The Life Between Lives - Dr. Michael Newton

[majinrevan666]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I have no idea how a supernatural entity could create another entity that does not share any laws of action or interaction. We certainly can't create any such thing here on Earth.

I guess that would just fall under the category of magic then.

I certainly agree that if evidence for an afterlife comes up, we should consider it openly and honestly.

Ok, so why is that you seem to dismiss every single claim of evidence
in the afterlife and sometime call them "fraudulent", "magical" and "giberish"?

Yes, ultimately there have to be some things we take as true without evidence. I don't think morality is one of them.

Why not?
Do you not find your conscience informing you about whether certain actions are right and wrong?

Pretty much everyone throughout the ages agrees on the rules of logic. Not so for morality.

Not true.
I don't think that any society has ever agreed that cruelty is moraly obligatory, or that cowardice is virtuous.

There is no objectively correct answer. I agree that there is an informally correct answer in that most people agree on many moral issues. Well, except abortion, stem cells, capital punishment, innocence by insanity, violence against human constructs, concern for global warming, war, etc., etc., etc.

Notice that almost all the proponents/opposers of the things you mentioned
give reasons that presuppose moral objectivism, they wouldn't have anything
to argue about otherwise.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I guess that would just fall under the category of magic then.

That's what I would call it. I don't mean for it to sound silly, it's just a good word to use.

Ok, so why is that you seem to dismiss every single claim of evidence
in the afterlife and sometime call them "fraudulent", "magical" and "giberish"?

There are claims and there is evidence. If the claims don't include any evidence, and in particular if they sound totally flakey, then I tend to dismiss them simply because there is nothing to be learned. As far as the evidence is concerned, I'm not all that impressed with any of it. I think parapsychologists should pick one paradigm (ganzfeld? presentiment?) and stick with it.

Why not?
Do you not find your conscience informing you about whether certain actions are right and wrong?

I don't think my conscience should be taken as true without evidence, either. I don't think human thought and emotions are going to end up needing to be taken as true without evidence.

Not true.
I don't think that any society has ever agreed that cruelty is moraly obligatory, or that cowardice is virtuous.

Perhaps not obligatory, but certainly okay.

Notice that almost all the proponents/opposers of the things you mentioned
give reasons that presuppose moral objectivism, they wouldn't have anything
to argue about otherwise.

Sure they would, just like we argue about art, music, and taste in food. But if any of those people think they are trying to convince others just because there is a moral absolute, then they are misguided.

~~ Paul

[rexmac]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos;

Of course there is no reference that one can follow up. Is this the article?

[url

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5668034_DNA_double_helices_recognize_mutual_sequen ce_homology_in_a_protein_free_environment[/url]


~~ Paul

yes...

some of the comments seem to dispel any mystery

[rexmac]

Darwin on the next to last page of Descent of Man [3]:

“Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of our nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced either directly or indirectly much more through the efforts of habit, by our reasoning powers, by instruction, by religion, etc., than through natural selection.”

From:Love, Evolution and Higher Values in Darwin-Elliot Benjamin, Ph.D
Love, Evolution and Higher Values in Darwin, Elliot Benjamin

My point of referencing the above is that both sides need to be very careful about pointing to moral absolutes or lack there off...as evidence for their
view.

[Ariannel]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

From previous lives? Is this an example of the evidence you're talking about?

Hypnosis May Give False Confidence In Inaccurate Memories

Are lost memories of alien abduction a good example?

Just because there is abuse of the system doesn't mean that it's not a good tool. People can purposely pass lie detectors, too, but does that mean that a lie detector isn't a good tool to use?

Don't assume that all past life regression is hooey just because some people abuse it and make stuff up when doing it.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ariannel

Just because there is abuse of the system doesn't mean that it's not a good tool. People can purposely pass lie detectors, too, but does that mean that a lie detector isn't a good tool to use?

But how do you tell the real stuff from the abuse? It's the same question that I ask about psychics.

As far as lie detectors are concerned:

polygraph - lie detector - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

The jury is still way out on the use of polygraphs in court. In Europe, the court will not order or pay for polygraph tests. I don't think they like them much in Israel, either.

Don't assume that all past life regression is hooey just because some people abuse it and make stuff up when doing it.

If you can tell me how to decide when actual real past lives have been tapped, I'll consider it.

~~ Paul

[majinrevan666]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

If you can me how to decide when actual real past lives have been tapped, I'll consider it.

This guy's method seems reliable:


YouTube - REINCARNATION, past life on proof positive.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by majinrevan

This guy's method seems reliable:

That's a tape about a specific case, not a method.

So the question is: What are the chances of confirming 28 facts in 17,000 pages of information about a person's life?

Also, why should we assume that if a person knows some things about a dead person, it is because he is the reincarnation of that dead person? Perhaps the dead person told the person those facts psychically.

~~ Paul

[majinrevan666]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

That's a tape about a specific case, not a method.

The method is verifing the things you were shown in the hypnotic session
using the kind of sources he used.

So the question is: What are the chances of confirming 28 facts in 17,000 pages of information about a person's life?

Also, why should we assume that if a person knows some things about a dead person, it is because he is the reincarnation of that dead person? Perhaps the dead person told the person those facts psychically.

~~ Paul

The chances are pretty damn big when:

1.The person didn't make 17,000 guesses.
2.Of the "guesses" he did make he got most correct. (I think it was 26/28, he couldn't verify the 28th and wasn't really sure about the 27th in the first place.)
3.The "guesses" were not made with deceit in mind.
That is to say, he wasn't making the things he said apply to just any person.
4.Are you serious with this question?
Did you not bother to think of how one could easily counter it?

Why would a dead person tell him the facts psychically?
Wouldn't the dead person try to correct his assumption afterwards?
Of all things, why let the person know these details in a hypnosis session?
And is this question serious too?
For you to suggest this hypothesis...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by majinrevan

The method is verifing the things you were shown in the hypnotic session
using the kind of sources he used.

Oh, okay.

The chances are pretty damn big when:

1.The person didn't make 17,000 guesses.

That doesn't matter. What are the chances that 26 facts can be "confirmed" in 17,000 pages of information?

2.Of the "guesses" he did make he got most correct. (I think it was 26/28, he couldn't verify the 28th and wasn't really sure about the 27th in the first place.)

Wait a minute. How do we know how many guesses he made specifically about the painter? He apparently said a lot of things after the first half hour. "I wrote down everything I had said during my regression that could be proved or disproved."

And who is "Amanda"?

3.The "guesses" were not made with deceit in mind.
That is to say, he wasn't making the things he said apply to just any person.

We don't know who they applied to.

4.Are you serious with this question?
Did you not bother to think of how one could easily counter it?

Yes, I'm serious. Have you countered it easily yet?

You realize, for example, that the fact that he discovered the painting is not interesting. The interesting thing is the probability that he can verify 26 facts from the painter's diary.

Why would a dead person tell him the facts psychically?

I don't know. Why would a dead person talk to any psychic?

Wouldn't the dead person try to correct his assumption afterwards?

I have no idea how dead people work.

Of all things, why let the person know these details in a hypnosis session?

That's not necessarily when it happened. After all, the point of hypnosis is to dig up hidden past memories, right?

And is this question serious too?
For you to suggest this hypothesis...

Is it less likely than reincarnation?

~~ Paul