"I would have liked, in my antagonists, if not justice to myself, at least logical in the connection between their premises and their conclusions." (Rui Barbosa)

 

Throughout more than 30 years of studies, research and debates concerning the work "The Logic of Reincarnation", I have had the opportunity to study a great deal of opposing arguments from various religious doctrines. But I must say with all sincerity that, to this day, over this period, I have never encountered a refutation really worthy of being called this way, that is,  based on strictly logical concepts, that would invalidate the consistency of any of the arguments contained in the  logical analyzes presented in previous chapters, which are the basis of all this work.

 

As we have seen before, there is a big difference between "refuting an argument" and simply presenting a “discordant opinion",  merely based on a Biblical passage or a personal opinion. For there to be a rebuttal, logical grounding is necessary, and the demonstration that at least one of the premises supporting the argument is not true, or that there is no logical inference between the premises leading up to the conclusion.

 

However, the vast majority of proponents of “refutation attempts" have the following characteristics:

 

1. Great ignorance about logic.

2. Great ignorance about the subject of “Reincarnation" and the logical concepts that surround it.

3. Complete Inability to present valid and consistent arguments, constructed under the rigor of logic, structured in true premises with logical inference between them that lead to true conclusions.

4. Presumption of being the "owners of the truth".

5. Absence of analytical impartiality and investigative spirit, due to attachment to dogmas that they consider as "absolute and unquestionable".

6. Predisposition to "convert" and "condemn", instead of analyzing and debating

 

As a result, their attempts at refutation end up becoming something like a "preaching", where they limit themselves to exposing their beliefs and their faith, leaving, however, intact, the logical arguments that are at the center of debate and which are therefore more strengthened.

I will present below some arguments against this work and the answers to them, so that the readers can draw their own conclusions.

​

 “It is not possible to analyze God through human logic"

​

This statement contains an implicit contradiction in itself, for the very person who claims that "it is not possible to analyze God through human logic" is already using its "human logic" himself to make such a statement and thus come to the conclusion that "Divine logic is different from human logic."

 

Likewise, all religions, without exception, also use their own "human" logic to understand and interpret God's Laws. We can find hundreds of ramifications in Christian religions, all based on the same book, the Bible, but with differentiated and often totally antagonistic interpretations, each of them proclaiming to be the true "representative of God" on Earth. This shows that there was the application of a "human logic" of its own, otherwise there would be a single view of all those who follow the same book.

 

On the other hand, the work "The Logic of Reincarnation" is not intended to analyze "Divine Logic", but rather to demonstrate the flaws in human logic itself, which gave rise to contradictory and inconsistent interpretations based on a literal interpretation of the Bible . Logic is then used as a tool to identify these contradictions.

 

Through the "Principle of non-contradiction", which defines that it is impossible to "BE" and "NOT BE" at the same time, we can see the flaws contained in such doctrines and human interpretations that present God as "infinitely fair" but committing injustices , or describe God as "infinitely merciful" but fail to forgive, or else claim that God "never practices evil" and then describes Him by massacring innocent and animals and even encouraging rape.

 

It is this "human logic" that is being analyzed by our work, not the Divine Logic, which we consider to be infinitely superior and not subject to these types of imperfections.

 

Logic is the surest way to guide us toward the truth, or as close to it as possible. We can see studying the history of humanity that, without Logic, we become hostages of "blind faith" and dogmatic interpretations that do not present coherent explanations.

 

"The concept of human justice cannot be applied to the Divine Justice, so the logical studies which

analyze the Justice of God based on the concepts of human justice are invalid."

 

For the development of logical reasoning, we need to work with clear and defined concepts, without which it becomes completely impossible to come to objective conclusions. We use in this work the basic concept of Justice, which is to "giving to each one according to his merit”. The Bible itself says that "each one will be given according to his works", which, in fact, perfectly matches the concept of "human justice."

​

In this way, this concept of justice cannot be questioned, either in human or in Divine Justice, since it is not something "abstract", but rather clear and easily understood by any person of basic discernment and ability of reasoning.

