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.

[JoeyKnothead]

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".

It does seem like a fine gap for the god fitting in, these things we don't (yet?) know beyond any possible doubt.

In considering all this, I look to how human history is chock full of religious explanations, so often linked to human emotion, and conclude there's nothing there.

Consciousness is only ever exhibited in the material, insofar as we don't see rocks fretting the deeper questions of rockial existence. From this it's perfectly rational to conclude that consciousness is a product of the physical.

It's explained quite elegantly through evolutionary theory. When a critter builds up enough sensors, and enough brain power to contemplate those sensors, consciousness is formed.

Gods become ever smaller when we realize they exist solely in the conscious thoughts of critters able to contemplate their own consciousness.

[Clownboat]

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.

I bolded the questions you refused to answer first go around.

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.

Souls are proposed for religious or spiritual reasons. Not because humans detected something that needs an explanation. Please give us a reason for there needing to be a soul outside of religion and I'll compare that to microscopic undetectable versions of ourselves that supply our consciousness to see which explanation deals with your reason better.

And by “honest” you mean “agree with me”?

Nope. In fact, I was very clear:
"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."

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.

Think what you want. Souls exist for the religious and the spiritual like 'NASA is in on it' for the flat earther. The belief is what supplies the conclusion. This is backwards. First something should be detected, THEN we hypothesizes possible causes.
My question is, what did we detect that a soul explains? Obviously you understand that 'I need a soul to be thing in order to gain my religious eternal life' is to not detect a thing. It's nothing more than the baggage that is necessary in order to have the belief you desire. Again, like someone that wants to believe that the earth is flat. 'NASA must be in on it' is a required belief.

But even if one were correct, motive means NOTHING when rationally assessing arguments for and against truth claims.

How quickly you forget my words: "You can answer this honestly as it wouldn't make a soul idea false."

A flat earther is wrong because their arguments are flawed, not because they are flat earthers, not because of whatever motives they have.

Now you are at least close. You are not wrong because you are religious and I'm open to the idea of there being a soul, so you could in fact be correct. However, you do hold the view you do for being religious though and none of your arguments so far have created a need for there to be a soul. I would have the same problem you do now if I wanted to argue for tiny undetectable versions of ourselves in our brains supplying our consciousness. You might ask me why I propose what i do. Now imagine if I had no valid reason, how seriously would you consider these tiny us's as supplying consciousness? Surely you wouldn't claim that I'm wrong because of my religion, but you may ask what else causes me to submit this idea of tiny versions of us supplying us with consciousness. Then if my reasoning seems wanting, you'll likely withhold belief in the tiny us's. Surely you can see that is all I'm doing now? What need or what has been detected that would require or at least suggest the existence of a soul? If there is nothing, then all I have is your motive to go off of and again, it would be the same reason that NASA is in on it for a flat earther. Not a good reason to hold a belief if you ask me.

[The Tanager]

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?

No. Accepting an idea as true without good reasons would be giving the idea credit it doesn’t yet deserve, but arguing against that definitely would not.

Is a religious soul idea really more credible then a microscopic undetectable version of ourselves for supplying our consciousness?

I’m sorry, I thought my answer to this would be implied by my response, but I’ll directly add it into the response I gave. “Yes, the idea of a soul is more credible then a microscopic undetectable version of ourselves for supplying our consciousness as I’ve offered arguments that, if true, would also work against the existence of an undetectable but physical little us/brain/physical object.”

Souls are proposed for religious or spiritual reasons. Not because humans detected something that needs an explanation. Please give us a reason for there needing to be a soul outside of religion and I'll compare that to microscopic undetectable versions of ourselves that supply our consciousness to see which explanation deals with your reason better.

I already have. You can look back at post 52. Your response was a cop out, that if it was good you’d address it.

Nope. In fact, I was very clear:
"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."

Think what you want. Souls exist for the religious and the spiritual like 'NASA is in on it' for the flat earther. The belief is what supplies the conclusion. This is backwards. First something should be detected, THEN we hypothesizes possible causes.

Assuming that is their motive, then, I honestly do have a different motive. The premises provide the conclusion, not my prior belief.

My question is, what did we detect that a soul explains? Obviously you understand that 'I need a soul to be thing in order to gain my religious eternal life' is to not detect a thing. It's nothing more than the baggage that is necessary in order to have the belief you desire. Again, like someone that wants to believe that the earth is flat. 'NASA must be in on it' is a required belief.

Consciousness is what we’ve detected that a soul explains better than non-reductive and reductive physicalism.

