Does the soul split in two just after death?

[John Human]

Recently, I started a thread where I brought forth evidence that for the past 2000 years and more, orthodox Jews -- including Jesus as recorded in the Bible -- believed in reincarnation. (The thread is "Did Jesus and his followers believe in reincarnation?" at viewtopic.php?t=35420&start=10) Nobody challenged what I put forth.

However, Biblical references to the Day of Judgment and "eternal life" and the "kingdom of Heaven" seem to be a different scenario, as is the Catholic notion of Purgatory. How to reconcile this discrepancy? Could both reincarnation and Purgatory/Heaven be true? Does the soul split in two just after death?

P.S. Perhaps this question is like discussing the "Big Bang" or the first appearance of life on Earth: the ambiguous scraps of evidence don't get in the way of theorizing, speculation and strongly-held opinions.

[Divine Insight]

I had addressed all three of your concerns already, but I'll repeat my replies here just for clarity.

Recently, I started a thread where I brought forth evidence that for the past 2000 years and more, orthodox Jews -- including Jesus as recorded in the Bible -- believed in reincarnation. (The thread is "Did Jesus and his followers believe in reincarnation?" at viewtopic.php?t=35420&start=10) Nobody challenged what I put forth.

I don't challenge this at all because as far as I'm concerned the stories surrounding Jesus are extremely vague, ambiguous, and often times outright contradictory.

I can easily see where people can take away all manner of various views and ideas from these stories. So I'll be glad to grant that such things appear to have been implied in various parts of these stories.

However, Biblical references to the Day of Judgment and "eternal life" and the "kingdom of Heaven" seem to be a different scenario, as is the Catholic notion of Purgatory. How to reconcile this discrepancy? Could both reincarnation and Purgatory/Heaven be true? Does the soul split in two just after death?

If we are creative we can avoid any conflict by simply accepting the reincarnation is the norm, but there is a way out of the reincarnation cycle and it's only when we are ready to end the cycle do we need to worry about any "Judgement Day".

One thing about theologies is that since they don't require any evidence for propositions we can postulate anything we can dream up.

No need to provide any evidence for it.

P.S. Perhaps this question is like discussing the "Big Bang" or the first appearance of life on Earth: the ambiguous scraps of evidence don't get in the way of theorizing, speculation and strongly-held opinions.

I see a significant difference here.

First off, we know that the universe exists. So we are talking about something we know exists. We have no evidence for reincarnation, eternal life, or any judgement day.

Secondly from making observations about how the universe works and its current behavior, we can extrapolate backward in time to a place where it appears the universe must have been much smaller and more dense. Again, there exists observational evidence upon which we can theorize around. Not so with reincarnation, eternal life, or any judgement day.

So as far as I can see comparing theological speculations with scientific speculations is a non-comparison. At least the scientific speculations are being made with some level of observation and evidence in hand. Theological speculation can be anything you want.

The world was brought into being by the Moon Goddess. Bingo! You have a theology that has just as much evidence as any other theology.

This is why modern rational thinkers are bushing theologies aside. Theologies really have no more credibility than pure mythology.

Reincarnation? Where's the evidence?
Eternal life? Where's the evidence?
Judgement day? Where's the evidence?

May as well be talking about the Moon Goddess.

[John Human]

Recently, I started a thread where I brought forth evidence that for the past 2000 years and more, orthodox Jews -- including Jesus as recorded in the Bible -- believed in reincarnation. (The thread is "Did Jesus and his followers believe in reincarnation?" at viewtopic.php?t=35420&start=10) Nobody challenged what I put forth.

I don't challenge this at all because as far as I'm concerned the stories surrounding Jesus are extremely vague, ambiguous, and often times outright contradictory.

I can easily see where people can take away all manner of various views and ideas from these stories. So I'll be glad to grant that such things appear to have been implied in various parts of these stories.

You seem to be referring to stories about Jesus Christ. However, in posts #11 and #13 of the above-linked thread, I give references to reincarnation in the Kaballah, and in the Talmud, and in the thought of the 17th-century Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel, and in the thought of the 19th-century Rabbi Hillel Lichtenstein (considered to have been the reincarnation of the Prophet Jeremiah). Maybe I'm mistaken here, but you seem to be answering something different from my point, which I'll reiterate just to be clear:

The idea of reincarnation, for millenia, has been present and accepted in orthodox Jewish culture, including (here's the icing on the cake) in the words of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Bible.

