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]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #458]

I have given good reason why the planet could well have a mind. What reasons do you have which allow you to claim that it doesn't?

I don't think you've given a good reason.

Then critque the reason I did give. Say why you think why my reasoning isn't good.

I see no evidence, and philosophical speculation isn't good enough.

I offered the evidence and it was not based purely in philosophical speculation, apart from the speculation that given enough time, planetary consciousness can emerge, which follows along the same lines as the materialist philosophy that time was the vital ingredient in order for human consciousness to emerge.

Also - I said that consciousness is made of matter. Is your silence re that indicative that you agree with me?

[Wootah]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #460]

It's faith. But don't you think that it would be nice if Hitler/Muhammad/Alexander/Napoleon/Genghis thought to themselves hey that person is valuable? On what basis would you convince them.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #458]

I have given good reason why the planet could well have a mind. What reasons do you have which allow you to claim that it doesn't?

I don't think you've given a good reason.

Then critque the reason I did give. Say why you think why my reasoning isn't good.

I see no evidence, and philosophical speculation isn't good enough.

I offered the evidence and it was not based purely in philosophical speculation, apart from the speculation that given enough time, planetary consciousness can emerge, which follows along the same lines as the materialist philosophy that time was the vital ingredient in order for human consciousness to emerge.

Also - I said that consciousness is made of matter.

That's fine (claiming consciousness is made of Matter), but I want to see evidence of the planet having consciousness to the point that we'd all agree it has it, as a single entity (not that there are networks of roots, or interactions between species, etc.).

Is your silence re that indicative that you agree with me?

When has this ever been a standard?

[Clownboat]

It's faith.

What were these two words meant to address? Surely not the entirety of my post 460!?

But don't you think that it would be nice if Hitler/Muhammad/Alexander/Napoleon/Genghis thought to themselves hey that person is valuable?

I would imagine that they did see value in other humans. Seeing value in humans wouldn't negate evils committed on behalf of your preferred group/tribe though. Killing off the most valuable members of another tribe would be a win in war. You understand this.

On what basis would you convince them.

I don't think I would have to as I explained above. Furthermore, in many instances, all it takes is to believe that another group worships the wrong god. They can still have value, but are now evil and must die.

I only see religious people making arguments about how humans wouldn't or don't have value.
See your words in this thread for example: "I think the way humans treat each other across time negates your claim that humans have value."
It seems you then project your thinking on to Hitler/Muhammad/Alexander... when surely you understand that their actions were carried out for reasons other than not seeing value in those they sought to conquer.

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #463]

That's fine (claiming consciousness is made of Matter), but I want to see evidence of the planet having consciousness to the point that we'd all agree it has it, as a single entity (not that there are networks of roots, or interactions between species, etc.).

So you want to be selective as to what you regard as evidence, rather than accept all evidence as equally valid?

Is your silence re that indicative that you agree with me?

When has this ever been a standard?

I wasn't claiming a standard. It was a question. I could just as easily have taken your silence as something else.
Anyway, you have answered that it is fine by you that consciousness is made of matter, so the implication is that you agree with me that it is.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #464]

The problem today is everyone thinks that if they were in 1940 nazi Germany they would have been in the resistance.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #463]

That's fine (claiming consciousness is made of Matter), but I want to see evidence of the planet having consciousness to the point that we'd all agree it has it, as a single entity (not that there are networks of roots, or interactions between species, etc.).

So you want to be selective as to what you regard as evidence, rather than accept all evidence as equally valid?

Is your silence re that indicative that you agree with me?

When has this ever been a standard?

I wasn't claiming a standard. It was a question. I could just as easily have taken your silence as something else.
Anyway, you have answered that it is fine by you that consciousness is made of matter, so the implication is that you agree with me that it is.

We agree with that, and I am fine with consciousness being expressed in things other than animals (computers in the future, maybe), but I find that you need to stretch the definition of consciousness to mean "chemical reactions = awareness, therefore, planet is consciousness." That's not enough for me. Otherwise, I'm not sure how you intend to show the planet has consciousness.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #464]

The problem today is everyone thinks that if they were in 1940 nazi Germany they would have been in the resistance.

I find it odd that you claim to be responding to my post 464 without actually responding to it. Don't you?

I could address your 'thought' above, but I'm guessing it will just be another waste of my time.
Be well...

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #467]

We agree with that, and I am fine with consciousness being expressed in things other than animals (computers in the future, maybe), but I find that you need to stretch the definition of consciousness to mean "chemical reactions = awareness, therefore, planet is consciousness." That's not enough for me. Otherwise, I'm not sure how you intend to show the planet has consciousness.

It is not my intention to show that the planet is conscious. It is my intention to point out that the planet already shows that it is, and that the reason materialism and supernaturalism fail to acknowledge the evidence which exists, has to do with the philosophies which come through those positions.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #467]

We agree with that, and I am fine with consciousness being expressed in things other than animals (computers in the future, maybe), but I find that you need to stretch the definition of consciousness to mean "chemical reactions = awareness, therefore, planet is consciousness." That's not enough for me. Otherwise, I'm not sure how you intend to show the planet has consciousness.

It is not my intention to show that the planet is conscious. It is my intention to point out that the planet already shows that it is, ....

That's simply an assertion.