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.

[The Tanager]

Again, we have a very different world view. I accept that refraction is a real thing. The light particles are real, the water is real, the straw is real, our vision is real - everything we are talking about is real - except that they're all lies.

I agree. I don’t think color is a lie, sound a lie to a deaf person, rainbows a lie. Nothing I’ve said would commit me to that. A mirage is a real optical phenomenon, yes, but it still gives us a false image. In that way, it is analogical to how a sense of self is a real brain phenomenon, but still gives us a false image of reality. The “you” is a mirage. But, somehow, one that can reflect on itself, can gain truths about the world around it, etc.

Are you saying consciousness is a lie? Are you saying that while you feel that "you are you", it's not really you? Because, again, that makes no sense to me. Where are "you" then? I feel that I am in my body, because brains produce consciousness.

The signals in your brain create a false self that calls itself “I” which has no causal effect on reality.

I really must ask where you got the idea that there was a remote "soul" or consciousness in the first place? Why do you have an impression that you aren't you? Have you been reading pseudoscience from 2000 years ago?

I gave arguments for why I believe in a soul. The impression that “you aren’t you” is from following the philosophy of materialism out logically.

[The Tanager]

You failed to provide any properties of a soul, just a claim that the soul is the seat of consciousness. Surely you understand as to why your claim, without any supporting evidence should not be accepted as factual?

I’m saying consciousness is a property of the soul. I gave arguments in support. Post 52 as another reminder.

I understand as to why you don't make this argument. Sadly, the majority of soul believers do believe in souls for religious reason that stem from where they were born. NOT due to any good reasoning to suggest the need for souls. I'm just pointing this reality out.

Assuming it is the majority, this reality says nothing of value to the issue, so why point it out?

Call it what you want, but it is still the reality we live in on this planet. I fear you claim fallacy so you can stick your head in the sand and not acknowledge this reality though.

No, I am fine with saying that is the reality, although I don’t know for sure that it is the majority reason. It’s irrelevant to the issue, though.

Which argument are you referring to? Are any of them what you would consider to be good arguments for why a soul must exist? Why is there no evidence for a soul nor a way to detect a soul affecting our world if they are real things?

I gave the arguments initially in post 52. I think our consciousness absolutely affects the world. It wouldn’t if materialism were true.

Again, I'm open to the idea of souls. You're just not offering up any convincing evidence that makes souls an explanation for, well... anything to be honest.

Whether it convinces you or not, at least I’m laying out my actual reasoning for my claims and against other people’s claims for people to come to their conclusions.

Furthermore, I fully understand what drives your need/desire for there to be a soul. You can't go to heaven without a soul. I believed in souls for the very same reason you still do. Being set free from my religious beliefs allowed me to acknowledge that souls could be real, but also not real. Prior to this, I was not allowed to not believe in a soul as it was tied into my eternal salvation that I so greatly desired. Is it possible that this is what is driving your argumentation for there being a soul? If you were not religious, do you honestly think that souls being real would still be something you would be arguing for?

I see it a bit like how a flat earther is forced to argue that NASA is in on it. The conclusion (NASA or the soul) is predetermined because of the held belief (the earth is flat or a soul is what goes to heaven), not for being in evidence.

Perhaps. Still, I’ve given arguments so that if this were true, that wouldn’t defeat the arguments. The arguments stand on their own. Instead of pyschologizing on what you think about why I believe, which is irrelevant even if it were true, rationally address the arguments.

[The Tanager]

There is a lot of research in neuroscience that is geared specifically to trying to understand the physical basis for consciousness. It has been going on with that specific goal for many decades, or even centuries. Here are just a couple of recent examples:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6225786/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41377113

https://www.oatext.com/The-physical-bas ... ations.php

As expected, a topic such as this attracts a lot of attention, and it is likely to continue until we figure it out. The progress to date is reason enough to expect a scientific solution ... call if "faith" if you like, but it has a solid basis upon which to place the expectation.

Those articles have philosophical assumptions they work off of; they don’t establish the philosophical position that consciousness has a physical basis. For instance, Greenfield’s paper says in the third paragraph: “Yet, at the same time, consciousness has a physical basis so the only conclusion one can reach…”. These are philosophical conclusions driving their research, rather than the other way round.

It is not a category mistake to say that consciousness as an emergent property of the brain.

No, the category mistake might be that the soul must have a ‘mechanism’ for the interaction other than just the soul. I’m still trying to figure out what you mean by asking for the ‘mechanism’.

Consciousness, like a thought, is not a physical thing made of atoms, but there's no reason to believe this perception and awareness we call consciousness is not created by the brain working as a system. The mental images of dreams are not physical pixels or "movies" existing at any location within the brain ... they result from the brain piecing together "stories" from stored memories and experiences. There's no reason it can't create consciousness in a similar way, despite consciousness itself being "immaterial", like a thought or a dream.