However, Biblical references to the Day of Judgment and "eternal life" and the "kingdom of Heaven" seem to be a different scenario, as is the Catholic notion of Purgatory. How to reconcile this discrepancy? Could both reincarnation and Purgatory/Heaven be true? Does the soul split in two just after death?

If we are creative we can avoid any conflict by simply accepting the reincarnation is the norm, but there is a way out of the reincarnation cycle and it's only when we are ready to end the cycle do we need to worry about any "Judgement Day".

One thing about theologies is that since they don't require any evidence for propositions we can postulate anything we can dream up. No need to provide any evidence for it.

I see two separate issues here: First of all, are both reincarnation and judgment day/heaven present in the Bible? If so, your idea about "getting off the wheel" seems to make sense as a way to reconcile that, apart from any hypothetical splitting of a "binary soul."

The other issue is, what evidence is there for the splitting of the soul after death? I have presented two separate snippets of evidence, neither of which I expect to be taken at face value, but both of which I think are deserving of honest consideration:

(1) Communication with many of my ancestors, who affirm that the soul "splits" just after death.

(2) The unrelated work of Peter Novak, discussing how belief in a "binary" soul that splits after death appears in many different cultures.

I was unaware of Novak's work until very recently, and Novak appears to be completely unaware of ancestors' experience (anybody can communicate with their own ancestors, although reductionist materialists may unconsciously put up internal blocks to reception of communication from ancestors). Novak posited an original primeval culture ("Atlantis") that hypothetically explains why belief in a binary soul spread throughout the world. In my mind, a much more plausible supposition is that such a global belief (if Novak's work is reliable) was widespread because people around the world communicated with their ancestors, who told them what happened just after they died.

[Atlastitsdone]

Recently, I started a thread where I brought forth evidence that for the past 2000 years and more, orthodox Jews -- including Jesus as recorded in the Bible -- believed in reincarnation. (The thread is "Did Jesus and his followers believe in reincarnation?" at viewtopic.php?t=35420&start=10) Nobody challenged what I put forth.

However, Biblical references to the Day of Judgment and "eternal life" and the "kingdom of Heaven" seem to be a different scenario, as is the Catholic notion of Purgatory. How to reconcile this discrepancy? Could both reincarnation and Purgatory/Heaven be true? Does the soul split in two just after death?

P.S. Perhaps this question is like discussing the "Big Bang" or the first appearance of life on Earth: the ambiguous scraps of evidence don't get in the way of theorizing, speculation and strongly-held opinions.

IMO Judgement day people attain new body living in the kingdom of heaven. It is both happening simutaneaously.

[alexxcJRO]

Could both reincarnation and Purgatory/Heaven be true?

Conform the Christian, Muslim hypothesis a human lives just one life and after death, after the Final Judgement goes to either Heaven or Hell
Conform the Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism hypothesis a human lives many lives through the mechanism of reincarnation.

These two hypothesis are mutually exclusive and therefore can't both be true.

Does the soul split in two just after death?

Q: Does a vampire's/ strigoi’s heart still beats after the transformation? Do their circulatory system still work?

It's just as ridiculous to talk of soul splitting as is of talking about vampire's/strigoi’s circulatory system.

Q: Do you have compelling empirical evidence that shows that such a thing like "the soul" exists?

P.S. Perhaps this question is like discussing the "Big Bang" or the first appearance of life on Earth: the ambiguous scraps of evidence don't get in the way of theorizing, speculation and strongly-held opinions.

Sir you are just babbling nonsense. It is not equivalent, not even similar.

“The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the observable universe[1][2][3] from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[4][5][6] The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state,[7][8] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), large scale structure and Hubble's law (the farther away galaxies are, the faster they are moving away from Earth).

…

The scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different theories, the Big Bang and the Steady State theory, but a wide range of empirical evidence has strongly favored the Big Bang which is now universally accepted.[11] In 1929, from analysis of galactic redshifts, Edwin Hubble concluded that galaxies are drifting apart; this is important observational evidence consistent with the hypothesis of an expanding universe. In 1964, the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered, which was crucial evidence in favor of the Big Bang model,[12] since that theory predicted the existence of background radiation throughout the universe before it was discovered. More recently, measurements of the redshifts of supernovae indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, an observation attributed to dark energy's existence.�
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The Bing Bang is supported by a wide range of empirical evidence while the existence of a soul is supported by zero empirical evidence.

A fair comparison would be between “talking of what a soul does� with “talking what a vampire/strigoi does�.

