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 would say that we are similar and distinct from materialists, and the onus is on us to come to agreement re our terminology and appropriate use of words as they are generally understood.

Okay, so if the categories are material and immaterial, isn’t your mind in the “immaterial” category and your matter in the “material” category? Yes, those two categories are intricately connected, but they are still distinct, right? Even in the unorganized state, right?

I think the answer to your question “Why do you say my view is that minds within the universe are a product of an unknown source?” is because “supernatural” as it is generally understood, is unknown. Therefore a supernatural mind outside of this natural environment [the universe] would, and indeed has to be - unknown and probably unknowable.

Why do you think it is unknown and unknowable? What do you mean by “unknown”?

I would say that "configuration" explains the idea of the philosophy I present to describe the organization of unorganized matter, as it conveys the idea of arranging and structuring elements into a specific form.
"Transformation" can be confused with "supernaturalism" which my philosophy is specifically taking off the table.

Regarding the mind, my perspective suggests that through thought, the mind brings about configurations or forms that can be experienced as real by the one thinkin said thoughts. This aligns with the notion that the mind plays a fundamental role in shaping and perceiving the world.

In that regard - the one is simpler than the other, if indeed the other is argued to be another universe which is separate from this one and responsible for the existence of this one, so no - clearly your philosophy is indeed the more complex of the two...unless of course, your use of the word "supernatural" is the same as my use of the word "natural" re the known existence of mind involved with matter/the immaterial involved with the material. Presently it does not appear to be the case that we are saying the same thing re "all else being equal".

I don’t see how that is simpler. You still have separate things (mind and matter) with one affecting the other. Even prior to organization there is this conceptual distinction of mind and matter. It’s just that matter changes from being disorganized to organized.

I propose a framework that emphasizes the interplay between mind and matter within the natural world, suggesting that the organizing Mind is an inherent aspect of the interconnected fabric of reality rather than an external supernatural force.

Even in your view the Mind is still external to matter. That’s the exact same with “supernaturalism” where minds are external to matter (i.e., external to the natural realm and therefore called supernatural).

But you do mean "outside" in the literal sense of there being a supernatural realm which created the natural realm, as per your argument Jason, so there are nuances to address in that the label we each give to the mind are further into a complexity re supernatural, and equal to the complexity re natural.

What do you mean “realm”?

Essentially we speak from the same platform re the different platform of materialism, but differ in our interpretations of the nature of mind. I say it is responsible for the organization of the material it is experiencing and you say that another mind outside of the mind experiencing the matter, created - not only the matter - but also the mind that resides within the matter.

So, are you saying your view is simpler in that my view has three constituents of reality (Mind, matter, minds), while yours has only two of these in the organized state (matter, minds)? Is there no Mind during the organized state; it’s just matter and minds?

[The Tanager]

Rain and people are made of Matter.
When the air temperature decreases, it can lead to condensation of water vapor in the atmosphere, resulting in the formation of rain. The raindrops fall under the influence of gravity and make contact with the surface, including my head. The mass of the rainwater adds to the overall weight on my head, exerting a downward force.

At the microscopic level, the surface tension of water allows it to form cohesive droplets that adhere to one another and fill the spaces between individual hair strands. This phenomenon is governed by intermolecular forces between water molecules, which contribute to the cohesive properties of liquid water.

As the rainwater comes into contact with my head, heat transfer occurs between my body and the water. My body temperature is generally higher than the temperature of the rainwater, causing the heat to transfer from my body to the cooler water. This heat transfer can result in the evaporation of the rainwater, as the added energy enables water molecules at the surface to overcome intermolecular forces and transition into a gaseous state.

In summary, the cooling of the air leads to condensation and the formation of rain, which falls and lands on my head. The cohesive properties of water and surface tension allow the rainwater to adhere to and fill the gaps between my hair strands. Additionally, the temperature difference between my body and the rainwater facilitates heat transfer, potentially leading to evaporation of the water and the formation of steam.


But, wait...

Are you really this confused?

Just explain, in clear terms, how the supernatural interacts with the Natural. What prediction can you make? For example, if I perform a seance, can I talk to my dead ancestors? If i say an incantation, can I make a bowl float in air? If I say another incantation (prayer) will God move a mountain? Tell me what you are talking about and how we can confirm your statement.

Just back up what you are claiming!