Now you are at least close. You are not wrong because you are religious and I'm open to the idea of there being a soul, so you could in fact be correct. However, you do hold the view you do for being religious though and none of your arguments so far have created a need for there to be a soul. I would have the same problem you do now if I wanted to argue for tiny undetectable versions of ourselves in our brains supplying our consciousness. You might ask me why I propose what i do. Now imagine if I had no valid reason, how seriously would you consider these tiny us's as supplying consciousness? Surely you wouldn't claim that I'm wrong because of my religion, but you may ask what else causes me to submit this idea of tiny versions of us supplying us with consciousness. Then if my reasoning seems wanting, you'll likely withhold belief in the tiny us's. Surely you can see that is all I'm doing now? What need or what has been detected that would require or at least suggest the existence of a soul? If there is nothing, then all I have is your motive to go off of and again, it would be the same reason that NASA is in on it for a flat earther. Not a good reason to hold a belief if you ask me.

I would not ask you or try to figure out why you are holding onto the belief you do because you would be telling me why you think you believe something and I would address that. If you have a different motive you would obviously not believe that is the only reason, so I wouldn’t be addressing your claims. Even if you did have a different motive and were aware of it, it still wouldn’t defeat any reasoning offered in favor of your position. Since I seek truth, I’m going to explore the arguments and not worry about irrelevant pyschologizing, especially since such attempts are murky at best, becoming empty rhetoric that distracts from a rational interchange.

I would hear your reasons out. I would explain why I accept or reject them. If that is all you are doing, then you’d address the points from my arguments in post 52 instead of dismissing those as not deserving of a response and appealing to pyschologizing, false analogies, and straw men

[Clownboat]

No. Accepting an idea as true without good reasons would be giving the idea credit it doesn’t yet deserve, but arguing against that definitely would not.

How much time are you willing to invest arguing against the fact that there are tiny undetectable versions of ourselves supplying us with consciousness? How about the fact that the earth is flat? Neither you would see as a waste of time or to give the ideas credit they don't yet deserve? That is hard to believe.

“Yes, the idea of a soul is more credible then a microscopic undetectable version of ourselves for supplying our consciousness as I’ve offered arguments that, if true, would also work against the existence of an undetectable but physical little us/brain/physical object.”

Any chance for a recap?

You can look back at post 52. Your response was a cop out,

This would actually be an example of a cop out.

Consciousness is what we’ve detected that a soul explains better than non-reductive and reductive physicalism.

You propose a religious idea as an explanation even though there is no evidence. Kind of like how a flat earther claims without any evidence that NASA is in on it.
That kind of reasoning is hard for me to swallow, so I ask for evidence or at least a suggestion that something is there interacting.

I would not ask you or try to figure out why you are holding onto the belief you do because you would be telling me why you think you believe something and I would address that. If you have a different motive you would obviously not believe that is the only reason, so I wouldn’t be addressing your claims. Even if you did have a different motive and were aware of it, it still wouldn’t defeat any reasoning offered in favor of your position. Since I seek truth, I’m going to explore the arguments and not worry about irrelevant pyschologizing, especially since such attempts are murky at best, becoming empty rhetoric that distracts from a rational interchange.

I don't see any evidence for a soul here nor anything to respond to. Let me know if there is a message in these words that deserves a response that I might have missed.

I would hear your reasons out. I would explain why I accept or reject them. If that is all you are doing, then you’d address the points from my arguments in post 52 instead of dismissing those as not deserving of a response and appealing to pyschologizing, false analogies, and straw men

Copy paste to save time: "I just re-read post 52 and I agree, you argue for a soul and I claim you do it because you are religious and your religion requires a soul concept to make threats against. What you haven't done is provide evidence for a soul. If a soul existed and interacted in the real world, we could detect such interactions."

You are unable rebut and instead slander me it seems. I get it and believe I understand what motivates you. Still happy to review any evidence for a soul though.

Characteristics of consciousness:
(1) sensory perception; (2) mental imagery; (3) inner speech; (4) conceptual thought; (5) remembering; (6) emotional feeling (7) volition; and (8) self-awareness.
I'm just not seeing where a soul needs to be inserted to explain what it seems is taking place in a working brain.

[The Tanager]

How much time are you willing to invest arguing against the fact that there are tiny undetectable versions of ourselves supplying us with consciousness? How about the fact that the earth is flat? Neither you would see as a waste of time or to give the ideas credit they don't yet deserve? That is hard to believe.

I’m not going to seek discussions on them out, but if I’m talking with someone and the discussion is pertinent, then I’ll give them time to make their case and share my questions and critiques. I certainly wouldn’t join a discussion and then just claim their arguments are not worth the time as though that proves them wrong.

