Please prove that souls exist and that they are either resurrected or reincarnated

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Please prove that souls exist and that they are either resurrected or reincarnated

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: Please prove that souls exist and that they are either resurrected or reincarnated

Post #171

Post by boatsnguitars »

The Tanager wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 12:34 pm I’m claiming the originating source of consciousness is supernatural/immaterial/nonphysical.
Is it though?
What is the supernatural?
It’s not a scientific gap I’m filling with the supernatural because it isn’t a scientific question.
How convenient.... How do you know it isn't a scientific question?

Let's face it, you are just claiming it - and you might as well be claiming magic. You've got nothing. you can't show what the supernatural is, how it works, how it interacts, anything. You just have a name for it - for the gap in our scientific understanding.
You simply are getting this through your head.




The existence of electrons and their characteristics, for instance, are conclusions to arguments…not directly observed. The definitions arise from the argumentation. The detection with electrons is scientific because that is within its field. The detection with the “soul” is through philosophy because that is the field. Supernatural claims are in the field of philosophy, not something distinct.
This is getting tiresome.

The formula E = hv is a measure of the frequency v of occurrence of Planck's constant h and applies to the electric wave-state. As for each wave-state then is a corresponding mass point-state, then for a particle E = hv = mc2.

Now your turn. That was your example, I showed you how science knows about electrons.

Show me a formula for the supernatural. Just one. You can't. You have no idea what it is.

Tell me this: You claim consciousness interacts with the physical, but it's non-physical - it's philosophical. How does it interact?

How does a philosophical concept interact with the physical, in your opinion? How is a philosophical idea also supernatural?

Your whole concept of reality is totally jacked.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Please prove that souls exist and that they are either resurrected or reincarnated

Post #172

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #170]
This circles back to my ongoing argument that the Earth itself must be sentient and even self aware.
Are you just noting the connection to that question or saying this supports your argument there as being true?
If we follow the reasoning that sentience cannot arise from non-sentient things, then it raises questions about the origin of sentience in living beings on Earth. If we apply the same line of thinking, we might seek an explanation for the emergence of sentience in living organisms by considering the possibility of a pre-existing sentience or consciousness that underlies or interacts with life on Earth.

This line of inquiry suggests that the source of sentience in living beings could stem from a broader consciousness that pervades the natural world, including the Earth itself. It opens up the possibility of exploring a deeper interconnectedness and interplay between consciousness and life on our planet.
I’m missing why different levels of soul would tell us something about the mechanism of each soul with the material aspect of the being.
You wrote the following:
"It’s unclear what is even meant by “mechanism”. Physical things have parts that work together and we call those the mechanisms at work, but it would be a category mistake to think immaterial things would have to have the same."

What do you mean by that?

Your claim requires something to back up the assertion that the immaterial does not have its own mechanisms. I see “mechanism” is not necessarily only relatable to physical objects interacting but can also refer to immaterial minds interacting with each other....on various levels of experience.

If we take the Christian mythology, there is a hierarchical structure to those mythos with “God” at the top and all other minds involved in the production of the whole mechanism of Mind/Mindfulness.

As I wrote, it may be a tangent, so whether it is applicable directly to this thread topic or not, we can pursue it further or leave it be for now.

In general I see nothing wrong with what you have been arguing in this thread, although I am still in disagreement with you over your use of the word "supernatural" that you have been using in reply to those others. There is no practical reason I can think of as to why the concept need be on the table.
You are saying within that idea, that mind is supernatural, which equates to anything being mindful of nature, is regarded by you as being "supernatural" - something I find as an unnecessary addition re mindful/material interactivity.

I think this zooms in on the idea that non-sentience cannot produce mindfulness et al - so some feel the requirement for a supernatural source. That assumption need not be the case and also brings with it the question as to where this supernatural source is and what created it - and sets off the infinite regression trap.

The only way around that, as far as I can tell, is to say that the mind has always existed - naturally - and that things are produced - from the something which is said mind. That something produced is as natural as the mind itself.

In that sense, while this current universe is unfolding from an apparent beginning, and since the mind has always existed and always will exist, the answer must be that the mind has always created universes in which to experience whatever those mechanisms within it determine.