Yes, two natural things that interact interact in natural ways. I agree. That’s to be expected, by definition. Why does this mean that something supernatural logically couldn’t interact with something natural, since that was the claim you are now trying to support.

Before humans knew the depth of this knowledge of how rain and humans interacted, would it have been silly to say that rain doesn’t affect humans? Or is that there is a relationship a different question from how it all works? You see, I have backed up my claims. But instead of continuing to respond to that support, you change the question from that to how, and then ask me to back that up as though it has anything to do with the that question, when it is irrelevant.

[JoeyKnothead]

Rain is mostly water. Humans are mostly water.

So, rain can affect humans because they are both mostly made up of water when the affecting is going on? Okay, then why can rain affect parched ground?

Because science.

[brunumb]

If the wood of a ship is replaced, then it is a different ship, although it still has all the same functions of the old ship. I said it results in a different collection of matter and if it’s the matter that gives rise to consciousness, then different collections of matter would give rise to different consciousnesses.

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.

[boatsnguitars]

Rain and people are made of Matter.
When the air temperature decreases, it can lead to condensation of water vapor in the atmosphere, resulting in the formation of rain. The raindrops fall under the influence of gravity and make contact with the surface, including my head. The mass of the rainwater adds to the overall weight on my head, exerting a downward force.

At the microscopic level, the surface tension of water allows it to form cohesive droplets that adhere to one another and fill the spaces between individual hair strands. This phenomenon is governed by intermolecular forces between water molecules, which contribute to the cohesive properties of liquid water.

As the rainwater comes into contact with my head, heat transfer occurs between my body and the water. My body temperature is generally higher than the temperature of the rainwater, causing the heat to transfer from my body to the cooler water. This heat transfer can result in the evaporation of the rainwater, as the added energy enables water molecules at the surface to overcome intermolecular forces and transition into a gaseous state.

In summary, the cooling of the air leads to condensation and the formation of rain, which falls and lands on my head. The cohesive properties of water and surface tension allow the rainwater to adhere to and fill the gaps between my hair strands. Additionally, the temperature difference between my body and the rainwater facilitates heat transfer, potentially leading to evaporation of the water and the formation of steam.


But, wait...

Are you really this confused?

Just explain, in clear terms, how the supernatural interacts with the Natural. What prediction can you make? For example, if I perform a seance, can I talk to my dead ancestors? If i say an incantation, can I make a bowl float in air? If I say another incantation (prayer) will God move a mountain? Tell me what you are talking about and how we can confirm your statement.

Just back up what you are claiming!

Yes, two natural things that interact interact in natural ways. I agree. That’s to be expected, by definition. Why does this mean that something supernatural logically couldn’t interact with something natural, since that was the claim you are now trying to support.

Before humans knew the depth of this knowledge of how rain and humans interacted, would it have been silly to say that rain doesn’t affect humans? Or is that there is a relationship a different question from how it all works? You see, I have backed up my claims. But instead of continuing to respond to that support, you change the question from that to how, and then ask me to back that up as though it has anything to do with the that question, when it is irrelevant.

Before you asked me how rain could interact with the body, because you called them two different things. I gave you a highly detailed account of how it happens, and even without the molecular knowledge, ancient man could recognize their hair gets wet, water weighs hair down, water is heavy, water sticks to things, and a host of things known about rain - so your point is absurdly ridiculous.

As if ancient man would act surprised with each drop of rain and cry out, "What is this! What is happening! I have no idea what is going on! God, is that you! Is God rain? Or is it a cat? Maybe it's jealousy seeping from the cracks of the sky mountain! I have no idea! Who am I? Where am I? What is happening!?!?!"

That's the level of stupidity you are assuming?

You haven't backed up ONE THING about the supernatural. You have not shown it exists, how it can interact - even philosophically - with the natural. You just wave your hand and point to gaps in knowledge. You have simply asserted that the supernatural exists and that it can interact - because you say so.

It's such poor reasoning and such poor scholarship that it is nigh offensive.

I asked you how the supernatural could interact with the natural, and your response it to decide it's not important. It is.
I've asked you for evidence that the supernatural exists, and all you do is wave your hand to gaps in our knowledge.
I've asked you how any of your Arguments from Ignorance show that the supernatural exists, or can interact with the natural, and you wave it off.

It's frankly pathetic.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #211]

I would say that we are similar and distinct from materialists, and the onus is on us to come to agreement re our terminology and appropriate use of words as they are generally understood.