[John Human]

Could both reincarnation and Purgatory/Heaven be true?

Conform the Christian, Muslim hypothesis a human lives just one life and after death, after the Final Judgement goes to either Heaven or Hell
Conform the Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism hypothesis a human lives many lives through the mechanism of reincarnation.

These two hypothesis are mutually exclusive and therefore can't both be true.

It seems that you are just being dismissive, while ignoring my mention of two separate sources about the soul splitting in two just after death. Each of the religions that you mention just might have a piece (and nothing more) of the truth about what happens after death.

Does the soul split in two just after death?

P.S. Perhaps this question is like discussing the "Big Bang" or the first appearance of life on Earth: the ambiguous scraps of evidence don't get in the way of theorizing, speculation and strongly-held opinions.

Sir you are just babbling nonsense. It is not equivalent, not even similar.

“The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the observable universe[1][2][3] from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[4][5][6] The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state,[7][8] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), large scale structure and Hubble's law (the farther away galaxies are, the faster they are moving away from Earth).

…

The scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different theories, the Big Bang and the Steady State theory, but a wide range of empirical evidence has strongly favored the Big Bang which is now universally accepted.[11] In 1929, from analysis of galactic redshifts, Edwin Hubble concluded that galaxies are drifting apart; this is important observational evidence consistent with the hypothesis of an expanding universe. In 1964, the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered, which was crucial evidence in favor of the Big Bang model,[12] since that theory predicted the existence of background radiation throughout the universe before it was discovered. More recently, measurements of the redshifts of supernovae indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, an observation attributed to dark energy's existence.�
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

"now universally accepted" -- maybe I'll drop in over at wikipedia and delete that absurdity, just to see who has a cow about it. Or maybe not -- it's a useful reminder that wikipedia, while a good starting point, is far from perfect. Just Google "opposition to the Big Bang theory" and start rooting around.

The Bing Bang is supported by a wide range of empirical evidence while the existence of a soul is supported by zero empirical evidence.

I'll stand by my comparison, and your disrespectful assertion ignores the non-empirical evidence supporting both the existence of a "soul" (we have to be careful not to read sectarian overtones into the use of that word) and reincarnation, as well as overstating the case in favor of "Big Bang" speculative cosmology. It seems that the closer you look at the big bang theory, the weaker the so-called "evidence" appears. You might be interested in rebutting "The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory" at LPPPfusion.com -- I'd give a link, but I'm already having enough trouble de-bugging this post on my cell phone.

And furthermore, regarding questions like the existence of a "soul" or non-physical component of our conscious self-aware existence, I've suggested before that limiting ourselves to empirical evidence is a form of mental self-lobotomization.

[alexxcJRO]

It seems that you are just being dismissive, while ignoring my mention of two separate sources about the soul splitting in two just after death. Each of the religions that you mention just might have a piece (and nothing more) of the truth about what happens after death.

But sir you said: �Could both reincarnation and Purgatory/Heaven be true?"

Heaven hypothesis being true implies living one life and after death ones go to live forever in Heaven.
Reincarnation hypothesis being true implies living multiple lives one after the other.
Both can be false, but they cannot both be true.

"now universally accepted" -- maybe I'll drop in over at wikipedia and delete that absurdity, just to see who has a cow about it. Or maybe not -- it's a useful reminder that wikipedia, while a good starting point, is far from perfect. Just Google "opposition to the Big Bang theory" and start rooting around.

The Big Bang is well established by plenty empirical evidence and scientific peer review.

I'll stand by my comparison, and your disrespectful assertion ignores the non-empirical evidence supporting both the existence of a "soul" (we have to be careful not to read sectarian overtones into the use of that word) and reincarnation

And furthermore, regarding questions like the existence of a "soul" or non-physical component of our conscious self-aware existence, I've suggested before that limiting ourselves to empirical evidence is a form of mental self-lobotomization.

I am afraid the clear distinction still remains, plenty empirical evidence for Big Bang and zero empirical evidence for the existence of a soul.

Even if the Big Bang would turn to be false, would just mean that the facts-->empirical evidence were interpreted wrongly.

But the key point is that they started from some facts --> empirical evidence and went from there. While you don’t have the same thing for the existing of soul(life after death). You have just mythology/legend/ancient tales and extremely biased anecdotal(testimonial) evidence.

