user23598: Let's go through the logic first. The following statements are suppositions that must be chronologically accepted.

Matter is neither created nor destroyed.
Matter is made up of atoms.
I am made up of atoms.
I am matter.
Therefore, I cannot be created nor destroyed.

Now here's the philosophical (or perhaps, ideological) part:
With respect to statements 3-5 above, what defines "I"?
Am (or Is) "I" the atoms that compose my form or am (or is) "I" the identity that I have created for myself?
If "I" am my atoms, then when "I" die, I will continue to exist because my atoms will, albeit in a different form - a different incarnation hence, reincarnation.
If "I" am my identity, then when "I" die, I will cease to exist.
I think the former highlights a type of belief common in eastern philosophy (we are the universe) whereas the latter is common is western philosophy (We live in the universe, or we observe the universe).
Perhaps one's identity is linked with their atomic structure (i.e., the chemical processes of the brain)?
Do you think my reasoning is sound?
Edit: to make it clear, I am supporting the idea that if one believes that "I" is based on the existence of atoms, then reincarnation is in fact real.

user19614: The thing with logical or philosophical arguments for reincarnation is that they either cannot be proven empirically or rely too much on semantics. The minimalist reincarnation hypothesis is, AFAIK, the only falsifiable reincarnation hypothesis.

There is something essential to some human personalities, however we
ultimately characterize it, which we cannot plausibly construe solely
in terms of either brain states, or properties of brain states, or
biological properties caused by the brain and, further, after
biological death this non-reducible essential trait sometimes persists
for some time, in some way, in some place, and for some reason or
other, existing independently of the person's former brain and body.
Moreover, after some time, some of these irreducible essential traits
of human personality, for some reason or other, and by some mechanism
or other, come to reside in other human bodies either some time during
the gestation period, at birth, or shortly after birth.

Though vague-souding, it doesn't commit the common errors of other hypotheses, i.e. it focuses explicitly on humans, it doesn't assert that all humans reincarnate and it cares not how they would reincarnate.
Ian Stevenson (and to some extent, his protégé Jim B. Tucker) was the most prolific researcher who collected data for this hypothesis. The man had sound methodology and had been to all continents of the world for more than four decades to investigate claims of reincarnation. He has a lot of critics, unsurprisingly for a researcher of the 'paranormal'. However, it's hard to dismiss many of his collected cases as purely fraudulent or confirmation bias. To summarise, the common features of his cases are a combination of:

Violent injuries or cause of death in the purported previous life.
Statements pertaining to events in the previous life.
Physical anomalies and extreme phobias in the current life corresponding to the cause of death.
Physical or behavioural resemblance between the previous and current life.


There are many great threads on BSE discussing the doctrine of reincarnation or rebirth in Buddhism, to which I have little to add. I just want to say that beliefs in reincarnation or the paranormal in general are acquired experientially. From the perspectives of many natural sciences, they are inherently unreliable and most likely unprovable. Much to my dismay, I believe it's futile to try to prove the existence of reincarnation.
Currently I'm trying to distance myself from BSE. I may or may not response to your comments.

user254: You could use the same reasoning about a soap-bubble, to argue that, "... therefore a soap-bubble cannot be created nor destroyed".
Is that a sensible argument? Does that prediction match experimental observation?
The only way the argument makes sense is if you use it as a special definition of "I", i.e. if you define "I" by saying it's identical to atoms, and that that's independent of how those atoms are arranged.
That isn't how people normally identify each other -- most people probably think there's an important difference between whether a body is alive or burned.
It also isn't what Buddhist doctrine recommends -- I think it recommends that we shouldn't "identify" with form.