Okay, so if the categories are material and immaterial, isn’t your mind in the “immaterial” category and your matter in the “material” category? Yes, those two categories are intricately connected, but they are still distinct, right? Even in the unorganized state, right?

Not what I have said at all. In fact, I distinctly used the word "indistinguishable" re The Mind and unorganized Matter.
What I have written:

"My view is that the whole problem of supernaturalism is in thinking that the immaterial is somehow not an aspect of the material, let alone the primary reason for the engagement in and organizing of Matter.
My view is that unorganized matter is indistinguishable from the immaterial mind. What makes matter, material is all in the organization of it."

I think the answer to your question “Why do you say my view is that minds within the universe are a product of an unknown source?” is because “supernatural” as it is generally understood, is unknown. Therefore a supernatural mind outside of this natural environment [the universe] would, and indeed has to be - unknown and probably unknowable.

Why do you think it is unknown and unknowable? What do you mean by “unknown”?

The short answer is because no one has been able to explain what is known about this so-called "supernatural" mind.

I don’t see how that is simpler. You still have separate things (mind and matter) with one affecting the other. Even prior to organization there is this conceptual distinction of mind and matter. It’s just that matter changes from being disorganized to organized.

There is a distinction between unorganized matter and organized matter. The distinction is that unorganized matter is immaterial.

Even in your view the Mind is still external to matter. That’s the exact same with “supernaturalism” where minds are external to matter (i.e., external to the natural realm and therefore called supernatural).

This is not what I have been saying.
The Mind is immaterial and no less natural than the immaterial matter it organizes into material matter.
Essentially, this is not me saying that The Mind is "supernatural" but that organized matter - this Universe - is a product of The Mind inside The Mind, rather than the concept of this Universe being the product of some mind outside of/distinguishable from the The Mind.

But you do mean "outside" in the literal sense of there being a supernatural realm which created the natural realm, as per your argument Jason, so there are nuances to address in that the label we each give to the mind are further into a complexity re supernatural, and equal to the complexity re natural.

What do you mean “realm”?

Enlighten me if you can.
What is this "supernatural" concept you believe is responsible for the existence of our Universe Realm, which shouldn't be referred to as a "realm" itself?
What should it be referred to as, if not a "realm"?

So, are you saying your view is simpler in that my view has three constituents of reality (Mind, matter, minds), while yours has only two of these in the organized state (matter, minds)? Is there no Mind during the organized state; it’s just matter and minds?

Based on my previous explanations, I have emphasized that The Mind is not separate from individual minds. Rather, it is an interconnected aspect of the consciousness of each individual mind. In other words, during the organized state, both material matter and minds coexist, with The Mind being an inherent aspect of individual minds rather than a separate entity. By recognizing this interconnectedness, we can understand that the Mind and individual minds are intertwined and mutually influencing.

I am emphasizing the immaterial nature of unorganized matter. In my viewpoint, unorganized matter is considered immaterial rather than solely physical. This perspective aligns with my broader understanding that The Mind is not separate from individual minds and encompasses an interconnected aspect of consciousness. The distinction I make helps to highlight the immaterial nature of unorganized matter within my framework of thought.

Have you thought about my question to you as to the process your supernatural framework uses in order to create a separate consciousness it can then place into the Universe? Do you have an answer?

[Clownboat]

I have already said that I believe humans are soul-body composite beings.

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

That means, to be a human, soul needs brain and brain needs soul. Having one doesn’t mean the other is unneeded.

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?

Notice that I said how it interacts and you said that it interacts in your response.

What a truly weak rebuttal to the fact that you cannot show that a soul interacts with our reality in any way, shape or form. You so far haven't even suggested a valid reason for this idea of a soul. Why do you argue for the need of a soul?

I have never claimed here that a soul lives on after death or used it to justify anything I’ve said. That’s a straw man.

You think I'm new here? I know why you argue for a soul even though you refuse to address it here (and we know why). You can call it a straw man, but it's still accurate.

I have not said there is no relationship between brain and consciousness; I’ve very clearly said otherwise.

Great, now please show the relationship between the soul and whatever it is it has a relationship with. This would be a great place to start IMO.

If the brain produces consciousness, and the brain changes into something materially different (not functionally different, but materially different), then the subsequent consciousnesses produced would also be something different.

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.

You brought up that severe injuries can cause permanent unconsciousness; I agree. I shared why I didn’t think that was relevant to the argument I presented. Why do you refer to this as complaining?