You cannot compare empirical evidence gathered through the scientific process who is designed in such a way to eliminate bias as much as possible, scientific peer reviewed things with mythology/legend/ancient tales and extremely biased anecdotal(testimonial) evidence.

https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/02/1 ... worthless/

“It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality.�

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal


Again a fair comparison would be between “talking of what a soul does� with “talking what a vampire/strigoi does�.

You have the same kind of evidence for both. Mythology/legend/ancient tales and extremely biased anecdotal(testimonial) evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strigoi

, as well as overstating the case in favor of "Big Bang" speculative cosmology. It seems that the closer you look at the big bang theory, the weaker the so-called "evidence" appears. You might be interested in rebutting "The Growing Case against the Big Bang Theory" at LPPPfusion.com -- I'd give a link, but I'm already having enough trouble de-bugging this post on my cell phone.

Q: Do you have scientific peer reviewed stuff?

[John Human]

It seems that you are just being dismissive, while ignoring my mention of two separate sources about the soul splitting in two just after death. Each of the religions that you mention just might have a piece (and nothing more) of the truth about what happens after death.

But sir you said: �Could both reincarnation and Purgatory/Heaven be true?"

Heaven hypothesis being true implies living one life and after death ones go to live forever in Heaven.

Your use of the word "forever" as a cognate of "eternity" is problematic.

Reincarnation hypothesis being true implies living multiple lives one after the other.

The interval between lives on Earth, and what goes on during that interval, is a matter of speculation. For example, imagine an eternal resident of heaven doing a turn down on Earth for a special purpose.

Both can be false, but they cannot both be true.

Not necessarily. Imagine, for example, purgatory involving being forced to do another lifetime on Earth with the opportunity/necessity to get things right and clean up the mess you made. The point here is that your earlier sneering dismissal was based on a failure to imagine alternatives to your jump-to-conclusion presuppositions.

"now universally accepted" -- maybe I'll drop in over at wikipedia and delete that absurdity, just to see who has a cow about it. Or maybe not -- it's a useful reminder that wikipedia, while a good starting point, is far from perfect. Just Google "opposition to the Big Bang theory" and start rooting around.

The Big Bang is well established by plenty empirical evidence and scientific peer review.

Saying so doesn't make it true. The problem is, all of the hypothetical "big bang" speculation is based on the arbitrary assumption that "G" (the gravitational constant) has remained the same, projecting linearly back to more or less the beginning of time. What if "G" fluctuated and/or even reversed itself periodically over the first ten or hundred or billion years or so? At this point, there is no way we can possibly know when what we know as the laws of physics firmly solidified in their current state, or even if/when fluctuations occur, not to mention whether they are constant throughout the entire universe. So all your peer-reviewed papers are like clowns dressed in the Emperor's Clothes, pretending what they know they can't prove or safely assume.

I'll stand by my comparison, and your disrespectful assertion ignores the non-empirical evidence supporting both the existence of a "soul" (we have to be careful not to read sectarian overtones into the use of that word) and reincarnation

And furthermore, regarding questions like the existence of a "soul" or non-physical component of our conscious self-aware existence, I've suggested before that limiting ourselves to empirical evidence is a form of mental self-lobotomization.

I am afraid the clear distinction still remains, plenty empirical evidence for Big Bang and zero empirical evidence for the existence of a soul.

You keep repeating the mantra "empirical evidence" like a mantra, as if empirical evidence takes precedence over non-empirical evidence. I have earlier mentioned the cult of empiricism that blinkers the vision of modern-day scientists. Perhaps you have fallen prey? I simply don't accept the relevance of you sub-division of evidence giving empirical evidence priority over non-empirical evidence, especially regarding non-measurable phenomena like reincarnation or a "soul" (or some such non-material persisting spiritual essence), which require reliance primarily (if not exclusively) on non-empirical evidence. Obviously, victims of an empirical-evidence fetish aren't going to get through the door to such a discussion.

Even if the Big Bang would turn to be false, would just mean that the facts-->empirical evidence were interpreted wrongly.

Not necessarily, unless you include imposing a false arbitrary assumption (like, perhaps, the constancy of "G" from the very beginning) as an example of wrong interpretation.

But the key point is that they started from some facts --> empirical evidence and went from there. While you don’t have the same thing for the existing of soul(life after death). You have just mythology/legend/ancient tales and extremely biased anecdotal(testimonial) evidence.

You appear to be speaking as a representative of the "dismiss without thinking" school. Your use of the phrase "extremely biased" begs for clarification. Could you please provide some evidence (empirical or otherwise) supporting your contention of extreme bias in relation to what I have posted on this thread?

