Then you are saying there is no randomness in the real world.

You are then making a tall claim which go against science, which based on randomness of sampling to achieve objectivity of scientific experiment and the conclusion.

For example then, we cannot use clinical trial of a medication to arrive at the efficacy of a medicine.

I think you have gotten my point right on the dot.

whether or not there is randomness depends entirely on your belief system. But in terms of software, unless you're talking about AI; no, its not random.

but if u want to base it as an experiment, then what yours does is merely making an action to see the reaction. Karma shouldnt be involved in this.

Clinical trials are exactly that, give people or animals the medicine and see how they react.

Karma is basically the cause and effect which is claimed to spread over multiple generation of life.

No ?

I forgot to add another point to back up premise B.

If you look at Buddhists monks, they generally regard all life as precious. They try not to kill anything unnecessarily and that includes ants.

This means that ants, already being punished for past evil deeds, are still regarded as precious in current life and are given equal chance to live.

If the view is that ants were previously evil and that karma need to persist into subsequent life, then the natural outcome is that we should kill all ants when we see them. DIE you evil ants!!!! But no, buddhists monks practices all lifeforms as precious so it goes to show that karma from past deeds ends after the punishment at the beginning of the next cycle.

Hmmm.... there's an ant on my table..... what should I do? Haha.

This post has been edited by kmarc: Apr 6 2020, 12:27 PM

dont know, really. Merely pointing out that the experiment and the subject matter (karma) would need a more complicated experiment that the one you proposed. Something to prove the existence of karma first, maybe. Then only define its parameters.

I maintain the claim that karma is understood by most people as the cause and effect which span over multiple generation of a life.

In that regards, to disprove/prove karma, we can use the same scientific methods of random sampling and look at the % of fulfillment of the prediction.

Our experiments always show 100% disprove of the causes due to past lives.

This post has been edited by puchongite: Apr 6 2020, 12:35 PM

I think your argument with mikehuan is that there is no proper definition of karma.

For you to have an experiment, you have to first define what is karma.
After we define, then we set an experiment around it.

So, technically, you have provided your definition, and set a thought experiment.
However, now, the issue is that there are disagreement in the definition you set.

In that case, then it's up to the other person to define what karma is.
And define it in a manner such that it's quantifiable, and falsifieable.

I don't know how your post above is able to substantiate it as premise B.

For me, I don't have to depend on premise B to know how to not overly mistreat an ant. But if a white ant comes to me, I will have no hesitation to take act on them.

and i did that. i said the thought experiment is an action/reaction and only that. If you removed the "karma" parameter, what does the experiment become? i didnt prove karma exist, merely put in a conjecture that karma does not necessarily have a part in this.

Just adding a point that it goes with the Buddhist principle that all life is precious regardless of circumstances and in this case, regardless of past deeds. So the argument of karma not influencing subsequent cycles fits well with this Buddhist practice. Whether true or not I don't know!!!!

This post has been edited by kmarc: Apr 6 2020, 12:56 PM

We are talking about something which in my opinion, obvious.

Loot at dictionary :-




Or wiki :-

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



Rebirth has been repeatedly emphasized.

Yes, I'm saying you have define it, but mikehuan disagrees your definition.
That's why the argument isn't about the thought experiment results anymore, but rather it's about definition (or perhaps interpretation on definition)

For instance, you put up this definition:

"(in Hinduism and Buddhism) the sum of a person's actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences.
INFORMAL"

To simplify, let's just assume human beings.
If doing good means being born into a rich family.
Then, the karma "ends" there, the person has been "rewarded" by being born into a rich family. All other things he do subsequently is only going to affect his future "karma", and any actions towards him are going to affect the "karma" of the person doing it.

Or, if we put transcending species. Then the fact that say, a bird being born into a human, is already reflective of the bird's karma.

I'm just pointing out the potential interpretation, where religious often just ensure their claims cannot be flasified.

Actually we won't know the speed. It might just depend on Buddha to decide or he got to set how the system will do automatically. Karma can come quickly or slowly or carry to your next life. But what I noticed is those who bad to me really got karma only. Although the time could be different to receive it.

Just give a little example of my karma experience only. No force you to believe. Primary school got one gangster always beat and bullies me, a few months later his mother passed away.

I took gula2 from somewhere, went back home, accidentally canned food fall down and cut my legs much blood.

Gov fitnah n charged me and malicious prosecution. Then barang naik fallen and bijan and his gang all got charged and those involved got sued in court now by pastor wife.

Got 1 ktard silent stalker defamed me many years ago, straightaway his kids admitted hospital.

This is based on what I remember and important only. Karma is definitely real. Not happens yet does not mean it's not real. It's just a matter of time.

This post has been edited by uamcy: Apr 6 2020, 03:06 PM

No predictability, unfalsifiable, dismissed !

Think about deeply since you open this thread.

This is equivalent to not saying anything at all.

Poor mother she had done nothing to you. How about the father?

Poor kids they did nothing to you. How about his wife? His mother no?

This is just lame ...

Have you since you made a silly reply?

You are ignorant if you think your karma will only affect yourself alone.