I’m not saying it would actually be physical, I’m saying it would be a false image produced by the reality (the physical stuff) that exists.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #133]

I’m still trying to figure out what you mean by asking for the ‘mechanism’.

By mechanism I'm referring to the collective physical processes that create the perception. For example, we understand the basic mechanism of hearing. The outer ear channels pressure (sound) waves into the ear canal where they reach the eardrum and cause it to vibrate. This is transferred to the ossicles (the tiny so-called hammer, anvil and stirrup bones) which amplify the signal before it travels through the the inner ear to the fluid-filled cochlea. As the fluid moves in the cochlea, 25,000 nerve endings transform the vibrations into electrical impulses that then travel along the eighth cranial nerve (auditory nerve) to the brain. The brain then interprets these signals, and this is how we perceive sound. The part of this overall mechanism we don't fully understand is what goes on inside the auiditory cortex, but we have information on this.

For consciousness, we don't understand the complete mechanism nearly as well as hearing, but my argument is that an analogous physical mechanism exists which is more complex and involves much more of the brain's components, but entirely physical nonetheless. If we keep chipping away at the research, we may uncover more of the mechanisms involved just as we have with other brain functions.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #131]

Again, a mirage isn't a lie. It's what happens. It's light bouncing off something, like the sky, and being bent toward you field of vision.

It doesn't always look like water, which is what you alluded to. You keep thinking a mirage is an image of water, but it's not, it's literally what it is. It's just refraction.

So, again, I think you have a very unscientific view of the world.

Consciousness, like a mirage, is something the brain does. It doesn't need a whole story of God's, angels, devils, living in an undetectable region, but they regularly interact with us, but there's never any physical evidence, etc.

All your "soul, god,etc".. its too much. It's a fantasy. It's a dream, a lie.

[Clownboat]

Perhaps. Still, I’ve given arguments so that if this were true, that wouldn’t defeat the arguments. The arguments stand on their own. Instead of pyschologizing on what you think about why I believe, which is irrelevant even if it were true, rationally address the arguments.

I have yet to see a good argument supplied. If I do, I will likely address it.

Consider this though. If I argued that a microscopic undetectable version of ourselves lives in our brain and is the source of our consciousness, would you consider arguing against such a thing to be giving the idea credit that it doesn't yet deserve?

Is a religious soul idea really more credible then a microscopic undetectable version of ourselves for supplying our consciousness? They each have the same level of evidence after all.

Furthermore, what if a person argued for the microscopic undetectable version of ourselves for no other reason then that they belong to a religion that has teeny tiny god concepts that control where our undetectable versions of ourselves go when our bodies die? Would you seriously disregard and ignore their reasoning for suggesting what they do? Would you seriously ignore the fact that they make their arguments because they are forced to due to the belief they hold in tiny gods? Of course you wouldn't.

A flat earther is forced to believe that NASA is in on it. So when a flat earther argues that NASA is in on it, they make their arguments because they are a flat earther and not because there is evidence for a flat earth or NASA being in on it. Surely motive means something, no?
Is your motive for arguing for a soul any different then a flat earthers for NASA being in on it? You can answer this honestly as it wouldn't make a soul idea false.

[The Tanager]

By mechanism I'm referring to the collective physical processes that create the perception. For example, we understand the basic mechanism of hearing. The outer ear channels pressure (sound) waves into the ear canal where they reach the eardrum and cause it to vibrate. This is transferred to the ossicles (the tiny so-called hammer, anvil and stirrup bones) which amplify the signal before it travels through the the inner ear to the fluid-filled cochlea. As the fluid moves in the cochlea, 25,000 nerve endings transform the vibrations into electrical impulses that then travel along the eighth cranial nerve (auditory nerve) to the brain. The brain then interprets these signals, and this is how we perceive sound. The part of this overall mechanism we don't fully understand is what goes on inside the auiditory cortex, but we have information on this.

For consciousness, we don't understand the complete mechanism nearly as well as hearing, but my argument is that an analogous physical mechanism exists which is more complex and involves much more of the brain's components, but entirely physical nonetheless. If we keep chipping away at the research, we may uncover more of the mechanisms involved just as we have with other brain functions.

Oh, I thought you meant an analogical mechanism(s) in the soul that would be involved in the process of consciousness. Yes, I absolutely agree that what you are talking about is the realm of science. We should continue to seek knowledge on that, absolutely.

But we are asking a different question than that. If the brain produces consciousness, then science can give us the mechanisms at play in the interaction between brain and consciousness. If the soul produces consciousness that interacts with our brains, then science can give us the mechanisms at play in the interaction between brain and consciousness (and therefore soul). The mechanisms at play in the interaction between brain and consciousness are scientifically the same in both cases, but can’t decide whether an immaterial element is also at play or not because that is not what science is, it can’t tell us anything about the immaterial.

[The Tanager]

Again, a mirage isn't a lie. It's what happens. It's light bouncing off something, like the sky, and being bent toward you field of vision.