You cannot compare empirical evidence gathered through the scientific process who is designed in such a way to eliminate bias as much as possible, scientific peer reviewed things with mythology/legend/ancient tales and extremely biased anecdotal(testimonial) evidence.

Oops, there's that phrase "extremely biased" again. Perhaps your repetition of that phrase is evidence of your own pronounced bias. But seriously, extreme bias exists and always has existed within science. Here's an example:

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/env ... te-scandal
The Russian news agency, Ria Novosti, reports that the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) revealed that researchers with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in England "had probably tampered with Russian climate data." The Hadley Centre is closely tied to the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia where thousands of e-mails were pirated from a server and published on the Internet in November. The e-mails implicate climate scientists associated with both CRU and the Hadley Centre in conspiracy to withhold and manipulate data to forward their environmentalist agenda.

The IEA says that Hadley Centre researchers used data from only 25 percent of Russian meteorological stations, and those stations happened to be the ones with the warmest temperature readings...

Q: Do you have scientific peer reviewed stuff?

As far as I'm aware, all of the scientific peer-reviewed stuff follows the cotton-candy "Emperor's Clothes" arbitrary assumption that "G" has remained constant since gravity appeared in the first moments after the Big Bang. If you know of any peer-reviewed work that questions that groundless assumption, you're welcome to mention it.

[alexxcJRO]

Your use of the word "forever" as a cognate of "eternity" is problematic.
The interval between lives on Earth, and what goes on during that interval, is a matter of speculation. For example, imagine an eternal resident of heaven doing a turn down on Earth for a special purpose.
Not necessarily. Imagine, for example, purgatory involving being forced to do another lifetime on Earth with the opportunity/necessity to get things right and clean up the mess you made. The point here is that your earlier sneering dismissal was based on a failure to imagine alternatives to your jump-to-conclusion presuppositions.

If Heaven hypothesis is true this means conform Christian doctrine one lives just one life and the goes to either Heaven or Hell after the Final Judgment.

If Reincarnation hypothesis is true this means conform Eastern Religions one lives multiple lives.

Both hypothesis cannot be true as defined by Christianity and Eastern Religions cuz' they contain mutually exclusive claims.
Remove these mutual exclusive claims and you don't longer have Heaven and Reincarnation hypothesis, you have something else.
But you specifically said Heaven and Reincarnation, so you catch my drift.

Saying so doesn't make it true. The problem is, all of the hypothetical "big bang" speculation is based on the arbitrary assumption that "G" (the gravitational constant) has remained the same, projecting linearly back to more or less the beginning of time. What if "G" fluctuated and/or even reversed itself periodically over the first ten or hundred or billion years or so? At this point, there is no way we can possibly know when what we know as the laws of physics firmly solidified in their current state, or even if/when fluctuations occur, not to mention whether they are constant throughout the entire universe. So all your peer-reviewed papers are like clowns dressed in the Emperor's Clothes, pretending what they know they can't prove or safely assume.
Not necessarily, unless you include imposing a false arbitrary assumption (like, perhaps, the constancy of "G" from the very beginning) as an example of wrong interpretation.
Oops, there's that phrase "extremely biased" again. Perhaps your repetition of that phrase is evidence of your own pronounced bias. But seriously, extreme bias exists and always has existed within science. Here's an example:
As far as I'm aware, all of the scientific peer-reviewed stuff follows the cotton-candy "Emperor's Clothes" arbitrary assumption that "G" has remained constant since gravity appeared in the first moments after the Big Bang. If you know of any peer-reviewed work that questions that groundless assumption, you're welcome to mention it.

Firstly,

Bashing science like this is unwise and impractical. Although not infallible science and scientific process has proven to be reliable.

Science and the scientific process has allowed you to bash it and babble nonsense on this site while using the Internet on a very complicated piece of technology: the pc which runs on electricity supplied by other complicated pieces of technologies. They all work perfectly fine : the phones, pc's, planes, cars, medicines, pesticides, RMN/RX machines and so one.

Scientific process is also made in such a way to eliminate bias as much as possible.
Double, triple blind test are used in scientific studies to eliminate bias.

