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]

I'm from the school that says sure, all things are possible.

So we ask "What non-physical thing is it we're fussing about, and can that thing be shown to exist?"

Lacking that data, I'm perfectly rational to sit by the fireplace on Christmas Eve, hoping to get Santa's autograph.

And I’ve provided evidence to consider, so feel free to show why you think it’s a fake autograph if you have anything more to say on that. If not, then I've responded to your comments there and have nothing more to add.

[The Tanager]

It's not the collection of matter itself that gives rise to consciousness. It is the way the collection of matter functions. Different computers contain collections of different matter, but they still function in the same way.

Yes, but they are still different computers producing different states that function in the same ways as each other.

Yes, as is the case with consciousness.

My point is that different computers produce physically distinct states (that function in the same way as each other). So, analogically, if the brain is a “computer” (i.e., just a collection of matter) producing consciousness, then different brains would produce different consciousnesses (that function in the same way as each other). And if a brain is just a collection of specific matter, changes to that brain, materially, (within the same human) would make it a different brain, therefore producing different consciousnesses (within the same human) over time. But that is not what we observe.

[The Tanager]

I wouldn't expect something non-physical to interact with anything. I don't know what "non-physical" means to you - to be honest. Do you mean numbers? I don't see how numbers interact with anything. Do you mean logic? I don't see logic interacting with numbers or rocks.

Explain yourself.

By non-physical I mean something that is not physical. That’s it. What different things fit in that category as concepts, which ones exist, and which ones do or do not have interactive powers are different, good, but irrelevant questions to our discussion. Not because I just say it is so, but because for analyzing your claim that the non-physical logically can’t interact with the physical, it doesn’t matter how many things are in the non-physical category, which ones actually do exist, or which ones actually do interact since your claim requires us to only ask if these kinds of non-physical things could interact if they existed. Your claim means that whatever fits in the category, whichever ones actually exist, none of them possibly could have interactive powers.

What non-physical thing is interacting with another thing, physical or non-physical? Where is it, what is it, how is it, who is it, when is it, why is it? I am asking for you to provide any information other than speculation.

To keep saying I’m not providing any information beyond speculation is silly. I have clearly laid out arguments for the existence of a non-physical thing interacting with the brain that results in human consciousness. If you’ve truly missed those and refuse to look back at post 52, then I can repeat them, but you haven’t missed those, have you? To respond with it’s just speculation is asserting without engaging or showing and is useless for a rational discussion on them.

As a non-physical thing, it logically can’t have a physical location, so “where is it?” is a meaningless question.

“What is it?,” in its relevant sense, is answered. It is a non-physical thing which produces consciousness. Traditionally, that has been termed a soul. ‘Soul” has had other various characteristics attached to it through other means, but I’m not arguing for any of those characteristics and it is irrelevant to do so for reasons I’ve already shared. We can call it “mind” or simply “something immaterial” or whatever that won’t cause confusion.

I’m not sure what “how is it?” means.

Whether they are whos or whats is a separate question from: does some who/what exist that is non-physical?, which is our question.

I’m not sure “when is it?” makes sense. When is humans? When is the definition of a cat? We are talking about observations that are ongoing with consciousness, so I guess the “when” that expands all such human history?

“Why is it?” is another separate question from does some non-physical thing exist, which is our question.

[The Tanager]

In the context of The Mind, what I am suggesting is that The Mind, which is immaterial, has the ability to organize itself or certain aspects of itself into material manifestations, such as the universe. This process involves a transformation from the immaterial to the material, allowing for the experiences and phenomena we observe.

Which of these views (or a different one) best fits your view?:

1. (a) we have an immaterial Mind that transforms all of itself into (b) immaterial minds and material matter

2. (a) we have an immaterial Mind that transforms part of it’s immaterial stuff into (b) immaterial minds and material matter that exist along with (in very interconnected ways) the immaterial Mind part that wasn’t transformed

3. (a) we have an immaterial Mind that transforms different immaterial stuff into (b) immaterial minds and material matter that exist along with (in very interconnected ways) the immaterial Mind

It seems like you are saying you aren’t sure between (1) or (2), but I could still be misunderstanding you. Whichever option you choose/add, why is it simpler than my view where:

4. (a) we have an immaterial Mind that creates new stuff giving us (2) an immaterial Mind, immaterial minds, and material matter

When I used the term 'realm' to describe the supernatural concept you believe is responsible for the existence of our Universe Realm, I am using it as a conceptual distinction. I am interested in understanding your perspective on the "supernatural" as a separate domain or framework of existence, distinct from the physical universe. So, if you prefer not to refer to it as a 'realm,' how would you describe or conceptualize this supernatural concept that you believe is responsible for the creational influences of our universe?

I would normally call it a realm; I just wanted to make sure we wouldn’t be talking past each other.

The Mind is an interconnected field of consciousness that is shaped and influenced by each individual mind within it, creating a mutually influencing relationship. It is a natural phenomenon that arises from the complex interactions of individual minds and their personality-producing consciousness when interacting with the experience of being human.

Wait, possible confusion with the bolded part. This makes it sound like you are saying the production goes the other way round, although that seems to go against all you’ve been saying:

5. (a) we have immaterial minds and material matter that creates (b) the Mind

Don’t you think the Mind is the ultimate cause of minds and matter? Yes, the Mind grows through the interactions of minds and matter, but it doesn’t naturally arise (i.e., begin) from that. Right?

While both our philosophies engage with the concept of something from nothing, there is a fundamental difference in how we approach this concept. In my philosophy, I provide an explanation that doesn't rely on supernaturalism or the intervention of external supernatural forces.

I propose a naturalistic understanding of the emergence of things from what may appear to be non-things.

If they only appear to be non-things, then how is that “something from nothing”? Isn't that "something from something that appears to be nothing to some people"?

This perspective allows for a comprehensive understanding of the creative process without invoking supernatural entities or interventions. It encourages us to explore the inherent potentials and complexities of the universe itself, unveiling the intricate interconnectedness that gives rise to the diversity and richness of existence.

It seems to me that this is just semantics. This isn’t meant as an insult. We both have an immaterial Mind, immaterial minds, and matter. You say all of these are “natural” for you, but some are “supernatural” for me. I don’t see that as a true distinction. Yes, your Mind is expressing itself as minds and matter, while my Mind remains ontologically distinct, but that isn’t what natural and supernatural commonly mean.

When I mentioned that the supernatural is unknown and unknowable, I was referring to the lack of a universally accepted and comprehensive explanation for what is considered supernatural. While some explanations have been put forward, they often vary greatly and are not universally convincing or supported by empirical evidence. Therefore, the supernatural, as it is generally understood, remains unknown in terms of a concrete and widely accepted understanding.

Yes, like I said, you are making a statement about the people hearing the explanation, some agreeing and some disagreeing. It’s not that a true explanation can’t or doesn’t exist, it’s just that it’s the type of knowledge that we can’t have 100% certainty on and people disagree on what the truth is. I forget why you brought this up, but maybe I took a tangent? If you think this is still an important point against something I'm saying or for something you are saying can you restate the importance you see?

[boatsnguitars]

By non-physical I mean something that is not physical. That’s it. What different things fit in that category as concepts, which ones exist, and which ones do or do not have interactive powers are different, good, but irrelevant questions to our discussion. Not because I just say it is so, but because for analyzing your claim that the non-physical logically can’t interact with the physical, it doesn’t matter how many things are in the non-physical category, which ones actually do exist, or which ones actually do interact since your claim requires us to only ask if these kinds of non-physical things could interact if they existed. Your claim means that whatever fits in the category, whichever ones actually exist, none of them possibly could have interactive powers.

OK, let's call the non-physical things "magic", to distinguish between numbers and concepts which are non-physical but we know they don't interact with physical things - so whatever you're talking about it's THAT kind of "non-physical", correct? In other words, it's not "that" kind of non-physical (numbers/concepts) it's THAT kind of non-physical (magic, supernatural, etc.)

Or are you suggesting all non-physical things are like the non-physical things we know about: numbers and concepts? Is Magic (aka the soul) like Numbers?

Because it's not helpful to use an umbrella term when we know you aren't talking about the same thing.

So, we have:
1. Physical
2. Non-physical (Numbers and Concepts)
3. Magic (which might not be physical, but it might not be non-physical, just a different kind of "physical" because it can interact with the physical (namely, it can speak Matter into Being, or whatever, but it may be non-physical, but not like numbers and concepts).

As a non-physical thing, it logically can’t have a physical location, so “where is it?” is a meaningless question.

OK, so it's not Here. My consciousness is clearly Here - it certainly isn't There or Everywhere. So, you have ruled out Consciousness as a non-physical thing.

“What is it?,” in its relevant sense, is answered. It is a non-physical thing which produces consciousness. Traditionally, that has been termed a soul. ‘Soul” has had other various characteristics attached to it through other means, but I’m not arguing for any of those characteristics and it is irrelevant to do so for reasons I’ve already shared. We can call it “mind” or simply “something immaterial” or whatever that won’t cause confusion.

If I were you, I wouldn't argue for anything but the bare minimum, too - since you'd actually have to defend it! Declare all of it irrelevant and you win by default!

I’m not sure what “how is it?” means.

Does that mean it can't have that question asked of it, or you don't want to answer, or don't know? Seems you know very little about Magic, but want to assert exists in very specific ways. How is the Earth orbiting the Sun? How does our consciousness interact with the Brain? How does Magic make a rabbit suddenly appear in a hat, or make a man come back to life after 3 days?
Seems "How" is a useful question.

Whether they are whos or whats is a separate question from: does some who/what exist that is non-physical?, which is our question.

Well, what do you think? Do numbers, concepts and magic exist - and do they have personhood? I don't think so. I can't even understand how a number is a person... I don't know how Magic would have personhood.

How do you think the Supernatural would have personhood?

I’m not sure “when is it?” makes sense. When is humans? When is the definition of a cat? We are talking about observations that are ongoing with consciousness, so I guess the “when” that expands all such human history?

So, you are not only claiming Magic is non-material, but is non-temporal - yet, my consciousness seems to operate quite specifically in Time. Magic, however, I guess could operate outside of Time. Magic, might have the quality that asking "when" doesn't make sense.

But it's odd that you don't know if Magic has that property or not, since this is your whole thing? You know so much about it - right up until you don't....

“Why is it?” is another separate question from does some non-physical thing exist, which is our question.

Sure, but can we ask the question? For example, "Why does Matter exist?" may be answered as a causal chain, or as a Brute Fact. It's not an incoherent question.
"Why do numbers exist?" is a different answer because we understand them to be different than Matter, but it's not incoherent.

Yet, here, you seem to not even know if Magic is one or the other. You seem to agree it may be a coherent question, but you don't have any answer - you just "know" it exists?

Do you know anything about it - other than people claim it exists? If so, why do you think it exists? It's been 10,000 years or more that people have suggested Magic exists, yet, you are loudly proclaiming we know nothing more about it than we ever have?

Have we learned anything about Magic? What specifically do we know about Magic?

And by "Magic" you know what I'm talking about:

3. Magic (which might not be physical, but it might not be non-physical, just a different kind of "physical" because it can interact with the physical (namely, it can speak Matter into Being, or whatever, but it may be non-physical, but not like numbers and concepts).

[Clownboat]

Neato. Your beliefs about a soul are not needed when discussing consciousness though, so why do you believe that there is a soul?

Not so fast. You just inserted this un-needed soul idea again and then claimed that a brain needs it. Why did you do that?

You said if a soul provides consciousness, then affecting a brain wouldn’t affect consciousness. I asked you to support that claim.

Anyone else notice how The Tanager totally ignored my questions and in place of answering them, asked me questions instead? Now to answer yours. I will not support any position that dwells in your imagination. You can imagine that a soul needs a brain or that it doesn't. I care not, but I'm not going to play pretend with you and support some claim about some soul idea that there is zero information about. You asking me to support such a thing (while ignoring my own questions) is ridiculous. How about you provide some info about a soul first? What info do we have?

I don’t see why it would be true if the soul and body make up a composite being.

You did it again. You insert a soul idea and I'm trying to figure out why. What is this soul you keep talking about and how do you know about it and why are you inserting it? Do souls provide consciousness better then fairies for example, or can you not answer this until info about fairies is provided? See how that works?

Unless you can show it is true in both cases, then your claim is unsupported because it is a claim covering all situations.

Then consider my claim unsupported, retracted and ignore it. I care not as we are still talking about some imagined and unevidenced thing you are calling a soul.

Assertions that arguments are weak or reasons invalid aren’t rational discussions; you’ve got to show the reasoning.

Your dodge is noted and it is you that is failing to provide a reason to propose a soul as something to be considered. You just want this thing that you wont tell us a darn thing about to be considered. I just want to know why and that is a reasonable question.

I have shared why I think how is irrelevant to the that question numerous times. In response you just keep saying it is relevant without any reasoning offered.

My reasoning is my own. I could tell you my reasoning, but you will still fail to answer. In the end, I believe I know why you desire for there to be a soul. Desire, no matter how bad is not a reason. You basically are starting with an empty premise.

You are mistaken because the brain still functions the same. Just like how heart material also changes, but the function of the heart remains the same.

I said it functions the same; the point is about being materially different.

The function hasn't changed, so what is your point? You are not even trying to provide reasoning as to why we should be discussing a soul. Your complaint about the material being different is heard, but irrelevant to the brains function.

I didn’t just complain, but explained why this wouldn’t happen. If you disagree, then show where my explanation is wrong or explain why it would happen.

Your complaint is invalid because you are complaining about the material being different and ignoring that the actual function of the organ we are talking about doesn't change. I hear your complaint. You would like the function to change because the material replicates, but it doesn't and you are seem unhappy about that.

So, you are after the truth, but I’m after just holding onto my religious belief? How do you know this? Give the reader an objective reason rather than just your claim that you aren’t new here and know why I argue for a soul.

Souls are religious explanations used to then level threats or promises against by the leaders of said religions to control their flocks. This is the only reason you want and therefore propose this idea of a soul. You don't even have an initial premise, just a religious proclamation. Consider this, there were reasons that Black Holes were proposed. What reasons are there for a soul to be proposed?

Yes, and different cars, performing the same function, exist as distinct material things. It’s not about changing the function, but the matter.

Then show your work. Our organs slowly replace over our lifetimes. Please show how the function of our organs change as the material is being replicated. When you can't, realize that your argument is then special pleading about the brain changing its function as some of it (but not all) gets replicated throughout our lives.

I have never thought or said the function should change

Copy/paste: "The argument is that when there is certain damage (not just losing sight or smell but extensive damage to those parts responsible for consciousness, then we would expect a similar loss of parts or the entirety of consciousness. This doesn’t happen."

Saying my argument is about function is a misunderstanding; it’s about the material makeup and what that matter produces (which then performs various functions).

So, it's not about function, even though it has been proposed that consciousness stems from a functioning brain? Everyone reading here knows why you want to focus on brain cells replicating and not the actual argument being proposed.

I'm going to type a word:
'Ridiculous'
Now I'm going to replicate the word via copy/paste.
'Ridiculous'
The material makeup of the new word is 100% new. What change in function should we have expected?

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm from the school that says sure, all things are possible.

So we ask "What non-physical thing is it we're fussing about, and can that thing be shown to exist?"

Lacking that data, I'm perfectly rational to sit by the fireplace on Christmas Eve, hoping to get Santa's autograph.

And I’ve provided evidence to consider, so feel free to show why you think it’s a fake autograph if you have anything more to say on that. If not, then I've responded to your comments there and have nothing more to add.

I'm not sure what autograph you're referring to here, so can't much fuss about that.

Can I get a link?

I'm not generally one to declare what is or ain't evidence, but might be inclined to fuss about conclusion drawn from it.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #234]

Which of these views (or a different one) best fits your view?:

1. (a) we have an immaterial Mind that transforms all of itself into (b) immaterial minds and material matter

2. (a) we have an immaterial Mind that transforms part of it’s immaterial stuff into (b) immaterial minds and material matter that exist along with (in very interconnected ways) the immaterial Mind part that wasn’t transformed

3. (a) we have an immaterial Mind that transforms different immaterial stuff into (b) immaterial minds and material matter that exist along with (in very interconnected ways) the immaterial Mind

It seems like you are saying you aren’t sure between (1) or (2), but I could still be misunderstanding you. Whichever option you choose/add, why is it simpler than my view where:

4. (a) we have an immaterial Mind that creates new stuff giving us (2) an immaterial Mind, immaterial minds, and material matter

None of those.

My position of philosophy is that we ARE an immaterial mind - not that we HAVE an immaterial mind.

Wait, possible confusion with the bolded part. This makes it sound like you are saying the production goes the other way round, although that seems to go against all you’ve been saying:

5. (a) we have immaterial minds and material matter that creates (b) the Mind

Don’t you think the Mind is the ultimate cause of minds and matter? Yes, the Mind grows through the interactions of minds and matter, but it doesn’t naturally arise (i.e., begin) from that. Right?

Apologies for any confusion. To clarify, in my philosophy, The Mind is the eternal and primary existence. It is "The Field of Consciousness" and the creative aspect responsible for the manifestation of matter. Individual minds are aspects or expressions of The Mind in their embodied form, experiencing and interacting with the world. The recognition and acknowledgment of being a mind, rather than having a mind, can lead to a shift in self-identification and a deeper understanding of one's connection to The Mind. The Mind is not a product of many minds, but rather the foundational essence from which individual minds arise.

"Shaping of The Mind" carries with it possibly misunderstandings too. Importantly The Mind created the universe to "lose itself" in the complexity and to "find itself" again through the mindful interaction within its creation - and given the enormity and diversity of said creation in both scale and time, there appears to be no particular hurry for The Mind to refined itself at the end of it all - assuming science has it correct that it will eventually end.

In my philosophy, the process of experiencing and exploring the universe contributes to the overall growth and development of The Mind. Through the journey of self-discovery within its creation, The Mind evolves and transforms, expanding its consciousness and understanding. The culmination of this process may lead to a profound transformation or realization for The Mind, resulting in a new state or level of being beyond the completion of the universal experience. This highlights the transformative nature of the cosmic journey and its potential impact on the evolution of The Mind itself.

Therein, this explains the nature of the universe - why it is as it is - in relation to The Mind (and minds) experiencing it. The nature of the material and why the immaterial is involved with it.

This interconnectedness between the material and immaterial is an integral part of the purpose and design of the universe within the context of my philosophy.

If they only appear to be non-things, then how is that “something from nothing”? Isn't that "something from something that appears to be nothing to some people"?

I am relying on my memory here, but some months back did you not allude to "Ex Nihilo" as not actually meaning "something from nothing" in the literal sense?

In my philosophy, the concept of "something from nothing" refers to the emergence of things from a state that may initially appear to the human mind as non-things or a form of nothingness.
Similar to how an immaterial mind might appear to be "nothing"
However, upon closer examination and understanding by said human minds, these non-things are actually potentialities or states of existence that possess inherent properties or qualities. It is not a matter of perceiving something from actual nothingness, but rather recognizing that what may seem like nothingness holds the potential for the emergence of something. By understanding the nature of these potentialities, my philosophy offers a naturalistic explanation for the origin and transformation of existence without the need for supernatural interventions or external forces.

This is also why I propose that the universe was not created from "nothing" by some mind outside of it, but rather, from The Mind itself - thus the universe - is within The Mind and in that way, The Mind can interact with the universe it has created "within The Mind". Within It's actual "Self"

This proposal highlights the idea that the universe is not created from absolute nothingness but rather emerges from The Mind itself. This perspective suggests that the universe is within The Mind, and therefore, The Mind can interact with the universe it has brought forth. This concept emphasizes the interconnectedness and inseparability of The Mind and the universe, as opposed to positing an external mind creating the universe. It presents a framework where The Mind is both the creator and the experiencer of its own creation.

It seems to me that this is just semantics. This isn’t meant as an insult. We both have an immaterial Mind, immaterial minds, and matter. You say all of these are “natural” for you, but some are “supernatural” for me. I don’t see that as a true distinction. Yes, your Mind is expressing itself as minds and matter, while my Mind remains ontologically distinct, but that isn’t what natural and supernatural commonly mean.

If your “ontologically distinct Mind" isn’t “supernatural”, how would you best describe it?

I understand that our interpretations may seem similar at a superficial level, with both of us acknowledging the existence of an immaterial Mind, immaterial minds, and matter. However, the distinction lies in how we define the terms "natural" and "supernatural." While you view the immaterial Mind as ontologically distinct and supernatural, I consider it as a natural aspect of existence.
My philosophy proposes that the immaterial Mind is inherent to the fabric of reality, interconnected with the expression of individual minds and the material world. By framing it as natural, I emphasize the intrinsic interconnectedness and unity of the universe, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the creative process without invoking supernatural entities or interventions. I acknowledge that our perspectives differ in the use of these terms, but it is important to recognize the underlying philosophical framework and implications associated with each interpretation.

Yes, like I said, you are making a statement about the people hearing the explanation, some agreeing and some disagreeing. It’s not that a true explanation can’t or doesn’t exist, it’s just that it’s the type of knowledge that we can’t have 100% certainty on and people disagree on what the truth is. I forget why you brought this up, but maybe I took a tangent? If you think this is still an important point against something I'm saying or for something you are saying can you restate the importance you see?

The importance of the statement I made about the supernatural being unknown and unknowable is in highlighting the lack of consensus and clarity surrounding the concept. It acknowledges that different explanations exist, but they are often subjective and lack universal acceptance or empirical evidence. This recognition emphasizes the complexity and inherent limitations in fully understanding the supposed "supernatural", which is relevant in the context of our discussion on the nature of existence and consciousness.

In my philosophy, I have chosen to focus on a naturalistic perspective that seeks to explain phenomena within the bounds of natural principles and interactions. By acknowledging the limitations and uncertainties surrounding the supposed supernatural, I prioritize an approach that is grounded in empirical evidence and logical reasoning. This allows for a more comprehensive understanding of reality without relying on "supernatural" explanations, which can vary greatly and lack widespread consensus.

The importance of this point lies in fostering a deeper exploration of naturalistic perspectives and encouraging critical thinking and inquiry into the fundamental nature of existence and consciousness. It highlights the need for evidence-based explanations and the consideration of different viewpoints, ultimately leading to a more robust and informed understanding of the world around us.

This is why I acknowledged in a prior reply that you and I stand on and share the same platform distinct from the platform materialists stand upon, but we branch away from each other with our differing philosophies which emerge from the platform we share.

[brunumb]

My point is that different computers produce physically distinct states (that function in the same way as each other). So, analogically, if the brain is a “computer” (i.e., just a collection of matter) producing consciousness, then different brains would produce different consciousnesses (that function in the same way as each other). And if a brain is just a collection of specific matter, changes to that brain, materially, (within the same human) would make it a different brain, therefore producing different consciousnesses (within the same human) over time. But that is not what we observe.

What are different consciousnesses? Having different memories and understanding of things will occur, but consciousness is a state of awareness which is there, or it is not.

[brunumb]

As a non-physical thing, it logically can’t have a physical location, so “where is it?” is a meaningless question.

Not really. It must exist in some context. If you can't explain that context then it becomes indistinguishable from the non-existent.