​

Obviously, human justice is limited compared to Divine Justice. However, in doing so, it is deduced that Divine Justice must be far superior to human justice! However, traditional Christian doctrines present us with Divine Justice containing flaws that we hardly find even in the worst earthly judicial systems, such as:

​

• Punishment of innocents, which goes against the most elementary precept of Justice, causing people to pay for others' mistakes (Original Sin).

 

• Inequality in the application of sentences, where everyone, without any distinction as to the seriousness of the crimes committed, would pay exactly with the same penalty (eternal punishment).

 

• Lack of proportionality in the application of penalties, where an error practiced within a finite period of time is punished with an infinite penalty.

 

• Possibility of Impunity, when Divine Justice would no longer be applied, and the worst offenders could escape punishment if they repent before death.

 

How to explain this huge set of contradictions? Therefore, the fundamentalists’ claim that God would have a "different Justice" is a clear attempt to "disqualify" the very concept of Justice, in order to justify the obvious inconsistencies found in the theory they defend.

In this way, Divine Justice, precisely because it is infinitely superior to human justice, could never have such kinds of flaws.

​

"If we do not remember our past lives, then Reincarnation does not exist"

 

In logic, this statement is classified as "ignorance fallacy" (Ad Ignorantiam), that is, when one tries to refute something because we cannot prove its truthfulness. In this way, the fact that we do not remember our previous lives does not mean that we did not have them.

 

Forgetting the experiences we have had in other lives is due to the fact that such memories are not recorded in the physical brain of our material body, made of "flesh and blood", but in the memory of our spirit, which consists of a much more subtle matter. That is why we do not remember them so easily.

 

Therefore, the forgetting of the past is only temporary and occurs while we are incarnated on this physical plane. However, once freed from the material body, the spirit, already on the spiritual plane and depending on its evolution, can have access to the memories of his previous lives, analyze them, and make a "balance" of their errors and correctness, while he prepares for a new reincarnation, where he will continue his evolution.

 

As presented in Part III of this work, which deals with material and scientific evidence, it is possible, through Past Life Therapy (PLT), that it is a technique used today throughout the world, to access the memories of our previous lives, which is only indicated for cases of severe phobias or psychological disorders, and not just for curiosity. There are also thousands of documented cases of children who have had spontaneous recollections of their past lives, bringing details that have proven their truthfulness. So all these researches demonstrate that accessing the memory of our past lives is possible!

 

But let us analyze: If we kept in our present life the memories of all our previous lives, we would not be living a "new life" but would continue to live the same life as before. Let us imagine the emotional weight of the remorse we would feel for the wrong things we have done to other people and also the sorrow for the harm that others have done to us.

 

We must emphasize that many of these people, whom we have hurt or who have hurt us in the past, may also be reincarnated today as our children, brothers, parents or friends, and the forgetfulness of the past at this time, or in the context of this life, is essential so that there can be a reconciliation and, in this way, reparation and forgiveness. Without this oblivion, such reconciliation would be completely impossible.

 

Therefore, in analyzing the dynamics of reincarnationist doctrine, we perceive that it has a perfect logic. Each life represents only an extremely short cycle in the long evolutionary journey of the spirit, and the fact that we do not temporarily remember our past lives in no way compromises its coherence.

​

"If we do not remember the mistakes made in past lives, it is not fair that we should pay for them."

 

It is highly ironic, besides obviously contradictory, to see this argument being used by some proponents of the "original sin" theory, which holds that we pay for the mistakes made by Adam and Eve for, just as we do not remember previous lives, we also do not remember the sin that would have been committed by Adam! Now, if this argument were consistent to invalidate reincarnation, so it would be to invalidate the very thesis of "original sin" they defend!

 

Even worse: In the case of "original sin", we would be paying for something we did not do, which would be a great injustice. In the case of Reincarnation there is no injustice because our sufferings have their origin in our own mistakes from past lives.

 

The fact of whether a person remembers or not having committed a crime does not in any way affect the application of justice. We can support this statement with the following analogy: Let us imagine a criminal who had committed several crimes and who, on the eve of his judgment, was affected by a temporary amnesia which for some time prevented him from remembering the crimes he had committed. Thus, it is brought to the court, where the Judge, through unquestionable evidence, is certain of his guilt.