On the other hand ancient tales/legends/mythology and anecdotal testimonial evidence can't constitute as good and reliable evidence. Tens of thousand of God's(Loki, Odin, Zeus, Ares, Vishnu, Shiva), fantastic/magical things(aliens, ghosts, Bigfoot, a child claiming to have lived before, purple auras around dying patients, a miraculous dowser, a levitating guru, vampires/strigois, Lock Nest Monster, Yeti, leprechaun, fairy, elf ) have been proposed throughout the history and present, many times contradicting each other.
Anecdotal testimonial evidence is prone to bias because is personal/subjective and weak because many times is unfalsifiable.

"Similarly, psychologists have found that due to cognitive bias people are more likely to remember notable or unusual examples rather than typical examples.
Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable. This phenomenon can also happen to large groups of people through subjective validation.
Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information.[10] Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

"Subjects completed 18 trials. On the first two trials, both the subject and the actors gave the obvious, correct answer. On the third trial, the actors would all give the same wrong answer. This wrong-responding recurred on 11 of the remaining 15 trials. It was subjects' behavior on these 12 "critical trials" that formed the aim of the study: to test how many subjects would change their answer to conform to those of the 7 actors, despite it being wrong. Subjects were interviewed after the study including being debriefed about the true purpose of the study. These post-test interviews shed valuable light on the study: both because they revealed subjects often were "just going along" and because they revealed considerable individual differences to Asch."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_co ... xperiments

You have ignored this:

https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/02/1 ... worthless/

“It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality.�
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

So I am afraid comparing as similar empirical evidence produced through the scientific process (proven to be reliable) with the anecdotal testimonial evidence which has proven not to be reliable(tens of thousand of God's and magical creatures) and very prone to bias because of its nature (personal and subjective) is very wrongly.

Secondly,

The constant has resulted through rigorous mathematical work.
Also we have measurements to confirm this.
But your free to contest this.
Make your experiments and prove them wrong. Submit your finds to peer review and you might get famous as the man who revolutionized cosmology, astrophysics.

You can also do this with math.
You can test your stuff on this physics forum. Many do.
https://www.physicsforums.com/

Just beating your chest in your room alone and babble nonsense on the Internet while not doing anything concrete and substantial is rather pathetic.

Thirdly,

Please don't ignore this again, looks bad:

Again a fair comparison would be between “talking of what a soul does� with “talking what a vampire/strigoi does�.
You have the same kind of evidence for both: mythology/legend/ancient tales and anecdotal(testimonial) evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strigoi

Q: Do you believe strigoi exists? (yes/no question)

[John Human]

Your use of the word "forever" as a cognate of "eternity" is problematic.
The interval between lives on Earth, and what goes on during that interval, is a matter of speculation. For example, imagine an eternal resident of heaven doing a turn down on Earth for a special purpose.
Not necessarily. Imagine, for example, purgatory involving being forced to do another lifetime on Earth with the opportunity/necessity to get things right and clean up the mess you made. The point here is that your earlier sneering dismissal was based on a failure to imagine alternatives to your jump-to-conclusion presuppositions.

If Heaven hypothesis is true this means conform Christian doctrine one lives just one life and the goes to either Heaven or Hell after the Final Judgment.

If Reincarnation hypothesis is true this means conform Eastern Religions one lives multiple lives.

Both hypothesis cannot be true as defined by Christianity and Eastern Religions cuz' they contain mutually exclusive claims.
Remove these mutual exclusive claims and you don't longer have Heaven and Reincarnation hypothesis, you have something else.

Indeed, and that is a viable answer to the initial question I posited for debate. However, you seem to have jumped to mistaken conclusions about my own point of view.

The way I see things, the arrival at the soul-splitting-in-two perspective from two unrelated sources gives an impression of validity to the thought that neither source gives on its own. If we entertain this as worthy of consideration, combined with the evidence for reincarnation discussed elsewhere in this forum, then both "reincarnation" and "purgatory/heaven" (taken as general suppositions as opposed to swallowing doctrinal baggage whole) seem to give part of the picture regarding what happens after death. I don't insist on that, and I welcome civil and respectful disagreement on a subject that is relatively new to me, and where my own thought hasn't settled.

