Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum What Would We Choose To Do If...

I'm fully aware of hypothesis, but the question regarding incarnation in this case isn't thought out. If one has actually studied the philosophy of reincarnation, or cause and effect, the question would hypothetically follow those universal laws.
First one would have to decide for themselves whether incarnation was a conscious or random act. Then reincarnation would imply that consciousness in the case of individuality applies to a living entity that outlasts the construct of human appearances or human flesh.
If that consciousness came from an oblivion of some sort, re-incarnation would be a moot point. Oblivion translates to a void of endless nothing, The word oblivion means the state of complete unawareness, unconsciousness, or forgetfulness; or the state of being completely forgotten. Therefor to idealize an unconscious consciousness that is the essence of human life reduces any Theory of God to chaos and as such would be devoid of any angelic armies or hierarchy by simple reasoning.
(I'm being logical and facetious at the same time)

If we are to be scientific and truly objective then no answer is a wrong answer including the one I gave, for it doesn't attack the original post as Amaranth Rose suggests. Scientifically or psychologically she chose to personally identify with the remark and took offense. She doesn't know me and so she projected herself rather than having actually placed me in the scenario.
What I respect and what she respects are two different things, obviously.
I did answer within the boundaries of the question. It said I came from oblivion and was given temporary consciousness (tho it didn't specify it was God consciousness, or that equal to the angel). And since science often looks at consciousness as simply the firing of neurons within the fleshy substance encased in the skull of human form, and hasn't universally accepted a consciousness that survives the human condition, I chose an answer that I felt fit within the boundaries of loose and superstitious thinking.
People take offense due to their attachment to the way they see things. I think a moderator would be a bit more objective and less invested in personal feelings or limited boundaries of personal thought. Like fully placing ones self in anothers' shoes before deciding from the outside what is in those shoes.

Just my thoughts tho. I like to think I can intuitively read people like she does, but maybe with less investment in how people are victims in their world and more like they are conscious creators, and I try not to make any assumptions about someone without having more than one experience of them.

I noticed also that the Rev has updated the question, as demonstrated by his Brain-meta reference making it clear that he himself agrees the question wasn't well thought out.

Someone told me in another thread that their sarcasm had intention, specifically he said.."I like to think that I make people think."

I like to think that my response would take someone to the witnessing aspect of psychological awareness, in noticing the emotional attachments, and then to realize they are not their emotions. A Child eventually gets over themselves as they grow up and start thinking more about their relationship with the world rather than their sandbox, what's in it, and whether anyone can come in to play and disturb personal boundaries. Some Children never grow up tho and objectivity becomes to them something they understand but never live. For them sticks and stones break their bones and words annihilate their low self esteem.

If we are going to discuss reincarnation how about we establish a reality such as God, or a consciousness that exists prior to human form, and then pretend how the consciousness establishes itself into form by discussing scientific probabilities.

I can fully understand pretending a God exists if one doesn't have an experience of God and then pretending this God is intelligent or overbearing and demands humans perform tricks like some kind of animal but we haven't established that in this game of pretend.

The Reverend at least gets to a more serious question of belief in reincarnation tho he doesn't say he believes in it.
He just says he's open to it.
So in light of his own approach I would say he shouldn't be invested in any kind of response since he doesn't really believe in his own topic, and I was not attacking his topic.