Reincarnation should be considered more likely than not on a rational basis

I express my thanks to thett3, I conclude from my opponents round 2 that I haven't presented enough evidence for the rational decision to be taken that reincarnation should be accepted on a rational basis. Thett3 is asking for scientific proof of the soul, this as I have already admitted in my previous round, the soul can not be proven on an empirical basis, It can be accepted simply on the basis of circumstantial understanding, there is no empirical evidence of the soul, simply because the soul is not considered to be a material element, does that mean the soul does not exist? no.....There are other ways we can measure things which have no empirical substance but we can still conclude they exist, Gravity for example has no physical substance but we know it exists, love has no physical substance but we conclude love is real because we can measure it's effects, if we take my opponents account that unless everything is proven empirically, then we would be a very sad lot indeed. with that said I will offer what I deem to be ample amounts of circumstantial and observational evidence which should lead one to conclude the existence of the soul, and thus re-incarnation as most likely plausible, Also my opponent has mentioned an argument for skepticsim and from memory being thue sum of all our experiences, I agree we should be skeptical to begin with and almost certainly otherwise, but this does not mean we can not make rational decisions, my opponent claims that nodbody has ever came back from the dead to tell us what happens on the other side, on the contrary, there are many well documented cases from Dr Ian Stevenson who carried out over 3000 cases on the subject of reincarnation, and further introduce Dr Jim Tucker who has carried over Dr Ian Stevensons work Visionary: Jim B. Tucker, MD Some people seem to have memories of past lives. Are those memories accurate? How would you go about assessing the truth of those memories? Jim Tucker has made it his business to explore these matters. In his book, Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children's Memories of Previous Lives, he presents an overview of more than 40 years of research at the University Of Virginia Division Of Personality Studies into children's reports of past life memories. He describes some of the findings, includingunusual play, behavior patterns, specific phobias, and birthmarks or birth defects specifically related to the life and death of the previous personality. He will discuss the interpretation of the data and details about the methodology as well as possible pitfalls of individual cases. Tucker challenges the notion that consciousness is only the result of a functioning brain. He suggests that consciousness can be considered separately from the brain, which provides a basis for claims of reincarnation. He also discusses objections to reincarnation: the few persons who actually claim to remember a past life, the fragility of memories, the population explosion, the mind-body problem, fraud, and others. http://www.noetic.org......... http://www.medicine.virginia.edu......... Also here I provide a philosphers explaination of this phenomenon who describes the case for reincarnation very beautifully and further goes on to claim that he goes a step further and say's, it is irrational to not believe in re-incarnation in light of the evidence. also he explains adequately that just because we have no scientific physical empirical data as to how one soul transmigrates from one body to another, that we can not know that it has transmigrated, he goes on to use an example of not having to know how you got into a room to know you are in the room, watching this seven minute video is vital to my case and is fully encouraged. http://www.youtube.com... My opponent uses an argument from memory as being the sum of our experiences. but an arguement from memory is no arguemnt at all, for example; we do not remember things that happened to us in this life time, two adults used to play togetther as children, One can remember but the other can not, just because one can not remember, does not mean the incidence's when the children played together didn't occur, so simply because I can not remember, is not a good argument. on the other hand, what is a good argument is that chlidren can sometimes remember their past lives which upon checking turn out to be accurate and can be explained in no other way other than reincarnation, WINDSOR--A world-famous Canadian heart surgeon says he believes the body has a soul which departs at death and theologians ought to try to find out more about it. "There are certain cases where you happen to be present at the moment when people pass from a living state to death, and some mysterious changes take place. "One of the most noticeable is the sudden lack of life or luster to the eyes. They become opaque and literally lifeless. "It's difficult to document what you observe. In fact, I don't think it can be documented very well." http://www.prabhupada.org.uk... Also the location of the mind in the material elements of the brain are not conclusive, it fact recent evidence suggests that three vital regions of the brain that were one thought vital for self awareness are not, and the location of the mind remains as elusive as ever, So when his team heard about patient R, who had lost brain tissue including the chunks of the three 'self-awareness' regions following a viral infection, they immediately thought he could help set the record straight. Not a zombie According to the models based on neuroimaging, says Rudrauf, "patients with no insula should be like zombies". But patient R displays a strong concept of selfhood. Rudrauf's team confirmed this by checking whether he could recognise himself in photographs and by performing the tickle test " http://www.newscientist.com... Also I could very well use an agument from statistics to defend my case, My opponent seems to want concrete evidence for reincarnation, instead of arguing if it's more likely that it exists, I think we can conclude it certainly is likely. even without scientific proof. not everything is scientifcally proven to exist, such as love. but we know love is real because we can feel it's presense.... But concerning weather or not it would be rational to believe in reincarnation, the answer is yes, seeing as 85 percent of the worlds population hold some faith in the worlds major religions, Hinduism declares re-incarnation. In Bhuddism is no secret that it declares reincarnation, The Koran Islam "And Allah hath caused you to spring forth from the Earth like a plant; Hereafter will He turn you back into it again, and bring you forth anew." - Koran (Sura 71:17-18) "God generates beings, and sends them back over and over again, till they return to Him." - Koran The Bible "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5 Above the Bible declares you were existing before you material birth and will have eternal life after your death either in a spiritula body or in hell, either way you will still get a body. So here we see all the major religions promise an after life, in one form or another, so either 85% of the worlds population should either accept reincarnation on a rational basis or they should all declare there religions redundant on the basis of there being no rational reason to accept the after life. I already explained we are not this body and all our atoms are replcaed and every so often we acquire a new body, yet we, 'the self' are still exitsing although the body is destroyed, we have a new body, life is not a combination of material elements otherwise the material scientists should demonstrate this by mixing together the excact chemical composition and create life. TQ