Saying so doesn't make it true. The problem is, all of the hypothetical "big bang" speculation is based on the arbitrary assumption that "G" (the gravitational constant) has remained the same, projecting linearly back to more or less the beginning of time. What if "G" fluctuated and/or even reversed itself periodically over the first ten or hundred or billion years or so? At this point, there is no way we can possibly know when what we know as the laws of physics firmly solidified in their current state, or even if/when fluctuations occur, not to mention whether they are constant throughout the entire universe. So all your peer-reviewed papers are like clowns dressed in the Emperor's Clothes, pretending what they know they can't prove or safely assume.
Not necessarily, unless you include imposing a false arbitrary assumption (like, perhaps, the constancy of "G" from the very beginning) as an example of wrong interpretation.
Oops, there's that phrase "extremely biased" again. Perhaps your repetition of that phrase is evidence of your own pronounced bias. But seriously, extreme bias exists and always has existed within science. Here's an example:
As far as I'm aware, all of the scientific peer-reviewed stuff follows the cotton-candy "Emperor's Clothes" arbitrary assumption that "G" has remained constant since gravity appeared in the first moments after the Big Bang. If you know of any peer-reviewed work that questions that groundless assumption, you're welcome to mention it.

Firstly,

Bashing science like this is unwise and impractical. Although not infallible science and scientific process has proven to be reliable.

You are entitled to your opinion, but your point would appear to be an obfuscation, avoiding the "Big Bang speculation" scientists' sophomoric assumption that the gravitational constant has remained the same ever since gravity first appeared. Once again, if you know of any peer-reviewed work that questions the groundless assumption that "G" has remained constant since moments after imagined Big Bang, you're welcome to mention it.

Science and the scientific process has allowed you to bash it and babble nonsense on this site while using the Internet on a very complicated piece of technology: the pc which runs on electricity supplied by other complicated pieces of technologies. They all work perfectly fine : the phones, pc's, planes, cars, medicines, pesticides, RMN/RX machines and so one.

You seem to be acting as an "apologist" for what might be called the pseudo-religion of "scientism," while once again avoiding the basic question of whether "Big Bang" speculators' groundless presumption -- that the gravitational constant has remained the same -- is warranted or not.

Scientific process is also made in such a way to eliminate bias as much as possible.
Double, triple blind test are used in scientific studies to eliminate bias.

Yes indeed, that is the ideal scientific methodology, and this methodology, within its proper sphere, often gets productive results and useful technological applications. But when science degenerates into "scientism," the useful methodology gets perverted into a doctrine that is used to arbitrarily dismiss discussion of subjects that aren't amenable to empirical testing. I would like to remind you that this thread is NOT in the "science and religion" sub-forum.

On the other hand ancient tales/legends/mythology and anecdotal testimonial evidence can't constitute as good and reliable evidence.

Obviously, both have to be treated with care, as does empirical evidence, which must be interpreted. In the case of the dubious "Big Bang" speculation, the arbitrary and unfalsifiable presupposition that "G" has always remained constant has led to a pronounced bias among scientists in favor of simplistic "Big Bang" speculation while ignoring the possibility that early fluctuations in the gravitational constant could explain some of the anomalies that continue to plague Big Bangers.

So I am afraid comparing as similar empirical evidence produced through the scientific process (proven to be reliable) with the anecdotal testimonial evidence which has proven not to be reliable(tens of thousand of God's and magical creatures) and very prone to bias because of its nature (personal and subjective) is very wrongly.

You misrepresent what I earlier said, when I compared the question of what happens after death to Big Bang speculation. To clarify my comparison: Both questions enter a realm where empirical evidence is insufficient. In the case of the Big Pop-and-Swirl, it isn't about empirical evidence, it's about the arbitrary, unscientific presupposition of an always-unchanging gravitational constant that exposes the sophomoric incompetence of the so-called "Big Bang theory."

Secondly,

The constant has resulted through rigorous mathematical work.
Also we have measurements to confirm this.
But your free to contest this.

You misrepresent what I said, again. My point is that there is no reason to assume that "G" (the gravitational constant) has been the same since the beginning.

Just beating your chest in your room alone and babble nonsense on the Internet while not doing anything concrete and substantial is rather pathetic.

It would seem that my point about the gravitational constant has struck a raw nerve.

My understanding is that your uncivil and disrespectful language has no place on this forum, but the moderators seem inclined to give people an initial free pass and then a gentle reminder before a slap on the wrist. May your next post be more polite.

[alexxcJRO]

Indeed, and that is a viable answer to the initial question I posited for debate. However, you seem to have jumped to mistaken conclusions about my own point of view.
The way I see things, the arrival at the soul-splitting-in-two perspective from two unrelated sources gives an impression of validity to the thought that neither source gives on its own. If we entertain this as worthy of consideration, combined with the evidence for reincarnation discussed elsewhere in this forum, then both "reincarnation" and "purgatory/heaven" (taken as general suppositions as opposed to swallowing doctrinal baggage whole) seem to give part of the picture regarding what happens after death. I don't insist on that, and I welcome civil and respectful disagreement on a subject that is relatively new to me, and where my own thought hasn't settled.

