It doesn't. We have many libraries filled with material on life.
He can state with authority that karma does not exist just as he can state with authority that unicorns do not exist: Very easily. There is no evidence of such an effect, and no evidence for anything that could transmit or cause the effect. It is as imaginary as anything could be said to be.
Absence of evidence != evidence of absence. Perhaps worth rethinking your assumptions? All of the libraries in the world can't prove we're not brains in vats collectively hallucinating everything or an ancestor simulation running on supercomputers in deep space. Pehaps your breakfast today was imaginary? I could make just as strong a case for that as you can for the "imaginary" nature of karma.
> It is as imaginary as anything could be said to be.
I think you have not really grasped the meaning of that. Do you find leprechauns to be equally plausible as karma? Do you find sandwiches to be as equally plausible as leprechauns? Do you really? Really? You actually live your life with equal expectations of sandwiches and leprechauns?
If that is really the case, then you are clearly insane. Actually insane. Any rational human has at least the slightest ability to reason in a Bayesian manner.
(We've apparently maxed out the threaded comments system..so I'll respond to your response below here)
"Simulationism is completely irrelevant.
Reality is defined as what our senses permit us to perceive, any other definition is not productive. Honestly rejecting it is insanity If we are in a simulation then sandwiches are real if the simulation presents sandwiches to our senses. The simulation, if we live in one, does present sandwiches to us, but it presents absolutely no evidence for karma.
Why do you believe in karma more than leprechauns? Or karma instead of anti-karma? The supposed simulation presents equally little evidence for either."
First - I wonder why you get to define reality as the sum of our sensory experiences? Seems to me our senses fail us often. A simple example - I wonder have you ever done mushrooms? Your senses can give you lots of interesting data at times. So I'd challenge the notion that our senses are the sole possible basis for describing what is "real"
But note the weaknesses of my claim - I allow for the possibility of karma, where you do not. I was challenging your certainty about its nonexistence. Nothing more.
And on that front, the simulation argument is totally relevant, because it attacks the certainty of any of your claims about what is real. Ask Mario or Luigi what's real and their answers won't line up with what you and I think is real. And if we are, in fact, in a simulation, there isn't much that separates us from either of them.
Do I believe leprechauns are as common here on Earth as sandwiches? No. Might there exist a Planet Leprechaun somewhere in the cosmos? Sure. Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Do I believe karma could be real? Sure. Do I know it to be real? No. But neither can you know that it's not. There is, if you're honest and rigorous, very little that we can be truly certain of. And this is a good thing - because it keeps our minds open to possibilities. (Which might be worth trying?)
> So, in the sense that you "allow for the possibility of the reality" of karma, do you similarly "allow for the possibility of the reality" of unicorns? Yes? No?
Care to answer that?
Although I technically permit the possibility of either, in the sense that I recognize the limitations of knowledge, I nevertheless reject both in practice. Do you? Are they on equal footing?
A rational adult rejects childish fairytale creatures, and a rational adult similarly rejects karma.
If they are are equal footing, then all you are doing is obnoxiously injecting epistemology into a casual conversation. Do you do this every time somebody mentions that something doesn't exist, or just when you catch the whiff of religion?
"> So, in the sense that you "allow for the possibility of the reality" of karma, do you similarly "allow for the possibility of the reality" of unicorns? Yes? No?
Care to answer that?
Although I technically permit the possibility of either, in the sense that I recognize the limitations of knowledge, I nevertheless reject both in practice. Do you? Are they on equal footing?
A rational adult rejects childish fairytale creatures, and a rational adult similarly rejects karma."
I thought I covered your Y/N on unicorns with my answer about Planet Leprechaun. But, sure, Planet Unicorn is equally plausible.
Incidentally, the millions of Buddhists in the world would be amused to know that none of them are "rational".
As an aside, I'd argue that there's more evidence for karma than there is for unicorns or leprechauns. At its core, karma is the idea of cause and effect. Actions have consequences. This is entirely consistent with much of what we think we know about the world.
If karma exists, then it can be measured. It has not been measured.
> I thought I covered your Y/N on unicorns with my answer about Planet Leprechaun. But, sure, Planet Unicorn is equally plausible.
> Incidentally, the millions of Buddhists in the world would be amused to know that none of them are "rational".
I submit that where this a discussion about Saint Patrick's Day, and somebody described the origin of Leprechauns and in the process offhandedly referred to them as a fiction, you would not object. You would not even think of objecting. Objecting would never cross your mind.
You are only objecting here because you become uncomfortable when religion enters the picture. Millions of adults believe in karma and call it religion so you are willing to be obnoxious about epistemology, but in conversations where religion is not hinted at, you would not even consider objecting.
>At its core, karma is the idea of cause and effect. Actions have consequences. This is entirely consistent with much of what we think we know about the world.
At its core, a unicorn is a mammal. A warm-blooded animal which nurses its young. This is entirely consistent with much of what we think we know about the world.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a dogmatic thinker responds with an ad hominem attack when their assumptions are questioned. I am, I assure you, quite sane. Sane enough to allow for the possibility of the reality of karma, which you do not, simply because you do not have evidence in hand at this moment in time.
Do some reading. Start with this: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html It's a probability-based argument for the notion that we are in fact inside an ancestor simulation. Would love to hear your thoughts on how you know it to be incorrect. Then go read some Descartes and tell me a cool story about how he's insane.
Trust me, I understand that your sandwich feels real to you. But that doesn't make it so. Any more than your opinion that karma doesn't exist makes that the case.
Reality is defined as what our senses permit us to perceive, any other definition is not productive. Honestly rejecting it is insanity; if rejecting ones own senses is not insanity, then what is? If we are in a simulation then sandwiches are real in all meaningful ways if the simulation presents sandwiches to our senses. The simulation, if we live in one, does present sandwiches to us, but it presents absolutely no evidence for karma.
Why do you believe in karma more than leprechauns? Or karma instead of anti-karma? Or narwhale fighter pilots? The supposed simulation presents equally little evidence for any of these. Yes, a rational mind allows for the possibility of karma, but no more so than the possibility of leprechauns, anti-karma, and unicorns. That is to say, in practice, a rational mind rejects all of the notions if "the simulation" has not presented reasons not to do so.
So, in the sense that you "allow for the possibility of the reality" of karma, do you similarly "allow for the possibility of the reality" of unicorns? Yes? No?