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]

[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.

Vitamins are material acting on material. at leas the mechanism exists.

Again, provide an explanation on how something non-material acts on the material. You are proposing the existence of two diametric things. They are completely different form each other, and you can't even say if material things can have an affect on these non-material things.

It's a huge problem, and you haven' even begun to solve it - except, you've simply proposed "God exists as the explanation", then you mentioned the gap in your knowlege about vitamins.

That's a God of the Gaps. Just admit it and move on.

[The Tanager]

Vitamins are material acting on material. at leas the mechanism exists.

Again, provide an explanation on how something non-material acts on the material. You are proposing the existence of two diametric things. They are completely different form each other, and you can't even say if material things can have an affect on these non-material things.

It's a huge problem, and you haven' even begun to solve it - except, you've simply proposed "God exists as the explanation", then you mentioned the gap in your knowlege about vitamins.

That's a God of the Gaps. Just admit it and move on.

That’s irrelevant. Even if we didn’t know the material mechanism, this wouldn’t mean we couldn’t know that vitamins exist and have effects. In the same way, not answering what immaterial mechanism would allow the immaterial to interact with the material is irrelevant to whether the immaterial exists and can have effects.

And I have not put God in that gap. I haven’t said God is the mechanism that would directly cause this interaction. Not once. I don’t think the mechanism would be God directly doing it. It doesn’t even make sense to me to say there is a “mechanism” within the immaterial soul that allows the interaction because the immaterial isn’t made up of parts; that’s a feature of material things. I’m not going to fault immaterial things for not being material-like; that’s just silly. So, this isn’t a huge problem at all if one is using logic rigorously because this critique does nothing to cast doubt on the existence of the soul.

What is becoming a problem for one claiming to use logic rigorously to establish their claim is that you have turned to critiques of other arguments rather than support your own. 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?

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

Of course.

Their religion is made up, mine ain't.

[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.

Of course.

Their religion is made up, mine ain't.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Each case must be taken on its own merit, if one wants to be rational.

[boatsnguitars]

Vitamins are material acting on material. at leas the mechanism exists.

Again, provide an explanation on how something non-material acts on the material. You are proposing the existence of two diametric things. They are completely different form each other, and you can't even say if material things can have an affect on these non-material things.

It's a huge problem, and you haven' even begun to solve it - except, you've simply proposed "God exists as the explanation", then you mentioned the gap in your knowlege about vitamins.

That's a God of the Gaps. Just admit it and move on.

That’s irrelevant. Even if we didn’t know the material mechanism, this wouldn’t mean we couldn’t know that vitamins exist and have effects. In the same way, not answering what immaterial mechanism would allow the immaterial to interact with the material is irrelevant to whether the immaterial exists and can have effects.

And I have not put God in that gap. I haven’t said God is the mechanism that would directly cause this interaction. Not once. I don’t think the mechanism would be God directly doing it. It doesn’t even make sense to me to say there is a “mechanism” within the immaterial soul that allows the interaction because the immaterial isn’t made up of parts; that’s a feature of material things. I’m not going to fault immaterial things for not being material-like; that’s just silly. So, this isn’t a huge problem at all if one is using logic rigorously because this critique does nothing to cast doubt on the existence of the soul.

What is becoming a problem for one claiming to use logic rigorously to establish their claim is that you have turned to critiques of other arguments rather than support your own. 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?

No, not only have you not given any basic description of the "non-material", it's worse - and you haven't addressed this.

You are claiming it's completely different from the Material, yet it interacts. You are claiming it shares no properties with the material, yet, you claim it affects the material.

We'd see some evidence of it reacting to the material world, in some way. It would like evidence. A mark, or something - presumably, except you and other dualist claim, "no, there is no detectable effect whatsoever, other than what we claim is the effect - which leaves no trace."

It's downright absurd.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

Of course.

Their religion is made up, mine ain't.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Each case must be taken on its own merit, if one wants to be rational.

If one wants to be rational, religion ain't on the path to it.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #82]

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?

A logical look at the evidence provided by brain research points to consiciousness having a physical basis (ie. it is an emergent property of a working brain). AI has not provided any revolutionary advancements in the interpretation of "brain waves", EEGs, studies on how memory works, etc. This kind of work has been going on for over a century since brain waves were first discovered in non-human animals in 1875, and in humans in 1925.