It doesn't always look like water, which is what you alluded to. You keep thinking a mirage is an image of water, but it's not, it's literally what it is. It's just refraction.

Again, I agree it’s what happens, that light bounces off something and there is an interaction with our eyes and all of that. I was simply giving one example with the water, not an exhaustive definition. My point is that the truth is the refraction, not what one may originally think is the case: that water (or whatever image produced) is really there to where one could go and drink it (or whatever).

Consciousness, like a mirage, is something the brain does.

Again, on materialism, I agree. Consciousness is like how one thinks there is water, but instead there is a refraction and when they move or reach the “water”, they can’t actually drink it. With consciousness, that means you think you are having these thoughts that correspond to reality and that you can affect things and all of that, but it’s just a “refraction” of the signals. Even worse, the “you” that is supposedly experiencing this mirage is itself a mirage, a promised “water” when it is really a “refraction” of signals.

It doesn't need a whole story of God's, angels, devils, living in an undetectable region, but they regularly interact with us, but there's never any physical evidence, etc.

All your "soul, god,etc".. its too much. It's a fantasy. It's a dream, a lie.

If so, then it’s going to be because of sound reasoning, not simply because you believe that. I’m always open to discussing the actual reasoning.

[The Tanager]

I have yet to see a good argument supplied. If I do, I will likely address it.

Consider this though: “If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true…then what is the purpose of your arguments?” I’ll give the reasoning as to why I reject both good and bad arguments since the people that offer them would obviously think they are offering good arguments.

Consider this though. If I argued that a microscopic undetectable version of ourselves lives in our brain and is the source of our consciousness, would you consider arguing against such a thing to be giving the idea credit that it doesn't yet deserve?

Is a religious soul idea really more credible then a microscopic undetectable version of ourselves for supplying our consciousness? They each have the same level of evidence after all.

Stating they are the same doesn’t make them the same. I’ve offered arguments that, if true, would also work against the existence of an undetectable but physical little us/brain/physical object.

Furthermore, what if a person argued for the microscopic undetectable version of ourselves for no other reason then that they belong to a religion that has teeny tiny god concepts that control where our undetectable versions of ourselves go when our bodies die? Would you seriously disregard and ignore their reasoning for suggesting what they do? Would you seriously ignore the fact that they make their arguments because they are forced to due to the belief they hold in tiny gods? Of course you wouldn't.

That would be a very bad argument indeed. I’d address all their points as to why I felt they were wrong, though. Good thing I never argued for the soul for no other reason than that I belong to a religion with the concept of a soul, offering different arguments instead.

A flat earther is forced to believe that NASA is in on it. So when a flat earther argues that NASA is in on it, they make their arguments because they are a flat earther and not because there is evidence for a flat earth or NASA being in on it. Surely motive means something, no?
Is your motive for arguing for a soul any different then a flat earthers for NASA being in on it? You can answer this honestly as it wouldn't make a soul idea false.

And by “honest” you mean “agree with me”? I do not think that word means what you think it means. First, to even think one knows the other’s motive is presumptuous and to present that as knowledge is worse. But even if one were correct, motive means NOTHING when rationally assessing arguments for and against truth claims. A flat earther is wrong because their arguments are flawed, not because they are flat earthers, not because of whatever motives they have.

[boatsnguitars]

Again, a mirage isn't a lie. It's what happens. It's light bouncing off something, like the sky, and being bent toward you field of vision.

It doesn't always look like water, which is what you alluded to. You keep thinking a mirage is an image of water, but it's not, it's literally what it is. It's just refraction.

Again, I agree it’s what happens, that light bounces off something and there is an interaction with our eyes and all of that. I was simply giving one example with the water, not an exhaustive definition. My point is that the truth is the refraction, not what one may originally think is the case: that water (or whatever image produced) is really there to where one could go and drink it (or whatever).

Consciousness, like a mirage, is something the brain does.

Again, on materialism, I agree. Consciousness is like how one thinks there is water, but instead there is a refraction and when they move or reach the “water”, they can’t actually drink it. With consciousness, that means you think you are having these thoughts that correspond to reality and that you can affect things and all of that, but it’s just a “refraction” of the signals. Even worse, the “you” that is supposedly experiencing this mirage is itself a mirage, a promised “water” when it is really a “refraction” of signals.

It doesn't need a whole story of God's, angels, devils, living in an undetectable region, but they regularly interact with us, but there's never any physical evidence, etc.

All your "soul, god,etc".. its too much. It's a fantasy. It's a dream, a lie.

If so, then it’s going to be because of sound reasoning, not simply because you believe that. I’m always open to discussing the actual reasoning.

Goodness, you've tortured that poor analogy!

OK, fine, the consciousness is a refraction, but it is still real - and Light. The Truth is still the Light. The Brain still produces electrical impulses that create the conditions for us to "See The Light".