Please prove that souls exist and that they are either resurrected or reincarnated

[Compassionist]

Most religions claim that souls exist. Some religions claim that souls are immortal and are reincarnated after the death of the body while other religions claim that souls are immortal and are resurrected after the death of the body. Can anyone please prove that souls exist and are either resurrected or reincarnated? Thank you.

[boatsnguitars]

What's interesting to me is that it appears that we are very close to discovering the exact mechanisms that cause consciousness. It's been in question for hundreds of years (after modern science started to take a stab at the problem, instead of religion), and so it seems obvious to me that the musings of ancient, ignorant men who imagined conversations with God would be dropped in favor of actual data.

More and more, almost exponentially, the Gaps theists have jammed their gods into are becoming - not only increasingly small - but increasingly rare. The apparent gameplan of modern theists is to simply reject science and pretend the last 50 years hasn't happened. It has become obvious to me - and I'd be interested if nyone would like to argue the opposite - that most religion is now actively anti-science, and pro-ignorance (except for learning their religious worldview).

It's been very common for religion to claim that it depends on which worldview you adhere to, on whether you are primed to believe in God or not, or the claims of their religious texts. This creates the perfect subjective or relativistic world in which you simply pick your religion, therefore your reality.

Don't believe me?

https://prophecytoday.uk/comment/church ... truth.html

Christian Apologetics Part 3
Christians hold to objective truth, that if something is true for one person it is true for everyone, whether they agree with it or not. At one time this was simply called ‘truth’. Unfortunately, it is true that we live in a post-truth culture. The world around us increasingly prefers the concept of subjective truth, or truth based on the perception of the individual.

Dangerous waters
We often call this ‘relative truth’ and those who hold it ‘relativists’. When this is confined to matters of taste, for example, ‘Ian McKellen is a great Shakespearean actor’, then it is merely the profession of a personal preference. However, when subjective truth enters matters of morality we move into dangerous waters.

Suddenly, despite the experience of millennia, subjective truth has ousted objective truth as our touchstone of morality and is an open door to much of the moral chaos swirling around us today.

‘That may be true for you, but it’s certainly not for me’, is typical of the reactions Christians receive when we interact with non-believers on matters of morality. Another common reply is, ‘Don’t impose your morality on me’.

He tries to say, "Hey, we only want the truth! All those other people don't!"

Then he finishes:

There are a myriad examples of absolute truth. In a decimal system of counting, 3 x 4 = 12, and always equals 12 – yesterday, today and tomorrow, in Scotland or Kazakhstan, it doesn’t vary no matter who holds it or where. This may seem a trivial example but it is important. How many of us would wish to fly in an aeroplane designed by someone who didn’t hold that there were absolute truths?

Discussing this and showing the importance of absolute truth can lead us into pointing to the one ultimate truth: he who is ‘the way, and the truth and the life’ (John 14:6) and to the fact that we can find him in the Bible, which is the truth (John 17:14).

A Muslim would just insert a Koran verse, a Mormon theirs, etc.

[The Tanager]

Premise 1: If AI can read our thoughts and emotions via MRI's and other brain scans, then consciousness must have a physical basis.

Premise 2: AI can read our thoughts and emotions via MRI's and other brain scans.

Conclusion: Therefore, consciousness must have a physical basis.

The argument is based on the assumption that if AI can detect and interpret the patterns of neural activity in the brain that correspond to thoughts and emotions, then those patterns must have a physical basis. This is because the technology used to detect these patterns is based on physical principles and relies on physical measurements, such as changes in blood flow, electrical signals, or magnetic fields. Therefore, if consciousness can be detected and interpreted in this way, it must have a physical basis.

But why not:

P1’: If AI can read our thoughts and emotions via MRI’s and other brain scans, then consciousness within physical beings will have a physical footprint?

Why does this show a physical basis or cause versus just a physical element to consciousness within a physical body?

