Ok so now we need to establish some new baselines.
If you’ve studied the paranormal before, it means that you have a filter process just like Jim Tucker, Sam Parnia or Louis Elizondo.
This filter process is in place to filter out all the junk so in the end you’re left with genuine cases where the only real explanation from a skeptic’s point of view is: “I don’t know”.
Do you agree with this?
Now in regards to this case of Omm Seti, you say “She didn’t know anything that wasn’t know”.
This to me is incorrect so I’d like to know how you arrived at this conclusion.
I have seen a documentary on her as well as read enough to know that her case is a mystery.
For example if we take the following from Wikipedia with is a site with a left-leaning bias, we see this paragraph :
“
Abydos had a special significance for her, because it is where she believed Bentreshyt had lived and served in the Temple of Seti.[32] She had made short pilgrimages to the site before, during which she had demonstrated her advanced knowledge. At one of these trips to the temple, the chief inspector from the Antiquities Department, who knew about her claims, had decided to test her by asking her to stand at particular wall paintings in complete darkness. She was instructed to identify them based on her prior knowledge as a temple priestess. She completed the task successfully, even though the painting locations had not yet been published at this time.[33]
“
So this statement above contradicts your “she didn’t know anything that wasn’t known” because she Knew something which was not published or known at the time.
I’m not going to investigate something that has already been investigated. I don’t know the guy who performed this test, or how well he controlled it. I use something called “Bayesian” methods, which is really just a formalized common sense.
I look at all the times claims like this have been made. Some of them I have read up on in detail. Every time, I find some misinformation, some missing detail in the report of a test performed, or a story told. I know there are other people like me, looking into these things and they report similar results. The odds get lower and lower that I will ever find one that is true.
So, the question you need to answer is, if this kind of reincarnation is really happening, why it is so rare? Why is it so hard to gather evidence and show it does happen? These stories are old, if this happens, there must be someone out there now, with a cell phone, with cameras, with entire organizations willing to listen to their story and track it and help them get it out there. Why aren’t they doing that?
My other question. What god do you believe in? The Christian god does not like the idea of reincarnation. If this story is true, then that’s competition to Jesus or Jehovah. What point are you trying to make with this evidence?
Ok so we’re shifting here a bit and you’re essentially saying “trust me” but let me answer your new questions now.
Why is it happening so rarely?
I simply don’t know the answer to this and I realize you may find this strange from someone like me who likes to know existential questions but to me reincarnation itself in cases like these is all the proof I need to know that something exists after death. The details of HOW, I will find out when I die. Makes sense?
What god do I believe and does it cause a conflict?
So I believe in Jesus Christ and I’m a Christian.
Some interpretations of Christianity say that Jesus is a reincarnation of a few people from the Old Testament.
But in the end, re-incarnation doesn’t cause a conflict or an existential crisis with my faith because God has all the details of his creations so complex that we are unable to utter them in human words as John mentioned when he was shown revelations from God.
The other question that I have for you is: Why does this matter to you? As an atheist (I assume) my choice of Gods should be of no concern to you because you don’t believe in them right? That’s your position? Right?
What point are you trying to make with this evidence?
The point that consciousness exists after death.
I’m sorry are you reading?
We have a person knowing details of an empire from thousands of years ago.
We have children knowing details of planes, war and death. They remember their past life and how they died. This was later confirmed by their parents digging army documents.
But if you think I’m not consistent than you’re not consistent because you’re supposed to be an atheist?
I mean it would be strange to talk Theology details with an atheist because your position doesn’t allow for much wiggle room while my position allows me to dream and fly.
So, are you consistent with yours?
Look, if proved then I would accept the results whatever they are.
But because paranormal stuff are hard to prove, we have to make educated guesses based on our belief systems and positions.
But if it’s proved that this phenomenon has nothing to do with consciousness beyond death, than we know that fact and move on.
But for now this is a mystery.
Example?
And at what point are we talking about reincarnation? About the Empire a Thousand years ago , or the Planes in the last WW?
Oh, I am reading and discovering all kinds of weaknesses in the “retelling” of a past lives.
If the parents can find the details of an empire a thousand years ago the information was known, no? Who can vouch for the parents motives?
At what time does a child begin to accumulate memories of stories about princesses and Unicorns? 2 months old? 6 months old? Who read them bedtime stories?
And in what detail are the memories of a thousand year old empires .
Deja Vu is not proof of reincarnation. It is proof of cognition.
But why make the most unlikely educated guesses. Paranormal stuff is by definition not normal and that does present conflict with science that deals with normal stuff because the universe is made of normal stuff.
This is just an extension of all supernatural spiritualities, including religions.
We don’t even know all of the normal natural stuff. Let’s try to solve those mysteries first before we begin by trying to solve the abnormal supernatural mysteries.
This answers tells me that you haven’t explored the paranormal stuff at all in your life.
I’d like to explore all sides so I’m more familiar with the subject.
I explore science, religion, paranormal stuff and everything else in between which is material or immaterial.
It may be a bit difficult to understand each other but this is also the reason I’d like to keep conversations on a high-level without discussing the details first.
Because I’d like to hear people’s reasoning first not pre-programmed responses.
So let me try again. Since there are soooooo many cases regarding this subject (and you’ve apparently have researched none of them), let talk about Dorothy Eady a woman born in England in 1904.
Please spend 5 minutes and read her profile in Wikipedia.
In short , she had an accident where she hurt her head. After the accident she remembered that she was a priestess in Egypt and knew many details which were and are abnormal to know for a child.
Later as she grew, she moved to Egypt (where even today she is highly respected) and made many predictions regarding tombs and locations of objects which were unexplained because she had not been there before.
So, how do you explain all of this from your own mental reasoning?
How does someone hit their head and BOOM you’re IN-TUNE with another life, era and details.
Okay so this is a very good answer which also aligns with your position (atheist I assume).
I explain it as Reincarnation because there are no other plausible or reasonable explanations that can convince me and change my mind that it is anything else other than a reincarnation.
But we have “explored” this stuff. When you say “all sides”, it seems like you are asking us to accept claims as facts, then try to explain them. I can’t explain things that didn’t happen.
I used to believe in spirits, aliens, esp, all sorts of stuff, then i learned to explore facts
What makes you think reincarnation is a plausible or reasonable explanation?
Fact is that the implications of that concept require an extremely complex explanation and is therefore implausible and unreasonable explanation