New technigues have continuously been developed (eg. MRI, fMRI) that provide additional methods of measurement, but apart from the results and interpretations of measurements there is the consistent observation of a very strong correlation between having a brain and posessing consciousness. Merriam-Webster define consciousness as:

Consciousness
noun
1a: the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
1b: the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
1c: awareness
2: the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind
3: the totality of conscious states of an individual
4: the normal state of conscious life
5: the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

Only #5 refers "person" which presumably refers to a human, but the others all apply to every animal from worms to humans that have a functional brain except for possibly emotion and volition in #2 (do worms fight because they get "mad"?). In every one of these animals the brain can be damaged in some way and this impairs ability regarding items 1-5 above in proportion to the level of damage. No brain, no consciousness. I know correlation does not prove causation, but I've never heard of any viable mechanism whereby consciousness can be produced without a brain producing it. Speculation of a divine source for consciousness it outside of science, but there seems to be no need for such an explanation. Progress is made regularly on better understanding how the brain works and my guess is that consciousness will eventually be another gap closed for divine interaction.

[The Tanager]

No, not only have you not given any basic description of the "non-material", it's worse - and you haven't addressed this.

You are claiming it's completely different from the Material, yet it interacts. You are claiming it shares no properties with the material, yet, you claim it affects the material.

We'd see some evidence of it reacting to the material world, in some way. It would like evidence. A mark, or something - presumably, except you and other dualist claim, "no, there is no detectable effect whatsoever, other than what we claim is the effect - which leaves no trace."

It's downright absurd.

I absolutely addressed the evidence/arguments for the existence of the soul. It’s right there in post 52 for all to see and critique. I made a claim and supported it. If you respond to it, I will either rescind it (if I agree with your critique) or respond back (if I disagree with your critique).

You’ve made a claim. You began to support it. I’ve critiqued it. You have stopped responding in support of your claim. I’ll ask again: Why does AI being able to read our thoughts and emotions via MRI’s and other brain scans support consciousness being caused by the physical rather than simply consciousness within physical beings having a physical footprint? Do you have anything rational to say in response to this?

[The Tanager]

A logical look at the evidence provided by brain research points to consiciousness having a physical basis (ie. it is an emergent property of a working brain). AI has not provided any revolutionary advancements in the interpretation of "brain waves", EEGs, studies on how memory works, etc. This kind of work has been going on for over a century since brain waves were first discovered in non-human animals in 1875, and in humans in 1925.

New technigues have continuously been developed (eg. MRI, fMRI) that provide additional methods of measurement, but apart from the results and interpretations of measurements there is the consistent observation of a very strong correlation between having a brain and posessing consciousness.

These are claims, not support. Give support if you want to be taken seriously. All scientific study has studied (and only can, by the very definition of science) in this area involves material things that have consciousness. No matter how vast our scientific knowledge of this area grows it can never touch the issue of whether consciousness requires matter or not. It simply shows us correlations between brain and consciousness in things with brains.

I know correlation does not prove causation, but I've never heard of any viable mechanism whereby consciousness can be produced without a brain producing it.

If you know correlation doesn’t prove causation, then why are you stating that a logical look at the evidence of brain research points to consciousness having a physical basis? All you’ve shown there is that there is correlation, yet you are claiming causation. Yet you admit one doesn’t give us the other.

Only #5 refers "person" which presumably refers to a human, but the others all apply to every animal from worms to humans that have a functional brain except for possibly emotion and volition in #2 (do worms fight because they get "mad"?). In every one of these animals the brain can be damaged in some way and this impairs ability regarding items 1-5 above in proportion to the level of damage. No brain, no consciousness.

I addressed this in post 52. Here is the most pertinent excerpt of that: “(1) If you were to destroy 70 percent of the computer you are using to read this, you wouldn’t have a whole computer. You would have 30 percent of your computer. If I had my legs and arms amputated, I’d no longer have a whole body; it’d be like 60 percent or whatever. People who have had parts of their brain removed, don’t have a similar part of their “personhood” removed. Take Dandy-Walker syndrome, for instance. People with that have 10 percent of a brain, but are said to be 60 to 70 percent functional. There isn’t two-thirds of a person or a consciousness there. That person is still wholly there. The functioning of the person is limited, but they still have their consciousness that can undergo various states. If I’m either fully present or not, but my body and brain are divisible, then I can’t be my brain or body.”