The material things created are temporal - come and go, while the mind which creates them, is eternal.

I think that my argument is more reasonable as it incorporates mind and matter outside of the constrictions of either religious or materialist belief systems, simply by removing the supernatural aspect.
This perspective allows for a broader exploration of the interplay between mind and matter without relying on specific religious or materialistic beliefs. It offers an alternative avenue for understanding consciousness and the relationship between the mind and the external world.

_____________
Does a supernatural universe have to exist to explain why the natural universe exists?

Image

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Please prove that souls exist and that they are either resurrected or reincarnated

Post #173

Post by The Tanager »

boatsnguitars wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 12:50 pmIs it though?
What is the supernatural?
Something outside of physical nature. The arguments show that consciousness comes from something outside of physical nature.
boatsnguitars wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 12:50 pmHow convenient.... How do you know it isn't a scientific question?

Let's face it, you are just claiming it - and you might as well be claiming magic. You've got nothing. you can't show what the supernatural is, how it works, how it interacts, anything. You just have a name for it - for the gap in our scientific understanding.
You simply are getting this through your head.
No, I gave an actual argument that you keep ignoring to share this refrain.
boatsnguitars wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 12:50 pmNow your turn. That was your example, I showed you how science knows about electrons.

Show me a formula for the supernatural. Just one. You can't. You have no idea what it is.
Yes, science shows us that there are these effects. Something causes that effect. We give that thing the name “electron”. Therefore, the electron is a conclusion of an argument from data X, using the cause-effect premise, and giving us Y (i.e., the electron). That’s different from, say, looking at and observing the existence of a cat. A cat is scientifically established. An electron is philosophically established. That’s why there are anti-realists about electrons. My “formula” for the supernatural is also philosophically established in exactly the same way.
boatsnguitars wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 12:50 pmTell me this: You claim consciousness interacts with the physical, but it's non-physical - it's philosophical. How does it interact?

How does a philosophical concept interact with the physical, in your opinion?
I have already addressed this irrelevant question and why it’s irrelevant. You won’t respond to that reasoning; instead you just keep repeating yourself.
boatsnguitars wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 12:50 pmHow is a philosophical idea also supernatural?
That’s not what I said. I said that “supernatural claims are in the field of philosophy” because you said “you assert the existence of something you can’t define, can’t detect, can’t understand - not even philosophically, since it is supernatural,…” which seemed to be claiming that the supernatural is a separate field from philosophy.
boatsnguitars wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 12:50 pmYour whole concept of reality is totally jacked.
If it is jacked, then you won’t unjack it by just claiming stuff; my only hope is for you to support your views and respond to my actual points or ask clarifying questions since you keep misunderstanding things.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Please prove that souls exist and that they are either resurrected or reincarnated

Post #174

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:34 pmIf we follow the reasoning that sentience cannot arise from non-sentient things, then it raises questions about the origin of sentience in living beings on Earth. If we apply the same line of thinking, we might seek an explanation for the emergence of sentience in living organisms by considering the possibility of a pre-existing sentience or consciousness that underlies or interacts with life on Earth.

This line of inquiry suggests that the source of sentience in living beings could stem from a broader consciousness that pervades the natural world, including the Earth itself. It opens up the possibility of exploring a deeper interconnectedness and interplay between consciousness and life on our planet.
At this point in the reasoning, it could be a consciousness within the natural world or one outside of it that created some natural beings with consciousness of their own.
William wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:34 pmYou wrote the following:
"It’s unclear what is even meant by “mechanism”. Physical things have parts that work together and we call those the mechanisms at work, but it would be a category mistake to think immaterial things would have to have the same."

What do you mean by that?

