Codosaur

I didn't say it wasn't broader, that's beside the point. The point is it is USED in Historical Criticism, besides other methods like Source, Form and Redaction criticism. But since the discussion is about probability, that favors the Math-based methods, such as Statistical Inference, to name one besides Bayesian.

My, that's some fast reading. And again you bring up "belief". Bayesian is a method used in Historical Criticism and other sciences to establish probability. It's not the only one but it suits the context. And AI can deal with uncertainty by the way

Bayesian Epistemology

Model Selection in Historical Research Using Approximate Bayesian Computation

Inference from Absence

Gladly. I will take some examples from forensic science, since this is close in approximating investigating historical evidence as well as the discipline of historical criticism On the interpretation of likelihood ratios in forensic science evidence, A science of evidence: contributions from law and probability

lack of evidence indicates improbability is not something I "have come up with" - it is one the basic principles for establishing likelihood of a claim being compatible with reality in the scientific disciplines.

"denying rebirth is incompatible with the doctrine of annata." - And yet many schools do not take rebirth literally and many of those practitioners are historically documented to have gained attainment and their writing expounds that attainment. How do you explain that then?

And how does that in any way exclusively connect to Charvaka? Also, the OP states an "if" question in his last sentence.

I'm glad it amuses you, but at least it's factual. I don't see any reference to Charvaka in the OP's question, that conclusion seems to be of your own making and not what the OP asked, which is merely whether reincarnation is scientifically proven. Lack of evidence indicates improbability in science - it is not, as you state, a belief.

" By "dying" or "already dying" I mean the very state, in which all animals are now: each species is born, lives a certain number of years, gets old and then dies " and "If those animals were originally created as not dying, then it's very interesting to know at what point they became as such, especially about those who were together with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden"

@brilliant, even within Christianity is the statement "animals in Eden were originally created as not dying". is not generally accepted. For example, Thomas Aquinas writes this in Summa Theologica: “the nature of animals was not changed by man’s sin.”. Therefore, both from a theological and a scientific point of view (the latter based on the fossil record and our current knowledge of biology), the claim that undying animals ever existed is a disputed & unproven presupposition.

@Matthew, please read SE rules of conduct regarding unfriendly language, name calling and excluding world views.

If only constructions that match your presuppositions are acceptable, I can't help you.

Exactly - that's why a definition of senescence limited to deterioration only is wrong.See ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4702512/…. sometimes you have to actually read the science publications and not blindly copy from Wikipedia.

How about "What is the origin of suffering, old age, and death in all lifeforms on Earth?"

biological aging does not equate "slowly dying" as written in the question, even by the definition you just quoted. Aging also includes growing into adulthood and the physiological changes accompanying that transition, which also requires senescence. Anyway, the difference in interpretation does not change the answer: it started most likely 3.5 billion years ago.

Science does not develop theories according to evidence to construct a model of reality that is as close to, and accurately describes reality, as possible. Making people happy with what those those theories imply doesn't really enter into the equation - nor should it. That way leads to the Dark Side: confirmation bias.

Senescence is not really the same as aging and dying. Aging is a progressive decline with time whereas senescence occurs throughout the lifespan, including during embryogenesis. The number of senescent cells increases with age, but senescence also plays an important role during development as well as during wound healing. Stated differently, a young biological entity cannot grow into adulthood without senescence. According to recent studies, this occurs in all organisms, including .bacteria. So the most likely answer is 3.5 billion years ago.

I understand what you're asking, but I would word it a bit different. In essence: yes he/she will conceive this dualistically, but on a non-dualistic level, he/she will believe that neither you or he/she exist as separate entities. (if the person has experienced non-duality and is "enlightened" (which I always found a terrible translation). Bear in mind that many asian monks go into monasteries out of custom and not all (I daresay the majority) have not experienced non-duality for themselves.

I can't speak for all, we covered a lot of Mahayana schools @ university, but for all I studied the answer is yes. But again, this is on the dualistic level, so your question is not unlike "when a tree falls in the forest when nobody is around, does it still make a sound?" Depending on your philosophical POV (is a sound is named by language and conceptualized by the mind but not the same as the actual vibrations of the displaced air?), some philosophical views will answer "yes' and others "no".

no, absolutely not. you still experience them, but - how shall I put this - it's no longer some thing happening to you, i.e. there is no distinction between the subject and the object. So if you're experiencing something positive, it's not because you "earned" it, and conversely, negative events do not raise the question "why is this happening to me?" Does that make sense?

this until the end of the page explains it quite well.

try reading this text: zenstudiespodcast.com/heartsutra1 you can skip the history if you want & start from "Line by Line: All Five Aggregates Are Empty" in the middle of the page.

hmmm...what would be the clearest way? Let's try this: Have you ever read the Heart Sutra?

If we are talking about an enlightened practitioner, then yes, he/she will think this on a dualistic level. But on a non-dualistic level he/she will at the same time "know" that these dualistic concepts are in fact illusions. As I said, these things are very difficult to put into words.

Simply put, you could view each dewdrop on a spiderweb as reflecting all other dewdrops, which in turn reflect all other dewdrops, etc. ad infinitum. If you regard the drops separate, that is the dualistic interpretation of reality, which is what one would also do when stating questions in the form "interactions of two people". However, Mahayana teaches non-duality (emptiness and interconnectedness), so in essence, there are no two separate entities interacting. The quote you cited only grasps the dualistic view of interaction (my mind, you are not me, etc.)

More like the skepticism that a thing like "my own individual mind" exists separately from other minds, or that "I" as an individual am separate from all things I see as "not me". Unfortunately this is very hard to put in words since language itself is dualistic. It is ultimately something that needs to be experienced, not argumented.

From whom is this quote? A similar statement was once made to a Zen master. The master slapped the questioner in the face and asked "am I real now?"

Frankly, it sounds more like phenomenology than Mahayana Buddhism to me. Most branches of Mahayana actually believe that everything is interconnected and therefore interacting. This is sometimes called Indra's net

@Isuru, I would assert the claim deva=god is a local influence from the Senhalese Saman, but this entity is considered a Bodhisattva in other Buddhist schools. A Bodhisattva is not an omnipotent deity in Mahayana. And Theravada formally rejects a creator god. See Blackburn, Anne M.; Samuels, Jeffrey (2003). "II. Denial of God in Buddhism and the Reasons Behind It

@Isuru, Buddhism does not have a concept of a deity like in Abrahamic monotheism. A deva is not the same concept as a god. A deva is believed to have finite lifespan and power. An Abrahamic deity is believed to be omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. See Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition