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]

First link:
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/chris ... souls.html

I didn’t say all Christians believe animals have souls. Traditionally, the majority teaching has been that they do have souls. The features that people attach to a ‘soul’ have also changed. For instance, the article you linked to connects understanding right from wrong with having a soul. Traditionally, that has not been the case. I’ve argued that consciousness is a faculty of the soul, so if the article writer accepted that definition, they would also say animals have a soul, just a different kind of soul than humans since the writer believes they do have consciousness. The writer also heavily attaches the soul to whether animals can live in heaven for eternity. Traditionally, that hasn’t been a definitive part to having a soul.

OK, look. Just prove your case. I'm really not interested in idle musings from some individual, or religious group.

I think that in humans, that the body affects the soul and the soul affects the body, yes. I do not think that no body means no soul. I do think no body means no fully human being.

Why?

There is no “our”. That’s the point. “We” don’t have mental health or well-being because there is no “we”. So, you are saying this illusion serves an important function in the illusive mental health.

There obviously is a we. There is a mirage - it's an illusion, but it exists.

No, they are simply illusions produced by chemicals that would have no actual basis in reality if your view is true.

God Lord, look what you just wrote! You agree chemicals are real (in reality) and that they'd produce an illusion (in reality), yet you say there's no basis in reality?
C'mon, man!

Without a non-physical self, the “self” is just a series of chemical states. “Our” “reasoning” could just as well seem to be good reasoning while it’s completely divorced from reality.

So? Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not true. Right? (Not that I agree with your reductionsit argument, but really, I can't see why you wouldn't grant that "if materialism is true, then whatever follows from that would be true" - right?

It's like if I grant there is a soul, I would accept that the body and soul create the whole human. But you haven't made the case for a soul.

I've made the case for a body. And you agree. I've made the case for physical matter, chemicals, etc. And you agree.

You are the one positing a different 'substance'. It's on your to prove it.

I really think you need to provide more work that an Argument from Ignorance. You certainly haven't disproved my position with your "I Don't Like It" Argument.

[The Tanager]

It appears, then, that your primary issue with a purely materialistic explanation for consciousness relates to things like truth, morals and siimilar things. Correct? I don't see why these things cannot be categorized as simply the result of our ability to think and reason, store memories, etc. which are byproducts of normal brain function.

What we call “reason” wouldn’t actually be reasonable, but somehow we have the “reasoning” ability to analyze that and see that some things map onto reality and some don’t. All of our interactions would have been meaningless because there would be no way to tell which of “us” just happened to stumble upon truth and who didn’t. If this world was the result of purely physical processes (that includes the mind being an emergent property), we should expect more examples of crazy kinds of reasoning instead of everyone’s firing chemicals roughly using the same kind of logic when we analyze reality.

Certainly there are people who seem to have faulty brain functions and make horrible decisions (mass shooters for example), but this is just another example in support of consciousness being an emergent property.

People make horrible decisions without faulty brain functions as well, so this isn’t support for your claim. That’s even assuming that your view leads to mass shooters being a horrible decision, which is completely groundless.

If it were guided by some non-natural influence (eg. a god being of some sort for lack of another example) there should be no random mass shooters in shopping malls.

That doesn’t follow. If we were controlled by a benevolent non-natural influence, yes, but not if this influence doesn’t determine our actions.

We all are born with a functional brain, but everyone learns differently and the result of that learning as we progress from a newborn to an adult shapes our ideas on right and wrong, and general behavior. No one is born a serial killer ... environment has a great deal to do with how an individual's brain develops and how their views on morality, truth, etc. develop. The physical basis for views on these things can be the same in each person (ie. the mechanics of brain function), but lead to very different results as we can clearly see in the different behavior of people.

If anything, this would be support that consciousness goes beyond the physical basis. People in the same general environments turn out making very different choices. If the physical basis was the same in each person and mind is a product of the physical basis, then there should be much more identity.

The chemical and electrical processes do not need to be "determined" beyond our own, innate ability to make decisions. If these physical processes enable memory storage and decision making, they enable a nearly infinite array of outcomes for behavior in humans, and their views on any subject.

