrication of the tens of thousands of scientists who believe in this interpretation of quantum physics, because they rather it her believe in an infinite number of universes than have non-locality. Scientists are a funny bunch when it comes to science.

In any case, parallel universes is a strict concoction of modern science, and yes there are tons of parallel souls living there free of our actions.

I would like to mention that Eastern philosophies such as Buddhism and Daoism were and still are experiential in nature. It is when practitioners wish to bypass the decades of experiential study and simply go right to the end by reading some book that lots of the philosophy is necessarily lost. I once went to a class where some academic professor was actively teaching Daoism without ever practicing to experience it. Apparently he felt that one can understand Eastern philosophies by simple logical syllogisms and reading some books. Needless to say my experiences were different than his.

Samsara and Karma do not explain away the problem of evil and you haven't shown they have.
— Thanatos Sand

In the absence of an omnibenevolent god, the problem of evil is moot. The evil in the world, suffering in other words, is just your past bad deeds catching up.

There are two main problems with this. One, you don't know there is no omnibenevolent God. Secondly, evil is not just bad deeds catching up with someone, they are also the bad deeds affecting other people.
Many Nazis died happily in Argentina with new families; their actions actually "caught up with" the Jews they helped slaughter. That was evil.

Thanatos Sand, the plot thickens. :)
Souls are then defined as parts of us living in parallel universes?
But why, what's all this stuff for, what's it supposed to account for...?
And how would we differentiate it all from fiction?

I never said souls are parts of us living in parallel universes. That's a strawman counterproductive to any discourse on the matter.

And what this "stuff" should account for and how we should differentiate if from fiction is your problem, not mine. I never said souls exist.

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean "parallel universes" necessarily like modal realism (possible worlds), many worlds (quantum mechanics), multiverse (e.g. ensemble, M-theory, brane collisions), or whatever.
Just "other realities" that are temporal, as per the previous posts.


_{Principle of charity (Wikipedia article)}

No offense taken, but those aren't my words either. Here they are; I welcome you're addressing them if you wish.:

Souls by their nature would act outside of space/time since the rules of space/time clearly don't apply to them. They neither move through time, nor exist in space, like the rest of matter. So, either a parallel universe with different rules or a supernatural dimension would be needed. Parsimony would demand the rejection of the theory of souls since neither scientific observation nor the rules of the universe bear them out; they are hardly the simplest explanation of things.

Virgil's soul had no problem moving around in hell in the Inferno.

Yes, and that's a work of fiction.

It gives one a hint as to how people at the time understood the soul. So your "souls by nature" comment is bullshit. :)

No, the only bs comment is yours, as you are literally trying and failing to disprove mine through a fictional story. Hilarious.

My statement wasn't about, nor addressing, how people understood the soul; it was about what would be needed for the soul to exist. I'm not surprised you missed that...:)

Wouldn't you want to understand what people mean by the term before explaining its requirements?

Wouldn't you? If you think Dante has the monopoly on defining the soul, you have severely limited your education.

Help me out, then. Has the soul always been thought of as immaterial?

The Inferno wasn't written by Virgil, btw.

Help me out, then. Do you want to discuss the soul or do you want to discuss it's history? And if yes to the latter, do you think anyone on this site could adequately and exhaustively do so?

wut

What I said was in perfect English.

A lot of people do think of the soul as immaterial. My point was that it hasn't always been thought of that way. I spend a lot of time thinking about ancient history so the present sometimes seems far off to me. I guess the smiley I put didn't get across that my comment was meant light-heartedly.

Peace out.

Peace out back to you; I appreciate the clarification....:)