Your claim requires something to back up the assertion that the immaterial does not have its own mechanisms. I see “mechanism” is not necessarily only relatable to physical objects interacting but can also refer to immaterial minds interacting with each other....on various levels of experience.
I didn’t say the immaterial couldn’t have mechanisms, but that it would be wrong to assume that it must have mechanisms like material things do. Notice the bolded words above. Sometimes it seems to me that people who ask for a mechanism are looking for physical mechanisms, assuming that a physical mechanism must exist for an interaction to take place and I wanted to clarify what was actually meant by a mechanism to avoid this possibility.
William wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:34 pmYou are saying within that idea, that mind is supernatural, which equates to anything being mindful of nature, is regarded by you as being "supernatural" - something I find as an unnecessary addition re mindful/material interactivity.
I’m using supernatural as a synonym to immaterial or non-physical or mind. Your view of this Earth consciousness still would mean the “mind” part is immaterial. I don’t see your problem here, but I think you attach more to the ‘supernatural’ term in my usage than I am attaching.
William wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:34 pmThe only way around that, as far as I can tell, is to say that the mind has always existed - naturally - and that things are produced - from the something which is said mind. That something produced is as natural as the mind itself.
Are you equivocating on “natural” here? The mind is absolutely non-natural, non-physical, or non-material. Even if they are connected in the way you believe, they are still mutually exclusive concepts.

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: Please prove that souls exist and that they are either resurrected or reincarnated

Post #175

Post by boatsnguitars »

The Tanager wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 10:54 pm Something outside of physical nature. The arguments show that consciousness comes from something outside of physical nature.
I understand that you define the supernatural as something outside of physical nature. However, the problem lies in demonstrating the existence and nature of this supernatural realm. Merely asserting that consciousness comes from something outside of physical nature is not sufficient to establish its validity. It requires rigorous evidence and empirical support to substantiate such a claim.
The Tanager wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 10:54 pm Yes, science shows us that there are these effects. Something causes that effect. We give that thing the name “electron”. Therefore, the electron is a conclusion of an argument from data X, using the cause-effect premise, and giving us Y (i.e., the electron). That’s different from, say, looking at and observing the existence of a cat. A cat is scientifically established. An electron is philosophically established. That’s why there are anti-realists about electrons. My “formula” for the supernatural is also philosophically established in exactly the same way.
While electrons and cats may be established through different means, the distinction lies in the empirical evidence supporting their existence. Electrons are not merely philosophically established but have substantial empirical evidence from experiments and observations in the field of physics. On the other hand, the supernatural realm lacks comparable empirical evidence to support its existence or establish its properties. It remains an abstract concept without verifiable scientific foundation.

Let's be skeptical and open minded. You propose Consciousness is from the same "stuff" as God; the supernatural.
And I say, "No, it can't be because otherwise we'd be God. Stuff from God must be Godly, therefore, consciousness must come from the Subnatural - completely different "stuff" than the natural and the supernatural"?

Now, I've just given a better argument than you have, so is the subnatural philosophically supported?
Do we now need to seriously consider my claim? What questions would you have for me about the subnatural? After all, I am only claiming that it is substantially different from the natural and supernatural - just as you claim the supernatural is different from the natural.
The Tanager wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 10:54 pm I have already addressed this irrelevant question and why it’s irrelevant. You won’t respond to that reasoning; instead you just keep repeating yourself.
I apologize if my question seemed repetitive. However, I find the question of how a philosophical concept, such as consciousness being non-physical, interacts with the physical world to be crucial in understanding the claims made about the supernatural. Exploring the nature of this interaction is essential to evaluate the coherence and plausibility of the argument being presented.
The Tanager wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 10:54 pm That’s not what I said. I said that “supernatural claims are in the field of philosophy” because you said “you assert the existence of something you can’t define, can’t detect, can’t understand - not even philosophically, since it is supernatural,…” which seemed to be claiming that the supernatural is a separate field from philosophy.
I understand that supernatural claims are discussed and debated within the realm of philosophy. However, my point is that for supernatural claims to hold weight and be considered credible, they require more than philosophical assertions. They require compelling evidence, logical coherence, and empirical support to be considered as valid explanations of reality.
The Tanager wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 10:54 pm If it is jacked, then you won’t unjack it by just claiming stuff; my only hope is for you to support your views and respond to my actual points or ask clarifying questions since you keep misunderstanding things.
I appreciate your desire for clarity and productive dialogue. I am open to exploring and engaging with your arguments and points. However, it is important to recognize that skepticism and scrutiny are fundamental aspects of critical thinking and intellectual inquiry. You will just have to accept that people question what you have invented in your philosophical musings.