I didn’t say their couldn’t be variety; I said that variety would involve illusory senses of self, no such thing as mental health or lack thereof, countless volumes of meaningless “discussion” that somehow two separate physical processes are able to understand each other’s chemical and electrical signals in spite of their lack of truth with regard to reality, no personal intentions, the non-existence of reason, illusions of mental causation.

Our making decisions, our mental thoughts, would just be the end result of these chemical and electrical processes.

[The Tanager]

OK, look. Just prove your case. I'm really not interested in idle musings from some individual, or religious group.

I am supporting my case. I won’t follow every rabbit trail one could go on. That doesn’t mean they aren’t good questions, they are just different ones Whether animals have souls or the same kinds of souls as humans is irrelevant to the claims I’ve made here that you are trying to critique. The nature of the soul-body interaction is irrelevant. If the soul survives bodily death is irrelevant.

There obviously is a we. There is a mirage - it's an illusion, but it exists.

No, the signals producing the illusion exist, not the illusion. A mirage doesn’t exist, it’s a lie produced by the bending of light rays in the air.

So? Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not true. Right? (Not that I agree with your reductionsit argument, but really, I can't see why you wouldn't grant that "if materialism is true, then whatever follows from that would be true" - right?

You certainly haven't disproved my position with your "I Don't Like It" Argument.

My critiques have not been “I Don’t Like It”. Part of my point is that the critiques materialism uses against non-materialistic views are undercut by materialism, as are the evidences in support of materialism. I’m saying materialism is self-defeating. So, even if it’s true, we could never know it. And it being true with all the reasoning, applicability of math, consistency of experience “we” see in the world, etc. is highly improbable. The most likely thing would be that we never experienced a sense of self, reasoning, etc. Yes, we could never know with 100% certainty that materialism isn’t true, but it’s not a rational position to take, assuming materialism is true.

It's like if I grant there is a soul, I would accept that the body and soul create the whole human. But you haven't made the case for a soul.

I've made the case for a body. And you agree. I've made the case for physical matter, chemicals, etc. And you agree.

You are the one positing a different 'substance'. It's on your to prove it.

I really think you need to provide more work that an Argument from Ignorance.

I didn’t provide an argument from ignorance. I offered various arguments. You’ve responded to them, so to say I’m just making an argument from ignorance is obviously off base.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #113]

What's the lie in a mirage?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #112]

People make horrible decisions without faulty brain functions as well, so this isn’t support for your claim. That’s even assuming that your view leads to mass shooters being a horrible decision, which is completely groundless.

I would say that someone who enters a shopping mall and starts shooting people they don't know has faulty brain functions. In no way is this "normal" behavior, or not a horrible decision. If you believe such behavior is not a horrible decision (groundless) then I like my view of brain function and consciousness a lot better than yours. Morailty doesn't come from some magical, external force or substance, or from any holy book's directions. It is necessary to succeed and survive in social animals like humans, and evolved as a much more viable alternative than it being OK for people to randomly kill other people for no good reason (although humans are the best at that sort of thing ... eg. Russia's activity in Ukraine for a current example).

If anything, this would be support that consciousness goes beyond the physical basis. People in the same general environments turn out making very different choices. If the physical basis was the same in each person and mind is a product of the physical basis, then there should be much more identity.

Why should there be much more identity? I had an identical twin brother until just over a year ago, and we grew up in the same house and environment until age 18. But we turned out to have completely different interests, careers, etc. And we came from the same egg/sperm combo. For different children from different families, even in the same location there is wide divergence in things they do, like, preferences in a mate, etc. There is no reason to think that any purely physical basis for consciousness would have any impact on that at all. The ability to make different decisions and like different things is made possible by the flexibility of the brain itself. If you give 10 people the same basic ingredients to make a range of different cakes, and turn them loose in different kitchens, there's no reason to expect that they'd all make the same cake.

Our making decisions, our mental thoughts, would just be the end result of these chemical and electrical processes.

You're ignoring that these chemical and electrical processes build very complex systems, and it is the system that has the higher capabilities that the simple chemical and electrical processes do not. All the complexity of human decision making and behavior are enabled by a system (the brain) that is structured for these functions. It is highly flexible, complicated, and we don't understand a lot about how it all works at the molecular level, but so far there is no evidence that anything beyond the complex brain system is needed for any characteristics that humans have, including the ability to think, understand moral positions, love, hate, and all the rest of it. If there is something outside of this ... what is it?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #113]

What the lie in a mirage?

