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.

[William]

My responses are logically linked to the philosophical hypothesis assertion that the Earth can be considered conscious/intelligent. The materialist-based characterization of these arguments as non sequiturs likely stem from the disagreement with the premises rather than a true disconnect in my reasoning

[Clownboat]

My responses are logically linked to the philosophical hypothesis assertion that the Earth can be considered conscious/intelligent. The materialist-based characterization of these arguments as non sequiturs likely stem from the disagreement with the premises rather than a true disconnect in my reasoning

You claimed to have evidence for a conscious earth when you didn't. At least in this post you are being honest about it being a philosophical hypothesis that you are presenting.

Do you still claim that the whole planet is an intelligent organism? I'm open to being shown evidence to suggest that this claim is true if you have any.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #502]

You claimed to have evidence for a conscious earth when you didn't.

I never caimed that the evidence was anything other than philosophical and pointed out that the belief that brains create consciousness is also a philosophical claim and that both claims are the result - not of the evidence - but of how the evidence is interpreted.

At least in this post you are being honest about it being a philosophical hypothesis that you are presenting.

Rather, I am clarifying the reason for the misunderstanding on your part, and being honest about that.
I am being honest about the fact that the materialist viewpoint is also hypothesis, which you appear not to agree with.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #502]

You claimed to have evidence for a conscious earth when you didn't.

I never caimed that the evidence was anything other than philosophical and pointed out that the belief that brains create consciousness is also a philosophical claim and that both claims are the result - not of the evidence - but of how the evidence is interpreted.

At least in this post you are being honest about it being a philosophical hypothesis that you are presenting.

Rather, I am clarifying the reason for the misunderstanding on your part, and being honest about that.
I am being honest about the fact that the materialist viewpoint is also hypothesis, which you appear not to agree with.

There is a huge difference between philosophical evidence and scientific evidence.
This is the Science and Religion forum, not the Philosophy forum.

Thank you for your honest thoughts about the materialist viewpoint being a hypothesis. The honesty if refreshing.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #504]

This is the Science and Religion forum, not the Philosophy forum.

How should that matter, since religion is also philosophy?
Do you think the forum is intended for the purpose of arguing scientific evidence over philosophical evidence?
How does this being the "science and religious forum" mean that my critique can't be accepted and since it is also not the materialist philosophy forum, why should materialist philosophy based upon interpretation of scientific evidence be argued here?

Either the name of the forum should be changed to "Science and Philosophy" (to reflect equity) or we can just accept that only religious philosophy should be allowed here and no other, including materialism, and take our argument to the philosophy forum.

There is a huge difference between philosophical evidence and scientific evidence.

However big the difference, how is that relevant to your original question?

In fairness to my own argument, I maintain that "souls" are the same as "minds" so - even that I am not religious, does this disqualify me from presenting my philosophy as argument on the thread subject?
What does science know about minds anyway, that it can answer the OP question? Perhaps the topic itself should be moved to the philosophical forum?

Or, since it is 51 pages in, we shouldn't concern ourselves with what forum it is in, and just get about answering critique as it arises.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #504]

This is the Science and Religion forum, not the Philosophy forum.

How should that matter, since religion is also philosophy?
Do you think the forum is intended for the purpose of arguing scientific evidence over philosophical evidence?
How does this being the "science and religious forum" mean that my critique can't be accepted and since it is also not the materialist philosophy forum, why should materialist philosophy based upon interpretation of scientific evidence be argued here?

Either the name of the forum should be changed to "Science and Philosophy" (to reflect equity) or we can just accept that only religious philosophy should be allowed here and no other, including materialism, and take our argument to the philosophy forum.

There is a huge difference between philosophical evidence and scientific evidence.

However big the difference, how is that relevant to your original question?

In fairness to my own argument, I maintain that "souls" are the same as "minds" so - even that I am not religious, does this disqualify me from presenting my philosophy as argument on the thread subject?
What does science know about minds anyway, that it can answer the OP question? Perhaps the topic itself should be moved to the philosophical forum?

Or, since it is 51 pages in, we shouldn't concern ourselves with what forum it is in, and just get about answering critique as it arises.

What a huge distraction!
You claimed in a science forum no less, to have evidence for a conscious earth and that the whole planet is an intelligent organism. You do not have such evidence. I do not wish to discuss philosophical arguments about an idea you have imagined no matter the amount of self worth you place on yourself.

Your philosophical points didn't even come close to suggesting that the planet is intelligent and they certainly are not evidence that the earth is conscious. The end.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #506]

I do not wish to discuss philosophical arguments.

Not even Materialist philosophical arguments? Did you not argue that the human brain was the creator of human consciousness? That is a philosophical argument.

If you do not wish to answer my critiques about your own views, that is your propagative, but pretending it is my fault for bringing philosophy into a thread which is asking a question about a philosophical idea, isn't very honest, don't you agree?

[Clownboat]

Not even Materialist philosophical arguments? Did you not argue that the human brain was the creator of human consciousness?

I have noted that consciousness seems to be an emergent property of a working brain.
Do you take issue with this? Anything further you would like to discuss?

If you do not wish to answer my critiques about your own views, that is your propagative,

Oh, you poor victim. What views of mine would you like to critique? Don't be afraid.

but pretending it is my fault for bringing philosophy into a thread which is asking a question about a philosophical idea, isn't very honest, don't you agree?

You are the one being dishonest from the start. I questioned you when you claimed that you had evidence for your position that the earth is conscious and when you claimed that it is an intelligent organism. Don't pretend that your lack of being able to show that you spoke the truth is my issue please.


Perhaps copy and paste this in your next reply: "I'm sorry, I was a bit hasty in claiming that the planet is conscious and an organism as I have no evidence for either position".
Clownboat's response: No harm! Thanks for clarifying.

[LittleNipper]

It has been my experience that at the death of a relative they don't appear to be sleeping nor unconscious. They appear empty or depleted. Something seems to have left the room sort to speak. My mother, father, and mother-in-law have all died and the body really does appear to be nothing more than a shell or husk. Something is gone and I believe that something is their soul.

[Clownboat]

It has been my experience that at the death of a relative they don't appear to be sleeping nor unconscious. They appear empty or depleted. Something seems to have left the room sort to speak. My mother, father, and mother-in-law have all died and the body really does appear to be nothing more than a shell or husk. Something is gone and I believe that something is their soul.

Surely what you notices upon death is what caused humans to imagine a soul concept of sorts in the first place. What you didn't notice, nor are we able to detect is any soul or anything leaving the body in any way shape or form.

You believe that a soul is leaving the body when the brain ceases to function. The only thing that we do know for sure about what has happened is that the brain ceased to function. There is no need for a soul, outside of religious reasoning, but I'm open to this soul idea if there is any evidence for one. Keep in mind that what you believe matters little in debate. What you can show or argue for will go a lot further.

Be well!