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.
There isn't any scientific explanation for "incarnation", let alone "reincarnation". There is still no explanation for how a chemical reaction controlled by persuasive spirals results in "experience", is there?
Anyways: I accept Kant's argument for the evaluation of philosophical maxims ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."
... and it seems that one can adopt any maxim as guidance for one's behaviour, so I choose to take as a maxim:
There is only one "subject" of reality, and that subject seems to be experiencing itself via this particular meatsack known as "me". Anything "I" can do to improve that experience via another meatsack known as "somebody else" is worth doing, because it is the very same "subject" experiencing that act. "Karma" means "action", because any action taken is experienced through another be-ing.
The truth of this is irrelevant, in the "will that it should become a universal law" sense: if everyone acted in this way, seeing each and every being as another aspect of their self, then we surely would all have fewer problems. That's how the categorial imperative applies.
To resort to argument by authority, there's always this:
"The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself." — Carl Sagan
I don't always (or even most of the time) follow this, because I'm not sure that the "universal law" makes sense when surrounded by self-centred automatons, so I resort to an even higher authority, Douglas Adams:
Slartibartfast: Perhaps I'm old and tired, but I think that the chances of finding out what's actually going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say, "Hang the sense of it," and keep yourself busy. I'd much rather be happy than right any day.
Arthur Dent: And are you?
Slartibartfast: Ah, no. Well, that's where it all falls down, of course.
The entire argument follows from a single incredible, unsubstantiated assumption, that “creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists.”
This is a common sentiment that fails to take into account the fact that, once you DO exist, you have a desire to continue existing which you did not have prior to your existence.
By your definition everything exists for the mere thought of it influences your future state, therefore it exists. This a corruption of language and serves no use but to confuse people and lend credence to charlatans.
I concede that my original statement was written in haste and thus not phrased the best.
But here's the thing: As soon as you start talking about existence of things, it's nothing but a semantic argument.
I will finish with a youtube clip from a Prattchet-based movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIfCGf_suxs The gist is that a lot of things exist solely because we believe in them.
what even is humanity's point? Consciousness is quite the curse. Existence is itself absurd. No human being present would mean no existential dread atleast.
Wouldn't believing nothing is out there, be believing in "something"?
I for one don't believe that this creation came to be as a matter of random chance. I have friends who absolutely believe that and they seem to be just as happy and fulfilled as I am.
reply