That the object exists and you are seeing it. It doesn’t exist and you aren’t seeing it. You are seeing something that you are mistaking for being that object. The parts of reality that create the mirage exist, but not the mirage.

[The Tanager]

I would say that someone who enters a shopping mall and starts shooting people they don't know has faulty brain functions. In no way is this "normal" behavior, or not a horrible decision. If you believe such behavior is not a horrible decision (groundless) then I like my view of brain function and consciousness a lot better than yours. Morailty doesn't come from some magical, external force or substance, or from any holy book's directions. It is necessary to succeed and survive in social animals like humans, and evolved as a much more viable alternative than it being OK for people to randomly kill other people for no good reason (although humans are the best at that sort of thing ... eg. Russia's activity in Ukraine for a current example).

Obviously I believe it is a horrible decision, but that’s because I’m not a materialist. That doesn’t mean I’m saying materialists believe it isn’t horrible; I’m saying they are doing so inconsistent with their philosophy and I’m glad their philosophy isn’t being fully lived out (which doesn't mean that if it was lived out, they would all become mass shooters, but they wouldn't be morally outraged at such horrible...in my opinion...choices).

Normal, here, simply reflects what the majority do. If more people than not did this sort of thing that would make it normal. Being a part of our biological evolution may make it helpful to survive as a species (although other species survive without the same morality we have), but helping to survive and being “not-horrible” in an ought-sense are two different things.

Wh y should there be much more identity? I had an identical twin brother until just over a year ago, and we grew up in the same house and environment until age 18. But we turned out to have completely different interests, careers, etc. And we came from the same egg/sperm combo. For different children from different families, even in the same location there is wide divergence in things they do, like, preferences in a mate, etc. There is no reason to think that any purely physical basis for consciousness would have any impact on that at all. The ability to make different decisions and like different things is made possible by the flexibility of the brain itself. If you give 10 people the same basic ingredients to make a range of different cakes, and turn them loose in different kitchens, there's no reason to expect that they'd all make the same cake.

That’s the point. You are so very much like each other physically, yet your consciousnesses are still very different in very deep ways. Why should different material elements that don’t physically interact with each other have such a profound effect on our consciousnesses since those come from our chemical makeup. If they came from elements outside of our brain, then why aren’t there shared consciousnesses, consciousnesses going all over the place, etc.?

You're ignoring that these chemical and electrical processes build very complex systems, and it is the system that has the higher capabilities that the simple chemical and electrical processes do not. All the complexity of human decision making and behavior are enabled by a system (the brain) that is structured for these functions. It is highly flexible, complicated, and we don't understand a lot about how it all works at the molecular level, but so far there is no evidence that anything beyond the complex brain system is needed for any characteristics that humans have, including the ability to think, understand moral positions, love, hate, and all the rest of it. If there is something outside of this ... what is it?

I’m not ignoring that. The very complex systems are still just a result of the collection of chemical and electrical processes, just more complex. I’ve thought this all along this discussion. Nothing I’ve said changes.

To think the complexity would somehow mysteriously make these other things, like the applicability of reason and math to our lives among the other things I noted, is a blind faith statement. It’s a science of the gaps argument.

I’ve given reasons to think something outside of the brain (namely, a soul), does exist.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #113]

What's the lie in a mirage?

That the object exists and you are seeing it. It doesn’t exist and you aren’t seeing it. You are seeing something that you are mistaking for being that object. The parts of reality that create the mirage exist, but not the mirage.

Who is lying? Who is decieving you? Who is purposely telling you a falsehood?

A mirage is a "naturally-occurring optical phenomenon in which light rays bend via refraction to produce a displaced image of distant objects or the sky."

(An illusion is "an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience.")

You might think it looks like water, like a stain on a wall looks like Jesus, but that's not the mirage's or stain's fault.

The fact is a mirage is real. (If it's a lie, it's God's Creation lying to you - under Theism)

A mirage is real - even if it's an illusion. Like consciousness; like our sense of self.
I simply can't understand why you'd call it a lie.

Is a straw in a glass of water, that looks bent, a lie? Is it the water or the light that is intending to decieve you?

