That does not seem as likely to me but sure anything is possible.
Likelihood doesn't increase because we think it does, it's dependent on factors of probability, one of which is observation
It may be referring to actual things but our knowledge and perception ability is limited.
In short, you're trying to argue that something might be there, but we can't discern it? What's the difference between it being undetectable and not really being there, to use Flew's invisible gardener example?
I can do nothing about the world and its future--I might be able to effect my future, but if I have no future, the future of the world becomes ultimatly meaningless to me.
To you, but not to others.
That has nothing at all to do with what I just said. What I said is true of Buddhism or not and has nothing to do with any attachment to life on my part.
Buddhism does not hope for rebirth, it observes rebirth as a necessary result of dependent origination, everything having something causing something else to come about.
Because, while you seem unique, you share qualities with people that would make you part of something, but not above that whole of which you are a self sufficient (relatively) part
I don't have to argue it. It is Buddhism that reincarnation is continuation on the life cyle, the wheel of life and the goal of Buddhism is to escape. Why would one want to escape from a blessing?
Nirvana could be argued to be better than the life we experience now, but that would get into the problematic comparison to heaven. Nirvana at best is a state of mind, since you can attain it while still alive. In that sense, it is not something of life you want to escape from, but your own mistaken ideas about life and what makes it good and/or bad.
That is a meaningless argument. What is the point to preserving our perception of time? If there is a Creator of everything that would include the creation of time perhaps. That does not make existence bad. Also the sense of accomplishment etc. is not an argument that proves life is not good and death is better.
Eternal existence would mean time becomes pointless, since time would go on forever. Accomplishment is something that is temporary and you wil eventually forget. I said nothing about accomplishment that argued death was better, you keep putting words in my mouth about this false dichotomy.
.It also does not follow that life is bad just because you get more of it.
You become attached to it, that creates a bad state, if nothing else.
When one is discussing life and death, life is not in excess just because it goes on longer.
Depends on how you view life in terms of quantity anyway. Quality of life is not improved because you have it longer either, so immortality would seem to negate the notion of having a better or worse quality of life, you'd just be a shell of a person.
When all are dead and gone, your partiularitis of experience are no long meaningful.
Except to others who shared those experiences in a similar way, which is where you seem to be missing the point. We are not isolated minds, we share things with people, which creates memories, am I right?
No it is not valuable to the individual that has passed away.
Because the individual does not persist past their death, so of course it is not meaningful. You seem attached to the desire for meaning permanently.
Maybe it does not eventually passaway. How can love go on too long?--and then it becomes better to hate? Not a reasonable comment.
Love can become infatuation, attachment, smothering. Anything good can still exist in excess by attachment or just a general overflow.
What meaning will there be when humans are extinct?
You assume meaning has to exist outside of human perspective. Meaning is contingent on human perspective, so when humans are extinct, the phenomenon of meaning will not exist either, unless you're saying meaning is separate from us, which seems incredulous.
Yes it is obvious and I wonder why you argue against it
.
Because I don't think meaning exists apart from an individual's perspective, so meaning is just as temporary as an individual.
Physical death seems to be a part of this world. If there is nothing then we have no choice but accept it, but if there is a choice, it then is no longer better to deny the better choice.
You haven't argued why living forever is a better choice than having a good but finite life with that quality of transience that gives it meaning in some sense.
Why woould the existence of a loving Creator be unpleasant? Why assume that to be the case?
Because a Creator's love is not human love, it thinks in a different way, therefore it is like you trying to place judgment on an ant.
If reincarnation turns out to be false and a loving Creator turns out to be true, why would it not effect you?
It depends on if there is also an afterlife. Just because we happen to be created does not mean we automatically have a soul.
True. I don't advocate incorrectly approaching things or being unwise.
I don't know that deserve has much to do with it.
You think the self has to exist, but you haven't argued why that should be the case.
But the ultimate goal is not reincarnation but nirvana.
So self does not become part of the whole but simply disappears--is obliterated.
I think that was clear from my initial explanation that nirvana was the goal.
That isn't a bad thing when you've realized self is not the end all for the world. Meaning is a shared and individual experience. Just because you become one with all things does not mean you necessarily lose all meaning, except as an individual.
Christians also believe the body returns to dust. I am fine with that, but my hope is in the spirit that returns to the Creator.
But there is no reason to believe you have a spirit in that sense, or a soul. Or you've failed to argue for its existence.
The bottom line is oblivion for us--you and me. The continuation of the rocks and trees give you hope. It does not give me hope. I see it also becoming obliterated. All becomes meaningless.
You try to separate yourself from everything, that is why you don't see some kind of meaning in a sort of union with all things.
_Is it not a bit hypocritical to criticize me for believing in a spirit that returns to God and you believe in the reincarnation of the self into a worm or whatever?
I can criticize you because you believe in an unnecessarily complex system with a Creator outside of time, a soul and spirit we cannot even experience in any objective sense, but I neither believe in a Creator or gods or even the notion of a permanent essence of the self.
You confuse Buddhist rebirth/reincarnation with Hindu reincarnation, which implies it is the same person that is reincarnated as a worm. I do not believe it is me or any other person that is that worm when being reborn, because our identity does not persist after death. I thought I made that pretty clear.