 

Let us ask: Would it be right for the Judge, taking into account his amnesia, to absolve him, failing to apply Law and Justice? Would it be relevant for the criminal to recover his memory so that he could receive the deserved penalty? Of course not. If so, all criminals would be able to escape unpunished, simply stating "amnesia" of the illicit acts committed by them. In the same way, the fact that we do not temporarily remember our past lives does not invalidate the Supreme Justice.

 

From a reincarnationist point of view, each life is an extremely short period, just a cycle in the long journey of the spirit, where he is able to correct his errors and improves both intellectually and morally.

 

Analyzing various case studies of reincarnation, we see how wise the Divine Law is, by allowing the temporary forgetting of the past. For example, if we remembered all the pains that came from other lives, both those who hurt us and those that we caused to others, such memories would disturb us, taking away the necessary conditions to repair the mistakes that a new life can bring. In fact, if we remembered everything, we would not be living a new life, but the same old life, only in a new body.

 

Therefore, we conclude that the temporary forgetfulness of our previous lives in no way impairs the Divine justice that allows us, through reincarnation, to make up for the mistakes made. True injustice would occur if there were no earlier motive justifying human suffering, or if we were paying for someone else's mistakes.

​

"An offense to an infinitely perfect being requires an infinite punishment. This justifies the eternal punishments "

​

We can demonstrate that this statement contains an implicit contradiction in itself. Let us see: If God is an infinitely perfect Being, then he possesses all qualities in infinite degree. In this way, His forgiveness is equally infinite. Therefore, we can say that God forgives infinitely, that is, He will never cease to forgive. But the argument says the opposite: That God will punish eternally, that is, He will cease to forgive!

​

But the infinity of a quality completely excludes the possibility of the existence of a contrary quality that would diminish or annul it. Thus, if Divine forgiveness ceased to exist, even for a millisecond, we could no longer regard Him as Perfect. However, the above argument states exactly the opposite, that is, God, precisely because of being infinitely perfect, would commit an imperfection (??).This is completely contradictory and illogical!

​

One of the most basic principles of logic, the "Law of non-contradiction" says that something can not "be" and "not to be" at the same time. Therefore, God could not "forgive infinitely" and at the same time "condemn eternally".

​

Jesus himself has left us the teaching that we should forgive not only seven times, but "seventy times seven", that is, infinitely. Now, if we, imperfect beings, need to forgive infinitely, how could we suppose that God Himself would not be capable of this? In this case we would be more perfect than God Himself? Obviously it does not make sense.

​

In this way, we see how this argument is completely inconsistent and easily refuted by logic.

 

"If, through reincarnation, people are constantly evolving, becoming morally better, should not the world be also improving, becoming morally better?"

​

The proponent of this analysis demonstrates a basic ignorance about Reincarnation: Spirits, after reaching a certain level of evolution, no longer reincarnate in this Planet, beginning to evolve in other more advanced planes, while other spirits in less evolution are, in turn, only initiating their journey on the Planet.

 

In this way the Earth can be compared to a large school, where some graduate and go to higher level schools, and others are just at the beginning of the path. This explains the existence on Earth of spirits still in lower stages of evolution.

 

On the other hand, we affirm that the world is indeed evolving! But human evolution, as well as the evolution of nature, is an extremely slow process and, in order to prove it, we need a much larger scope.

 

Let us pause to think how the world was only two thousand years ago, in the time of Jesus. At that time it could be considered absolutely normal to witness people being crucified or killed by stoning for commonplace motives. There was no system of Laws and Justice was made by the strongest: "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

 

We do not need to go back so long in history to find the sad period of slavery, where it was believed that blacks and Indians did not even possessed a soul! Not to mention that women in the past had virtually no rights whatsoever.

 

In the Middle Ages, anyone who disagreed with the theses of the Church would be considered a Heretic and burned at the stake! Thus, saying that there has not been a moral evolution is a total untruth. In my opinion it is a very simplistic and frivolous analysis.