I think we have a very different idea of what Nature is. Just because we have a wrong impression of something doesn't make it not real!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #117]

Obviously I believe it is a horrible decision, but that’s because I’m not a materialist. That doesn’t mean I’m saying materialists believe it isn’t horrible; I’m saying they are doing so inconsistent with their philosophy and I’m glad their philosophy isn’t being fully lived out (which doesn't mean that if it was lived out, they would all become mass shooters, but they wouldn't be morally outraged at such horrible...in my opinion...choices).

This is what I'm not getting. Why would a materialist not have exactly the same morals, appreciation for life and happiness, sense of right and wrong, etc. as anyone else? Materialism does not disallow these things in any way, but simply claims they are manifestations of complex brain functions rather than being produiced by some external, unknown "thing" (in whole or in part). The exact same human can exist in either case.

That’s the point. You are so very much like each other physically, yet your consciousnesses are still very different in very deep ways. Why should different material elements that don’t physically interact with each other have such a profound effect on our consciousnesses since those come from our chemical makeup. If they came from elements outside of our brain, then why aren’t there shared consciousnesses, consciousnesses going all over the place, etc.?

What do you mean by "don't physically interact"? My point is that the constituents of the brain do physically interact in very complex ways to produce the end result. In fact, that is the crux of the argument for consciousness being an emergent propery of a brain. There isn't shared consciousness because it doesn't come from elements outside of our brain. Each person is different and their brain works independently of other people.

I’m not ignoring that. The very complex systems are still just a result of the collection of chemical and electrical processes, just more complex. I’ve thought this all along this discussion. Nothing I’ve said changes.

Not only more complex, but with exponentially more functional capability which is the key point. The brain system cannot exist without the "collection of chemical and electrical processes", but individually those cannot function like the integrated system (the brain). It is the system that creates consciousness.

To think the complexity would somehow mysteriously make these other things, like the applicability of reason and math to our lives among the other things I noted, is a blind faith statement. It’s a science of the gaps argument.

Just because science can't yet explain something does not make it "mysterious" ... it just means it is an open problem. The explanation may be a mystery until it is sorted out, but the inability to produce the explanation does make the problem a mystery. Materialists aren't claiming that some mysterious thing is happening to enable the brain to do what it does, but that brain activity is (by far) the most sensible and logical explanation for consciousness, and is strongly supported by observations. So the task is to continue to investigate to try and better understand how it does its thing. A huge amount of progress has been made in brain research over the last 2-3 decades, and it continues. Given the track record of science solving problems in the past, it is reasonable to believe it can solve the consciousness problem as well. That may be "science of the gaps", but at least there is a centuries long track record to justify it (unlike non-natural explanations for virtually anything).

[The Tanager]

Who is lying? Who is decieving you? Who is purposely telling you a falsehood?

A mirage is a "naturally-occurring optical phenomenon in which light rays bend via refraction to produce a displaced image of distant objects or the sky."

(An illusion is "an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience.")

You might think it looks like water, like a stain on a wall looks like Jesus, but that's not the mirage's or stain's fault.

The fact is a mirage is real. (If it's a lie, it's God's Creation lying to you - under Theism)

A mirage is real - even if it's an illusion. Like consciousness; like our sense of self.
I simply can't understand why you'd call it a lie.

Is a straw in a glass of water, that looks bent, a lie? Is it the water or the light that is intending to decieve you?

I think we have a very different idea of what Nature is. Just because we have a wrong impression of something doesn't make it not real!

I’m not saying it is a lie in the sense of someone telling you a falsehood; it just is a falsehood, a deception, a misinterpreted view. I’m not saying it’s the water or stain’s fault. But the mirage isn’t real. It’s a real experience, sure, but what we see isn’t actually there, it’s something else giving us that false impression. That the straw is bent is a deception. It’s not bent; it’s straight. The water isn’t intending anything because purely physical things don’t have intentions.

If non-reductive physicalism is true, then it’s a deception that there is even a “we” that experiences falsehood. It's a falsehood that this this false self has intentions. “You” are the wrong impression that the chemical and electrical signals are creating. It’s not that nothing exists, it’s that the real “you” is just a specific collection of signals. Those signals don't have intentions, reason, etc.