As for supporting my claim that the consciousness is physical, I've done that in spades. You refuse to accept my claims because you are fixated and in love with your opinion.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Please prove that souls exist and that they are either resurrected or reincarnated

Post #176

Post by JoeyKnothead »

The Tanager wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 10:54 pm Something outside of physical nature. The arguments show that consciousness comes from something outside of physical nature.
At best the arguments show we're unable to confirm the non/physical aspect of consciousness, while the science points heavily to it being a product of the brain, which resides within nature.
That’s not what I said. I said that “supernatural claims are in the field of philosophy” because you said “you assert the existence of something you can’t define, can’t detect, can’t understand - not even philosophically, since it is supernatural,…” which seemed to be claiming that the supernatural is a separate field from philosophy.
Philosophy and speculation are interchangeable when we speak of the supernatural. We simply have no means, at this time, of confirming what exists beyond the real or potential boundary of the universe.

Beyond that notion, what we do know is that we experience consciousness here inside the universe, so the more rational position is that consciousness resides within it. There's no need to invoke the supernatural when we accept this fact. (Where the natural is defined as all that which is contained within the universe.)
If it is jacked, then you won’t unjack it by just claiming stuff; my only hope is for you to support your views and respond to my actual points or ask clarifying questions since you keep misunderstanding things.
As I've interjected myself into the conversation, and snipped bits here and there, it's important for folks to know I might bear me some guilt on this bit.

I'd still contend my responses fit the pieces of the puzzle I have addressed.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Please prove that souls exist and that they are either resurrected or reincarnated

Post #177

Post by The Tanager »

boatsnguitars wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 5:11 amI understand that you define the supernatural as something outside of physical nature. However, the problem lies in demonstrating the existence and nature of this supernatural realm. Merely asserting that consciousness comes from something outside of physical nature is not sufficient to establish its validity. It requires rigorous evidence and empirical support to substantiate such a claim.
I haven’t merely asserted it, I gave the argument. You keep ignoring it and then say I have only asserted it. There can’t be empirical support for it because it isn’t an empirical question.
boatsnguitars wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 5:11 amWhile electrons and cats may be established through different means, the distinction lies in the empirical evidence supporting their existence. Electrons are not merely philosophically established but have substantial empirical evidence from experiments and observations in the field of physics. On the other hand, the supernatural realm lacks comparable empirical evidence to support its existence or establish its properties. It remains an abstract concept without verifiable scientific foundation.
No, they don’t. They are philosophically established. Some premises in that philosophical argument are empirical evidence (just like the empirical evidence we have of consciousness), but there are also philosophical premises (just like in my argument). It’s exactly the same. That’s why anti-realism is held by various philosophers of science.
boatsnguitars wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 5:11 amLet's be skeptical and open minded. You propose Consciousness is from the same "stuff" as God; the supernatural.
And I say, "No, it can't be because otherwise we'd be God. Stuff from God must be Godly, therefore, consciousness must come from the Subnatural - completely different "stuff" than the natural and the supernatural"?