 

Obviously, the world is not yet the "Paradise" with which we all dream of, and there is still much to be improved. But science proves that the planet Earth is about 4 billion years old and the earliest fossils ever found of humans date back to about 3 million years. So, any coherent analysis of human evolution on Earth needs to span a much longer period than just a few decades or centuries.

 

In conclusion, we can see that there is a gradual evolution of the human race,, both morally and intellectually, but as we have already commented, the Earth is a great spiritual school, in which, while some spirits enter it in lower stages of evolution, others, in more advanced evolutionary stages, no longer need reincarnating in it, following their infinite path in higher spiritual planes.

​

 

"If, according to the Doctrine of Reincarnation, people, after reaching a higher evolutionary level, cease to reincarnate on Earth, the world population would be diminishing rather than increasing"

​

​

Many critics of Reincarnation demonstrate, through the very arguments they use to criticize it, their basic lack of knowledge about the subject. This argument is an example of this ignorance, because it starts from an erroneous assumption: That God created the spirits in a certain time and then stopped to create them. Certainly, if this were so, as each spirit would reach perfection, it would no longer need to reincarnate and, consequently, the population on Planet Earth would decrease.

 

However, those who commit themselves to study the Doctrine of Reincarnation more thoroughly, before simply criticizing it, will find, through the Spiritist Doctrine, in answer to question 80 of the "Book of Spirits", the information that the creation of Spirits is permanent. Therefore, this information itself "dismantles" the logic of the argument and explains why the world population "is not diminishing."

 

Now, if the creation of spirits is continuous, there will always be new spirits beginning their evolutionary journey on Earth, while others, in higher stages, will no longer need reincarnation, just as in a school where, at the same time that new students enter it at the basic level, others are graduating, going to higher level schools.

​

Just as in a school, where the number of students never decreases because of the new students who enter it, the same occurs with Planet Earth. So, this argument used as an attempt to refute Reincarnation is completely inconsistent.

​

​

 "If the human soul reincarnates to pay for the mistakes committed in a previous life, one should consider life as a punishment, not a good in itself"

​

It is interesting to observe that this affirmation was made by someone who defends the thesis of the original sin, that is, that we were already born in sin, paying for the mistakes made by Adam and Eve. Now, in this case, if this affirmation was valid for Reincarnation, then it would also be valid for the original Sin thesis: Life would be only a punishment, and nothing else!

​

And yet, in the theory of "Original Sin", we could add the aggravating fact that we would be paying for something we did not do! Something totally contradictory to the most basic concept of Justice, that is "giving to each one according to his merits".

​

In Reincarnation this incoherence does not occur, because we receive only what we deserve, according to what we have done in previous lives (Law of cause and effect).

 

On the other hand, seeing life only as a "punishment" demonstrates a very narrow point of view. Following this line of reasoning, we could say that, when repeating a year, a student would be only "being punished" when, in reality, the repeating is receiving a new opportunity to acquire the knowledge that the student failed to acquire at an earlier stage.

​

In this way, Reincarnation also represents a new opportunity, demonstrating not only the infinite Justice of the Divine Laws, which never allows anyone to pay without deserving, as the infinite Divine mercy, which grants as many chances as necessary for the spirits to reach their evolution.

​

"If reincarnation were true, birth would be an evil, for it would mean falling into a state of punishment, and every birth should cause us sadness"

​

To better understand the illogicity of this statement, we will use again the analogy of a school: "If a student fails and needs to repeat the school year, this would be an evil, for it would mean falling into a state of punishment, and this should cause him sadness "(?).

​

There is really no consistency in saying that receiving a new opportunity would be "an evil" or even a "cause of sadness." Quite the contrary: Receiving a new opportunity is always a blessing, a cause of joy and renewal!

​

The real cause of sadness would be if there was no Reincarnation because:

​

1. We would be born already "in sin," suffering for something we would not deserve

 

2. After life, on a supposed "Judgment Day", if we were "convicted", we would receive an "eternal Punishment", without any new chance of a new beginning

​

In both hypotheses, God would be showing imperfections: In the first one, He would be unfair by causing someone to pay for the error of another person (original sin) and, in the second one, He would not be practicing forgiveness, condemning someone to eternal punishment.