23598: <p><strong>Let's go through the logic first. The following statements are suppositions that must be chronologically accepted.</strong></p>
<ol>
<li>Matter is neither created nor destroyed.</li>
<li>Matter is made up of atoms.</li>
<li>I am made up of atoms.</li>
<li>I am matter.</li>
<li>Therefore, I cannot be created nor destroyed.</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>Now here's the philosophical (or perhaps, ideological) part:</strong></p>
<p>With respect to statements 3-5 above, what defines &quot;I&quot;?
Am (or Is) &quot;I&quot; the atoms that compose my form or am (or is) &quot;I&quot; the identity that I have created for myself?</p>
<p>If &quot;I&quot; am my atoms, then when &quot;I&quot; die, I will continue to exist because my atoms will, albeit in a different form - a different incarnation hence, <em>reincarnation</em>.
If &quot;I&quot; am my identity, then when &quot;I&quot; die, I will cease to exist.</p>
<p>I think the former highlights a type of belief common in eastern philosophy (we are the universe) whereas the latter is common is western philosophy (We live in the universe, or we observe the universe).</p>
<p>Perhaps one's identity is linked with their atomic structure (i.e., the chemical processes of the brain)?</p>
<p>Do you think my reasoning is sound?</p>
<p>Edit: to make it clear, I am supporting the idea that if one believes that &quot;I&quot; is based on the existence of atoms, then reincarnation is in fact real.</p>
 19614: <p>The thing with logical or philosophical arguments for reincarnation is that they either cannot be proven empirically or rely too much on semantics. The <em>minimalist reincarnation hypothesis</em> is, AFAIK, the only falsifiable reincarnation hypothesis.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is something essential to some human personalities, however we
ultimately characterize it, which we cannot plausibly construe solely
in terms of either brain states, or properties of brain states, or
biological properties caused by the brain and, further, after
biological death this non-reducible essential trait sometimes persists
for some time, in some way, in some place, and for some reason or
other, existing independently of the person's former brain and body.
Moreover, after some time, some of these irreducible essential traits
of human personality, for some reason or other, and by some mechanism
or other, come to reside in other human bodies either some time during
the gestation period, at birth, or shortly after birth.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Though vague-souding, it doesn't commit the common errors of other hypotheses, i.e. it focuses explicitly on humans, it doesn't assert that all humans reincarnate and it cares not how they would reincarnate.</p>
<p>Ian Stevenson (and to some extent, his protégé Jim B. Tucker) was the most prolific researcher who collected data for this hypothesis. The man had sound methodology and had been to all continents of the world for more than four decades to investigate claims of reincarnation. He has a lot of critics, unsurprisingly for a researcher of the 'paranormal'. However, it's hard to dismiss many of his collected cases as purely fraudulent or confirmation bias. To summarise, the common features of his cases are a combination of:</p>
<ul>
<li>Violent injuries or cause of death in the purported previous life.</li>
<li>Statements pertaining to events in the previous life.</li>
<li>Physical anomalies and extreme phobias in the current life corresponding to the cause of death.</li>
<li>Physical or behavioural resemblance between the previous and current life.</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>There are many great threads on BSE discussing the doctrine of reincarnation or rebirth in Buddhism, to which I have little to add. I just want to say that beliefs in reincarnation or the paranormal in general are acquired experientially. From the perspectives of many natural sciences, they are inherently unreliable and most likely unprovable. Much to my dismay, I believe it's futile to try to prove the existence of reincarnation.</p>
<p><em>Currently I'm trying to distance myself from BSE. I may or may not response to your comments.</em></p>
 254: <p>You could use the same reasoning about a soap-bubble, to argue that, &quot;... therefore a soap-bubble cannot be created nor destroyed&quot;.</p>
<p>Is that a sensible argument? Does that prediction match experimental observation?</p>
<p>The only way the argument makes sense is if you use it as a special definition of &quot;I&quot;, i.e. if you define &quot;I&quot; by saying it's identical to atoms, and that that's independent of how those atoms are arranged.</p>
<p>That isn't how people normally identify each other -- most people probably think there's an important difference between whether a body is alive or burned.</p>
<p>It also isn't what Buddhist doctrine recommends -- I think it recommends that we shouldn't &quot;identify&quot; with form.</p>
