Could you come up with 'any possibilities' that made sense, or for which there was evidence? I think not.
All I have to do is point out your assertion is weak, which it is. The kind of speculative deduction you are using would have ruled out things like particles also being waves. It can create an illusion of certainty, but if you do not know the playing field it is relatively meaningless. (Oh, and yes, I realize evidence was found that backed up the particle wave duality, but it was obviously a possibility BEFORE that evidence was there, despite what deduction would have indicated. And please do not respond to what I am saying as if I am putting it forward as proof or evidence. I am only saying things here to show that your deduction is weak.)
As far as my wild claim: 'here' meant earth, rather than them having memories of being on other planets, though this happens also.
My deduction, that I am unconvinced by some badly thought out out horse puckey with plot holes? Holes you haven't explained away, but which actually create more problems? Please, listen to yourself.
If you had said you were unconvinced I would not have reacted. It makes perfect sense to me you are unconvinced. That you think you can rule out the possibility with your deductive reasoning as presented so far, that I think is silly.
Please read that a few times. I have not the slightest problem with someone being unconvinced.I have not the slightest problem with someone being unconvinced.I have not the slightest problem with someone being unconvinced.I have not the slightest problem with someone being unconvinced.
That you make it seem like this is the issue is disingenous.
Do I need to? If he'd 'proven' re-incarnation, it would be accepted scientific fact. It isn't, so he hasn't, so why would I waste my time?
Who said he had proven reincarnation?
You are a liar, implicitly.
You state there is no science in reincarnation.
I mention a work that does in fact approach the issue scientificallly.
You respond: If he had proven re-incarnation, it would be accepted scientific fact.
I am sick of people like you who argue so irrationally, but think it is OK because you are on the rational team. Is there only science in things that are raised to generally accepted theory? This will be news to scientists everywhere. Stevenson approached the issue as scientifically as he could, given the problems in such an investigation. He was a very careful researcher and very careful to point out exactly how compelling evidence he found was or wasn't. He considered the result of his work intriguing and that it indicated that it was a subject worth investigating further.
I don't believe in souls, but you have to, to believe in reincarnation, and then an expanding population is a problem, which hasn't been explained satisfactorily. Come on, don't be so open minded your brains fall out.
Fine, you don't believe in souls, but your original deduction was weak.
I don't have to prove anything, I'm not making the claim. I merely pointed out some holes in the theory, which do not have satisfactory explanations.
No? Phlogistan says he is not making a claim.
The problem with reincarnation, is the increasing population. See, the population keeps increasing, so where were all the souls that now inhabit bodies, before there were enough bodies?
IF there were so many souls waiting in the wings, so to speak, why did some get to have two goes at life, before others even had one?
So generally, reincarnation is just a load of ill thought out bunkum, and regression merely hypnotic suggestion.
See if you can find the claims in there.
I am tired of doing the work for you. You rational people cannot seem to notice what you are doing. Sure you ask questions, then draw absolute conclusions based on your certainty about what the answers must be. Guess what, ask a few scientists if you made any claims and you will find them saying 'Yes'. They will agree with your assertions, probably a strong majority of them. But that is another issue.
Why do you get to not make sense and not notice what you are doing?
Until you come up with sound explanations, and proof, well, yes, the case is closing, ...
I am not interested in convincing you that reincarnation is real. What I was interested in doing is pointing out that your argument 'showing' it couldn't be true was weak. You seem incapable of understanding the difference. You seem incapable of actually responding to what I say, adding assumptions to it that I am trying to prove reincarnation and you seem oblivious to some basic logic and the fact that you are indeed making claims.
I do not respect you. And I do not think you are the kind of person who can admit any of this because you are so pissed off at people you think are irrational, you feel it is fair game to not make sense yourself.
I won't read another thing from you. Because of the sloppiness of your thinking I have to do too much work.