"I just re-read post 52 and I agree, you argue for a soul and I claim you do it because you are religious and your religion requires a soul concept to make threats against. What you haven't done is provide evidence for a soul. If a soul existed and interacted in the real world, we could detect such interactions."

You are unable rebut and instead slander me it seems. I get it and believe I understand what motivates you. Still happy to review any evidence for a soul though.

Why isn’t post 52 evidence for a soul? Are you faulting it for not being scientific or physical evidence? If not, then which premise(s) are unsound or what is wrong with the form of the argument, to where the conclusions (that consciousness is distinct from the brain and is not produced by the brain, but resides in the soul) don’t follow? Or are you saying you don’t comprehend the arguments?

[boatsnguitars]

Has a soul been defined? Has a mechanism been proposed on how something that is completely non-material, and leaves no evidence, can affect Matter, or is affected by Matter?

"Soul" is shorthand for "I don't like science, I love Jesus, shut up and let me believe I can live forever like the man in the funny hat and robe says."

[The Tanager]

Has a soul been defined? Has a mechanism been proposed on how something that is completely non-material, and leaves no evidence, can affect Matter, or is affected by Matter?

"Soul" is shorthand for "I don't like science, I love Jesus, shut up and let me believe I can live forever like the man in the funny hat and robe says."

No, “soul” is not shorthand for that at all. Nothing in my posts would rationally give anyone that. “Soul” is the term used because it has been the traditional concept. It could be called a mind, an immaterial thing, a “Name to be determined,” it doesn’t matter to me. I haven’t argued for other beliefs people traditionally attach to the traditional concept (like survival after death, that God created it, etc.). I’ve only argued that it explains the existence of consciousness because the brain is not consciousness and could not have produced it (unless consciousness is a “refraction” rather than what we ascribe to it being). That’s the basic “definition” of the soul I’ve offered here. Further defining would come from other arguments.

As to “mechanism,” what do you mean by that term? If my arguments are sound, then consciousness is a faculty of the soul, and it would clearly affect matter because we can think things that cause our fingers to type specific words. As I've said that there is an affect and how that affect occurs are two different questions. Not knowing how is irrelevant to knowing that.

[boatsnguitars]

Has a soul been defined? Has a mechanism been proposed on how something that is completely non-material, and leaves no evidence, can affect Matter, or is affected by Matter?

"Soul" is shorthand for "I don't like science, I love Jesus, shut up and let me believe I can live forever like the man in the funny hat and robe says."

No, “soul” is not shorthand for that at all. Nothing in my posts would rationally give anyone that. “Soul” is the term used because it has been the traditional concept. It could be called a mind, an immaterial thing, a “Name to be determined,” it doesn’t matter to me. I haven’t argued for other beliefs people traditionally attach to the traditional concept (like survival after death, that God created it, etc.). I’ve only argued that it explains the existence of consciousness because the brain is not consciousness and could not have produced it (unless consciousness is a “refraction” rather than what we ascribe to it being). That’s the basic “definition” of the soul I’ve offered here. Further defining would come from other arguments.

As to “mechanism,” what do you mean by that term? If my arguments are sound, then consciousness is a faculty of the soul, and it would clearly affect matter because we can think things that cause our fingers to type specific words. As I've said that there is an affect and how that affect occurs are two different questions. Not knowing how is irrelevant to knowing that.

"If your arguments are sound?" They aren't.

You've simply tried to define the soul as what it isn't: material.

And, you know, you must have known this. This is so well worn.

And, no, you can't wave off the mechanism part of this. Just because you don't know what I mean doesn't absolve you of explaining how the immaterial world interacts with the material.

It gets old watching Religionists continually hide behind the "mystery of the spirit" while they try to tell us they have better ways of telling the truth than science, and they have better way of knowing than everyone else, but they just can't tell us how the supernatural realm works - they can only confidently tell us it exists...

Weak.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #148]

In my last post I made a couple of points with reasons.

(1) The narrow scope/definition of the “soul” I’ve argued for
(2) How knowing how is irrelevant to knowing that and that my arguments are about knowing that

I’m not sure why you think the narrow definition is a problem and your response to the second simply assumes that knowing how is relevant without telling why.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #148]

In my last post I made a couple of points with reasons.

(1) The narrow scope/definition of the “soul” I’ve argued for
(2) How knowing how is irrelevant to knowing that and that my arguments are about knowing that

I’m not sure why you think the narrow definition is a problem and your response to the second simply assumes that knowing how is relevant without telling why.

It could be called a mind, an immaterial thing, a “Name to be determined,” it doesn’t matter to me.

I wish you would have started with this. If it doesn't matter to you, it doesn't matter to me what you think.
We're done, then, no? You don't even care to define what you think exists. Lame.