she didn't win

I don't think that's a winnable debate.

Yeah

well i mean is the debate over the positive statement that reincarnation exists?

The possibility yes

there's no physical, scientific, empirical evidence for reincarnation

becasue then the one making that positive statement has teh burden of proof

I'm afraid "You're wrong, i'm right" isn't an argument,

She can't win the debate, at best she just didn't lose it

it needs to be FALSEFIABLE

if the research you provided at least leaves the possibility it does

which is likely going to be the issue in that perticular debate

in a non deluded way

I honestly, don't see the point of research on reincarnation myself

I mean, I've 'lost' debates before where I was scientifically disproving biblical matters and the other person used their time to read the bible out loud. The topic was "Does God Exist"

false, unless the researcher found a way to falsefy his theory that spirits reincarnate into different bodies

which is very unlikely

personally of all the spiritual propositions of what comes after life

Actual it has many people replicated his research and got similar results

Or that spirits exist @>Cytos, de lieve goede synth

at all

reincarnation does make some sort of sense

in the way

Matters of faith and spiritual origin are entirely speculation. It's why it's called Faith.

that when u die, you come back here. not go to some other make beleive realm

well that is reincarnation after all, something you cant define (aka unfalsefiable) transfers from one body to another

ofc MATTER transfers

at least share with us some links of this research

or other's attempts to recreate the results

Hold on

and the corpse gets eaten by the worm gets eaten by the bird, gets eaten by the tiger who gets eaten by the african

THE CIRCLE OF LIFE

ayyyy FMA

ourobouros at work

@Mallic Also, there's a fine line between presenting evidence and an appeal to authority fallacy.

let me just explain my opinion

Psychologists and Genetics still can't prove anybody homosexual unless an individual him/herself claiming to be homosexual. So proof of homosexuality is based on someone's claim rather than genetical and psychological hard facts and evidence, and this is why these subject does not pass Scientific framework to be considered as Scientific knowledge. Genetics and Neurologist also cannot prove anybody homosexual at the time of birth, unless they themselves claim to be so, after growing up. So these doesn't properly fit into the scientific framework.

Same with Reincarnation and anything related with human or any living being. When human or any living being comes into the context of studying them scientifically, it fails to fit into the scientific framework.

https://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/research/ian-stevenson.html

Here it's a lot to read though

I've actually read ian stevenson's work

pfff shiv

Reincarnation is a loose term

Technically we replace the atoms in our very body several times over the course of life,
So we're not even ourselves by next year

So if thats the case,
a part of us, will be the food someone else eats at some point


On the other hand,
If you die, your atoms become part of the surroundings, which are then consumed and absorbed by other beings, and then become part of a new creature


So Reincarnation doesn't work scientifically