 

Through Reincarnation, God has an infinite Justice, for He will never make anyone pay for something that he has not done, as well as an infinite Mercy, for He will never condemn anyone to an eternal punishment, granting everyone infinite chances of redemption.

 

 

The Bible says that men should die only once: “Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Hebrews 9:27), Therefore Reincarnation does not exist

​

​

Before analyzing this Biblical passage, we need to remember about the risks of interpreting the Bible literally without rigorous logical analysis. If we are to interpret it  "literally", then we can say that it contradicts other passages of the Bible itself.

​

For example, the biblical passage that speaks of the "resurrection of Lazarus." If Lazarus had already died and was resurrected, he returned to live, and one day died again. So, in this case, he died "twice", which comes in clear contradiction to the statement that the man "can die only once." In fact, there are other cases in the Bible of people who have been resurrected:

​

• The widow's son, resurrected by the prophet Elijah “The Lord heard Elijah’s cry, and the boy’s life returned to him, and he lived.. (I Kings 17:22)

• The widow’s son from the city of Nain, resurrected by Jesus:  “Then he went up and touched the bier they were carrying him on, and the bearers stood still. He said, “Young man, I say to you, get up!”  The dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother. “(Luke 7: 11-15)

•  Jairus’ daughter, resurrected by Jesus: “They laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. But he took her by the hand and said, “My child, get up!”  Her spirit returned, and at once she stood up. Then Jesus told them to give her something to eat.” (Luke 8: 53-55)

•  The disciple Tabitha / Dorcas, resurrected by Peter: Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, “Tabitha, get up.” She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. He took her by the hand and helped her to her feet. Then he called for the believers, especially the widows, and presented her to them alive. (Atos 9: 36-41)

 

All the above people, according to the Bible, have died twice!  How then to explain this clear contradiction with the passage in Hebrews 9:27, which states that a person can die only once?

 

Truly, everybody dies only once (physical body), but the spirit survives the death of the body and never dies! In a future reincarnation, the spirit will use another body and one day this body will also die (only once). This is the most consistent interpretation.

​

The use of this biblical passage as "argument" demonstrates how the critics of Reincarnation lack solid arguments and rush to collect any passage that apparently invalidates it without, however, subjecting it to reason and logical thinking.

​

​

"Believing in Reincarnation makes people get too comfortable since, knowing that they will have innumerable opportunities for rebirth, causes them to postpone their spiritual enhancement to a future life"

​

This argument is based on the assumption that those who believe in the existence of only one life and a "Judgment Day" will be more concerned with their spiritual enhancement because of the "fear" of eternal damnation while those who believe in reincarnation will “get too comfortable” because they know they will have new opportunities.

 

However, if we follow this line of reasoning, we could also say that those who believe in the existence of only one life and follow the traditional Christian Doctrines could also get too comfortable because, according to such doctrines, it would be possible to "escape" from an eternal condemnation, simply "repenting" before death.

 

In this way, people could postpone their spiritual enhancement until the end of their lives, because they would know that, however bad their actions were in life, they would always have the possibility of attaining "eternal blessedness" by repenting at the last minute.

 

In this case, moreover, there would be a situation of "impunity", that is, the possibility of not responding to the bad acts practiced in life. In the case of reincarnation, this possibility never occurs because those who believe in it know that they will never stop paying for the mistakes made in a life, even if they repent.

 

Comparing once more life to a large school, which students would be more likely to "get too comfortable": Those who knew that at the end of the school year, if they did not get the approval, they would have to repeat the year as many times as needed until they were approved; or those who knew that, at the end of the school year, it would be enough to regret not having studied and they would be automatically "approved" without any effort?

 

Certainly, this second group of students would be more likely to get too comfortable, since they would know that there would be a possibility of "impunity" to their lack of effort, unlike the first group of students who would be aware that, until they fail to reach the level of knowledge necessary for their approval, they would have to repeat the year, as many times as necessary.

 

We conclude that believing in reincarnation alone does not make a person get too comfortable. The desire for spiritual improvement is something inherent in each one, regardless of belief, so we can find, within any religion, people who dedicate themselves to spiritual improvement and others who postpone it. So this argument has no logical consistency.