O now you want to have an actual conversation like adults? Well I would go over this topic with you specifically unfortunately you sound like you've learned everything there is to know and you are not open to changing your perspective in any way so I will leave you to your perfect understanding and mystery free existence.
Well, as far as the internet goes, this is the best you're gonna get for adult conversation. I'll engage you in good faith, avoid using logical fallacies in my arguments, and try to honestly consider the points you bring up. Please understand what I'm saying next is presented in good faith, I'm not trying to insult you or make fun of you, but help you understand why you're not getting the engagement you seem to want.
You have yet to make any argument. You said something about flowers not only opening when people walk by, and existence not ending when you get a car. I do agree with both those statements. You then seemingly try to connect these obvious facts with the proposition that after we die, just like after we get a car, we continue to exist. But, since you've made no argument, all this is is a statement that you believe this is true. We know (vaguely) that you believe in some kind of reincarnation or afterlife or something, so you don't need to prove that. We are all convinced that you really believe that.
What's missing is a logical connection from the true thing to the theoretical thing. We emerge from the womb, yes, we buy cars, well enough people do, true enough. We all die, I agree. Then you say it "doesn't stop" when you die. If I'm reading your paragraph correctly you mean existence by this. So that's a proposition, existence continues after you die, which is what this thread is about. But you've neglected to put in any supporting evidence, or even any real explanation of why you think that, besides the extremely vague stuff about flowers and such..
For example, take my argument regarding destroying a computer while it's running a program. Obviously it doesn't disprove reincarnation, but it attempts to make a connection between "consciousness" or "existence" and "A computer program running". Then, I illustrate that when the physical hardware of a computer is destroyed, most people consider the running program to no longer be running, essentially, to no longer exist. I am proposing that consciousness and/or existence happening in our brains are analogous to a computer program happening in the computer hardware.
This gives you something to possibly understand my position and reasoning, and also gives you a direct path to counter my assertion. Maybe you don't think computer hardware and a brain are analogous, or you don't think conscious existence is in any way similar to a computer program. These are certainly valid positions to take, although if you don't have evidence, or a thought experiment (like my dumb thing about computers), it's unlikely you're going to do more than inform me of what you believe.
Or, hell, maybe we just see certain things from a different perspective, and we're not going to agree in the end. At least we'll understand better why the other party thinks what they do. There's no losing here, ideally we just both move closer to the truth. Even if we don't convince each other, maybe one or two things about our viewpoints give the other something to think about.
Now, this being a shitposting forum with few rules, mixed in with this debate will be personal insults, random shitposts, and insane rants barely connected to the topic. That's something you just have to learn to work around if you're gonna discuss things on the interwebs.