Now, I've just given a better argument than you have, so is the subnatural philosophically supported?
Do we now need to seriously consider my claim? What questions would you have for me about the subnatural? After all, I am only claiming that it is substantially different from the natural and supernatural - just as you claim the supernatural is different from the natural.
That is not included in my use of “supernatural” for this argument. If this is the case, then it would come from other arguments. I’m focused on this argument, this issue. Going to different issues will only confuse this issue. Stay on target.
boatsnguitars wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 5:11 amI apologize if my question seemed repetitive. However, I find the question of how a philosophical concept, such as consciousness being non-physical, interacts with the physical world to be crucial in understanding the claims made about the supernatural. Exploring the nature of this interaction is essential to evaluate the coherence and plausibility of the argument being presented.
If you think that, then you don’t understand the argument being presented or the issue that is being addressed. Your question is an important question, but a different one that what my arguments have addressed and it is completely irrelevant to the question my arguments address. No matter how many times you just repeat that it is relevant. The only way to move this part rationally forward, if you still think it is relevant is to give an argument for its relevance, not just continuing to assert it is.
boatsnguitars wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 5:11 amI understand that supernatural claims are discussed and debated within the realm of philosophy. However, my point is that for supernatural claims to hold weight and be considered credible, they require more than philosophical assertions. They require compelling evidence, logical coherence, and empirical support to be considered as valid explanations of reality.
How could non-natural, non-physical things require empirical support? Empirical support is about physical observations. You can’t physically observe non-physical things. That’s illogical. What do you mean by empirical support?
boatsnguitars wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 5:11 amI appreciate your desire for clarity and productive dialogue. I am open to exploring and engaging with your arguments and points. However, it is important to recognize that skepticism and scrutiny are fundamental aspects of critical thinking and intellectual inquiry. You will just have to accept that people question what you have invented in your philosophical musings.
I agree skepticism and scrutiny is fundamental and I do it. I’m the one giving syllogisms and reasonings. I do accept people question my points (although I certainly haven’t invented them). I don’t accept assertions in response, though, it must be the sharing of rational reasonings.
boatsnguitars wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 5:11 amAs for supporting my claim that the consciousness is physical, I've done that in spades. You refuse to accept my claims because you are fixated and in love with your opinion.
No, I gave my actual reasons for not accepting your claims. To claim those aren’t my actual reasons, but a charade for the real reason that I’m actually just fixated and in love with my opinion is ridiculously irrational. If you disagree with my actual reasons, then give the reasoning they are wrong, not the “reasoning” that they aren’t my real reasons.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Please prove that souls exist and that they are either resurrected or reincarnated

Post #178

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #174]
At this point in the reasoning, it could be a consciousness within the natural world or one outside of it that created some natural beings with consciousness of their own.
The former is better than the latter.
Attempting to use “supernatural” as a synonym to immaterial or non-physical or mind creates its own complexities and requires explanations as to why a supernatural mind would create other supernatural minds [for your argument is that all minds are supernatural] and then place these minds into a natural/non-supernatural environment. How/from what were these minds created?

My argument means that it is unnecessary to “explain” why minds are involved with matter.
A planet mind, a star mind a galaxy mind … differing aspects mindfully involved with the mechanics of Nature and not at all "supernatural" for that.
I’m using supernatural as a synonym to immaterial or non-physical or mind. Your view of this Earth consciousness still would mean the “mind” part is immaterial. I don’t see your problem here, but I think you attach more to the ‘supernatural’ term in my usage than I am attaching.
To foster a clearer understanding and avoid misunderstandings, it would be beneficial for you to provide a more detailed explanation of what you intend when using the word "supernatural." This would allow for a more precise understanding of your perspective and enable a more productive and informed discussion on the subject matter.
Are you equivocating on “natural” here? The mind is absolutely non-natural, non-physical, or non-material. Even if they are connected in the way you believe, they are still mutually exclusive concepts.
First you argue that I attach more to the ‘supernatural’ term in my usage than you are attaching, and then you argue that the mind is absolutely supernatural.

Please explain your understanding of these terms in greater detail as it could help reconcile any inconsistencies and enable a more productive and coherent exchange of ideas.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Please prove that souls exist and that they are either resurrected or reincarnated

Post #179

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #177]
You can’t physically observe non-physical things.
The mind can be observed in the matter and what it does with the matter. This is in fact, one reason we know that mind exists.

While one cannot physically observe this non physical thing which is known to exist, there are other ways in which it can be measured and observed through those measurements.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Please prove that souls exist and that they are either resurrected or reincarnated

Post #180

Post by Miles »

William wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 2:47 pm [Replying to The Tanager in post #177]
You can’t physically observe non-physical things.
The mind can be observed in the matter and what it does with the matter. This is in fact, one reason we know that mind exists.

While one cannot physically observe this non physical thing which is known to exist, there are other ways in which it can be measured and observed through those measurements.
Curious, I, and I'm sure science in general, would like to know what these measurements are and how the non-physical can be observed through them.

Care to fill us in?

.

Post Reply