This isn’t a God of the gaps. This isn’t rejecting science. This isn’t being anti-science.

[Clownboat]

Why does this show a physical basis or cause versus just a physical element to consciousness within a physical body?

It suggest that consciousness is a physical product of a working mind. What it doesn't suggest is that consciousness exist external from a working mind.

That idea is nothing more than a religious need as there must be an invisible you to make promises and threats against in order to gain and keep followers. Could you imagine threatening people with a heaven or hell concept here on earth? People would start to notice that they are not real places. The threats (and promises) and soul are undetectable due to not being real it would seem to me.

If there is another desire for needing consciousness to be external from the real you, I'm not aware of it.

[The Tanager]

Why does this show a physical basis or cause versus just a physical element to consciousness within a physical body?

It suggest that consciousness is a physical product of a working mind. What it doesn't suggest is that consciousness exist external from a working mind.

That idea is nothing more than a religious need as there must be an invisible you to make promises and threats against in order to gain and keep followers. Could you imagine threatening people with a heaven or hell concept here on earth? People would start to notice that they are not real places. The threats (and promises) and soul are undetectable due to not being real it would seem to me.

If there is another desire for needing consciousness to be external from the real you, I'm not aware of it.

I didn't say it suggested consciousness exists eternal from a working mind. What you say it suggests is simply a claim with no support. What logic gets you there?

As to the broader purpose of this thread, I offered lines of argument for the existence of the soul, if you care to respond to those.

[Clownboat]

I didn't say it suggested consciousness exists eternal from a working mind.

Obviously you didn't, as that would go against all the evidence. That is my point.

What you say it suggests is simply a claim with no support. What logic gets you there?

I'm glad you asked! Human consciousness can be altered in a number of different ways, including through hypnosis, with drugs, and mental exercises.
Affecting the mind affects consciousness which suggest that consciousness is a part of a working mind/brain.

As to the broader purpose of this thread, I offered lines of argument for the existence of the soul, if you care to respond to those.

What! There's evidence for a soul?

Why did you fail to address the point about how religions must have this idea of a soul to punish or to reward after a person ceses to exist on this planet? Again, could you imagine threatening people with a heaven or hell concept here on earth? People would start to notice that they are not real places.

Therefore, a soul concept was invented to level the threats and promises against. It is not an option for Christianity for there not to be a soul as the threats and promises must remain undetectable and a soul concept allows this.

[boatsnguitars]

Premise 1: If AI can read our thoughts and emotions via MRI's and other brain scans, then consciousness must have a physical basis.

Premise 2: AI can read our thoughts and emotions via MRI's and other brain scans.

Conclusion: Therefore, consciousness must have a physical basis.

The argument is based on the assumption that if AI can detect and interpret the patterns of neural activity in the brain that correspond to thoughts and emotions, then those patterns must have a physical basis. This is because the technology used to detect these patterns is based on physical principles and relies on physical measurements, such as changes in blood flow, electrical signals, or magnetic fields. Therefore, if consciousness can be detected and interpreted in this way, it must have a physical basis.

But why not:

P1’: If AI can read our thoughts and emotions via MRI’s and other brain scans, then consciousness within physical beings will have a physical footprint?

Why does this show a physical basis or cause versus just a physical element to consciousness within a physical body?

This isn’t a God of the gaps. This isn’t rejecting science. This isn’t being anti-science.

It's God of the Gaps. The problem with this "brain = radio, consciousness = radio signal" style argument is that we can't find the consciousness of anyone floating around anywhere else.

Worse, dualists have proposed no mechanism for how their non-material "soul" (or consciousness) can even interact with anything material. It's like the problem with a ghost: how is a ghost supposed to move something? They simply claim "magic".

The problem with dualism is that it posits the existence of two distinct types of entities: the material and the non-material. While it is easy to see how material entities can interact with other material entities, it is not clear how a non-material entity can interact with a material one. As philosopher John Searle puts it, "dualism faces what is sometimes called the 'interaction problem': how can a mental event cause a physical event and vice versa?"