Cheery picking from this already weak source of evidence(mythology/ancient tales/legend and anecdotal (testimonial) evidence)to make a case for soul splitting is rather embarrassing indeed.

Comparing this with the Bing Bang(which is based on plenty empirical evidence: George Gamow calculations and predictions coupled with reality: abundance of light elements, ratio of H and He, galactic redshifts, CBR; large scale structures, Hubble's law, and so one) and calling them similar is even more embarrassing.

Also talking about the beginning of the universe is not similar with talking of soul splitting for the existence of the universe is well proven and accepted universally(both by gullible morons and educated/intelligent people, scientists) while the soul existence is far from being proven(evidence is rather weak) and accepted mostly by gullible morons.

Please don't avoid this again:

A fair comparison would be between “talking of what a soul does� with “talking what a vampire/strigoi does�.

You have the same kind of evidence for both: mythology/legend/ancient tales and anecdotal(testimonial) evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strigoi

Q: Do you believe strigoi exists? (yes/no question)

You are entitled to your opinion, but your point would appear to be an obfuscation, avoiding the "Big Bang speculation" scientists' sophomoric assumption that the gravitational constant has remained the same ever since gravity first appeared. Once again, if you know of any peer-reviewed work that questions the groundless assumption that "G" has remained constant since moments after imagined Big Bang, you're welcome to mention it.

You seem to be acting as an "apologist" for what might be called the pseudo-religion of "scientism," while once again avoiding the basic question of whether "Big Bang" speculators' groundless presumption -- that the gravitational constant has remained the same -- is warranted or not.
Yes indeed, that is the ideal scientific methodology, and this methodology, within its proper sphere, often gets productive results and useful technological applications. But when science degenerates into "scientism," the useful methodology gets perverted into a doctrine that is used to arbitrarily dismiss discussion of subjects that aren't amenable to empirical testing. I would like to remind you that this thread is NOT in the "science and religion" sub-forum.
Obviously, both have to be treated with care, as does empirical evidence, which must be interpreted. In the case of the dubious "Big Bang" speculation, the arbitrary and unfalsifiable presupposition that "G" has always remained constant has led to a pronounced bias among scientists in favor of simplistic "Big Bang" speculation while ignoring the possibility that early fluctuations in the gravitational constant could explain some of the anomalies that continue to plague Big Bangers.
You misrepresent what I said, again. My point is that there is no reason to assume that "G" (the gravitational constant) has been the same since the beginning.

"A controversial 2015 study of some previous measurements of G, by Anderson et al., suggested that most of the mutually exclusive values in high-precision measurements of G can be explained by a periodic variation.[48] The variation was measured as having a period of 5.9 years, similar to that observed in length-of-day (LOD) measurements, hinting at a common physical cause which is not necessarily a variation in G. A response was produced by some of the original authors of the G measurements used in Anderson et al.[49] This response notes that Anderson et al. not only omitted measurements, they also used the time of publication not the time the experiments were performed. A plot with estimated time of measurement from contacting original authors seriously degrades the length of day correlation. Also taking the data collected over a decade by Karagioz and Izmailov shows no correlation with length of day measurements.[49][50] As such the variations in G most likely arise from systematic measurement errors which have not properly been accounted for. Under the assumption that the physics of type Ia supernovae are universal, analysis of observations of 580 type Ia supernovae has shown that the gravitational constant has varied by less than one part in ten billion per year over the last nine billion years according to Mould et al. (2014).[51]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

It would seem that my point about the gravitational constant has struck a raw nerve.

Nah. I am immune to moronic denial: big bang denial, evolution denial, climate change denial, spherical earth denial, Holocaust denial.

It's funny and incredible how people are skeptics of scientific things while believing in all myriads of magical and fantastic things like gods, strigois, yeti, lock nest monster, reincarnation, soul splitting, alien abductions, auras, hand healing, levitating gurus, prayer healing for which the evidence is substantially more weak or absent.

My understanding is that your uncivil and disrespectful language has no place on this forum, but the moderators seem inclined to give people an initial free pass and then a gentle reminder before a slap on the wrist. May your next post be more polite.

Complaining looks rather weak and just shows one's impotence.