Speculation of a divine source for consciousness it outside of science, but there seems to be no need for such an explanation. Progress is made regularly on better understanding how the brain works and my guess is that consciousness will eventually be another gap closed for divine interaction.

I didn’t say “there’s no scientific explanation, therefore God.” I didn’t even speculate about the source of consciousness.

The thing of it is, you are actually guilty of a faith-based Science of the Gaps argument here. We don’t have 100% certainty on consciousness, so science will eventually fill that gap. What’s worse is that the question you have faith science will answer is, by definition, not scientific but philosophical, so it logically cannot answer it.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #89]

These are claims, not support. Give support if you want to be taken seriously.

The last century of scientific inquiry into how the brain works, and consciousness, are not simply unsupported claims. Scientific results are published in the open literature for anyone to read, interpret, challenge, etc. The supporting evidence and arguments presented in these many thousands of papers are outlined in them in detail (ie. support). As for the very strong correlation between consciousness and brains, this is a direct observation that is easy to make (ie. support).

No matter how vast our scientific knowledge of this area grows it can never touch the issue of whether consciousness requires matter or not.

Sure it can. All we have to do is show that without a working brain, consciousness cannot exist. At some point the correlation becomes so strong that is cannot be refuted. We're not there yet of course, but you are claiming (without support I'd point out) that we'll never get there.

If you know correlation doesn’t prove causation, then why are you stating that a logical look at the evidence of brain research points to consciousness having a physical basis? All you’ve shown there is that there is correlation, yet you are claiming causation. Yet you admit one doesn’t give us the other.

You're inferring more than I actually said. The actual reason I made the "correlation isn't causation" statement is because this is what inevitably comes back when the strong correlation between consciousness and brain function is presented. So I was heading it off at the pass. But I did not claim causation ... I merely pointed out that there is a strong correlation. However, I do believe that the observations of such strong correlation suggest that the most likely explanation for consciousness is as an emergent property of a working brain. It certainly cannot be ruled out with philosophical arguments.

I addressed this in post 52. Here is the most pertinent excerpt of that: “(1) If you were to destroy 70 percent of the computer you are using to read this, you wouldn’t have a whole computer. You would have 30 percent of your computer. If I had my legs and arms amputated, I’d no longer have a whole body; it’d be like 60 percent or whatever. People who have had parts of their brain removed, don’t have a similar part of their “personhood” removed. Take Dandy-Walker syndrome, for instance. People with that have 10 percent of a brain, but are said to be 60 to 70 percent functional. There isn’t two-thirds of a person or a consciousness there. That person is still wholly there. The functioning of the person is limited, but they still have their consciousness that can undergo various states. If I’m either fully present or not, but my body and brain are divisible, then I can’t be my brain or body.”

This is not a good argument. A worm and a human are both conscious animals, but the brain of a worm is orders of magnitude less capable (and physically far smaller) than a human brain. Arguing that the worm is "less conscious" than a human does not follow from the definition of consciousness (and many people fold intelligence into their definition of consciousness ... especially when humans are part of the discussion). So a worm, with 1/Nth the brain capacity of a human (N being some big number) is still a conscious animal. No one would argue, I don't think, that a human who has lost 90% of their brain capacity is no longer conscious, even if they may be far less capable and still be sentient. If they are aware of their existence they are conscious, but if they lose 100% of their brain activity then they are not conscious (no brain, no consciousness).

I didn’t say “there’s no scientific explanation, therefore God.” I didn’t even speculate about the source of consciousness.

Then I can turn your starting comment back and ask what support you have to claim that consciousness is NOT an emergent property of a working brain. I also didn't say "God" ... I used the word divine (maybe I should have used supernatural, or nonnatural, or ???). But the point is that any nonmaterial source for consciousness has yet to be demonstrated ... only claimed with no support.

The thing of it is, you are actually guilty of a faith-based Science of the Gaps argument here. We don’t have 100% certainty on consciousness, so science will eventually fill that gap. What’s worse is that the question you have faith science will answer is, by definition, not scientific but philosophical, so it logically cannot answer it.

But at least I have a basis for believing science will ultimately solve the problem ... centuries and even millennia of it doing exactly that for a whole host of problems. Claiming that consciousness is philisophical and its solution not within the realm of science is supported ... by what? It is an entirely unsupported claim.