David Chalmers sez "the interaction between mental and physical events is perhaps the deepest problem facing the dualist". He notes that if mental events are entirely separate from physical events, then it is difficult to explain how they can interact with each other.

Propose a mechanism - not a gap - and we can talk. Remember, you are proposing that some non-material "thing" (consciousness) can interact with matter (brain) and become detectable by it's affect on the brain - but has no other method for being detected AT ALL! That's a massive problem.

[The Tanager]

Obviously you didn't, as that would go against all the evidence. That is my point.

I don’t see how that evidence addressed this issue one way or the other, but if you want to support this claim of yours, go ahead so we can analyze it.

I'm glad you asked! Human consciousness can be altered in a number of different ways, including through hypnosis, with drugs, and mental exercises.
Affecting the mind affects consciousness which suggest that consciousness is a part of a working mind/brain.

It definitely suggests that consciousness of a material being can be affected by physical elements. But I’m asking you why you think it suggests consciousness is a physical product of minds.

What! There's evidence for a soul?

Yes, so feel free to respond to my arguments.

Why did you fail to address the point about how religions must have this idea of a soul to punish or to reward after a person ceses to exist on this planet? Again, could you imagine threatening people with a heaven or hell concept here on earth? People would start to notice that they are not real places.

Therefore, a soul concept was invented to level the threats and promises against. It is not an option for Christianity for there not to be a soul as the threats and promises must remain undetectable and a soul concept allows this.

I did address this by saying there was a different line of reasoning towards the existence of the soul. That people could or have believed in the soul because of its usefulness to the religion is not rational support for believing the concept is invented, especially in light of the arguments I've offered being offered.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #76]

Remember that you are trying to support your argument being sound. In this last post you just critiqued other things. Why does AI being able to read our thoughts and emotions via MRI’s and other brain scans support consciousness is caused by the physical rather than simply consciousness within physical beings having a physical footprint?

But we can talk about those other things, too.

It's God of the Gaps. The problem with this "brain = radio, consciousness = radio signal" style argument is that we can't find the consciousness of anyone floating around anywhere else.

It would be God of the gaps if I said since your argument fails, God exists as the explanation, but I haven’t said that anywhere. It’s not in my critique of your argument, nor is it in my arguments for the existence of the soul.

Worse, dualists have proposed no mechanism for how their non-material "soul" (or consciousness) can even interact with anything material. It's like the problem with a ghost: how is a ghost supposed to move something? They simply claim "magic".

The problem with dualism is that it posits the existence of two distinct types of entities: the material and the non-material. While it is easy to see how material entities can interact with other material entities, it is not clear how a non-material entity can interact with a material one. As philosopher John Searle puts it, "dualism faces what is sometimes called the 'interaction problem': how can a mental event cause a physical event and vice versa?"

David Chalmers sez "the interaction between mental and physical events is perhaps the deepest problem facing the dualist". He notes that if mental events are entirely separate from physical events, then it is difficult to explain how they can interact with each other.

Propose a mechanism - not a gap - and we can talk. Remember, you are proposing that some non-material "thing" (consciousness) can interact with matter (brain) and become detectable by it's affect on the brain - but has no other method for being detected AT ALL! That's a massive problem.

How the interaction takes place is a different issue. How vitamins work is different from that vitamins exist and work. You don’t have to know how to know that. Yes, it is an interesting and important issue, but a different one from this discussion that doesn't affect the truth of this one.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
I did address this by saying there was a different line of reasoning towards the existence of the soul. That people could or have believed in the soul because of its usefulness to the religion is not rational support for believing the concept is invented, especially in light of the arguments I've offered.

If a god can invent a man, can't a man invent a religion?

[The Tanager]

If a god can invent a man, can't a man invent a religion?

Absolutely. But just because man can invent a religion, it doesn't follow that all are invented.