You're complaining about the fact that consciousness doesn't change when brain material changes.
See your words: "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."

It reads as, 'I expect X to happen and it doesn't happen!'
Stop complaining and ask yourself why I would suggest.

Do you ONLY want to call it the same car because you want to think that getting some new brain cells means it’s the same brain and the same consciousness?

No, I want to call it the same car because it is. More importantly, the function of the car hasn't changed. The same goes for the brain when we replace some cells, it doesn't stop being the brain nor does it stop functioning as a brain.

Yes, the radiator gets replaced and we still call it the same car, our car, but why isn’t that just a useful fiction? Do you believe the car is something more than just a collection of matter? If not, then different collections of matter are different things.

A cars function is to provide a means of travel. If we replace the radiator with a different working radiator, the function of the car hasn't changed.
If the brain does in fact provide consciousness and we replace some brain cells with new brain cells, the function of the brain hasn't changed. You think it should and complain that it doesn't happen.

[The Tanager]

So, rain can affect humans because they are both mostly made up of water when the affecting is going on? Okay, then why can rain affect parched ground?

Because science.

Then why didn’t you say that instead of that rain and humans are both mostly water? Yes, I agree, science can explain how two physical things interact. But my question was why something non-physical logically cannot interact with something physical. Are you saying your answer to that question is “because science”? If so, how does science prove that? If not, then what is your answer to my question?

[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.

[The Tanager]

Before you asked me how rain could interact with the body, because you called them two different things. I gave you a highly detailed account of how it happens, and even without the molecular knowledge, ancient man could recognize their hair gets wet, water weighs hair down, water is heavy, water sticks to things, and a host of things known about rain - so your point is absurdly ridiculous.

As if ancient man would act surprised with each drop of rain and cry out, "What is this! What is happening! I have no idea what is going on! God, is that you! Is God rain? Or is it a cat? Maybe it's jealousy seeping from the cracks of the sky mountain! I have no idea! Who am I? Where am I? What is happening!?!?!"

That's the level of stupidity you are assuming?

If that was my point, then I agree it would be a ridiculous one. That’s not my point at all. I asked you that because I am trying to get at the philosophical premise you are using to support your claim that the non-physical interacting with the physical is logically incoherent. At first you simply talked about them needing to be similar, which was vague. I gave an example that provided you with an opportunity to nuance that, to clarify what you meant by saying that, figuring that you had a more nuanced concept by that statement.

You have seemingly clarified that you are talking about a very specific kind of similarity. Rain and humans are similar in that they are both physical. You are saying that’s why they can interact. I agree that they interact physically, but that doesn’t rationally support the claim you made that I’m questioning. The interaction of physical things through physical means says nothing about the non-physical not being able to interact with the physical.

One expects two physical things to each have physical elements to that interaction. A physical thing acts physically. Non-physical things act non-physically. These are definitionally true. A physical and non-physical interaction (if it can occur), then, should be expected to have physical elements in the physical thing and non-physical elements in the non-physical thing because of the very natures of the entities involved (i.e., by their very definition). But you are saying such a thing is logically impossible. Why? It’s not because physical things interact physically with other physical things; that doesn’t logically lead one there.

You haven't backed up ONE THING about the supernatural. You have not shown it exists, how it can interact - even philosophically - with the natural. You just wave your hand and point to gaps in knowledge. You have simply asserted that the supernatural exists and that it can interact - because you say so.

It's such poor reasoning and such poor scholarship that it is nigh offensive.

I asked you how the supernatural could interact with the natural, and your response it to decide it's not important. It is.
I've asked you for evidence that the supernatural exists, and all you do is wave your hand to gaps in our knowledge.
I've asked you how any of your Arguments from Ignorance show that the supernatural exists, or can interact with the natural, and you wave it off.

I have explained numerous times why I think the how question is irrelevant. You have not responded to that reasoning; you just keep asserting that it is relevant.

I have given evidence, initially in post 52 and in posts since then when those arguments are actually being addressed. I have never just waved my hand or pointed to a gap in knowledge as a reason to believe anything. Yes, you keep claiming that I’ve done that, but it’s just an assertion. You’ve never backed it up with actual quotes from me and laying out the logic of that being what I’ve done.

I have not made an argument from ignorance. I never waved that off; I explained why it wasn’t an argument from ignorance. You were and still are free to respond to my explanations there but instead you just re-assert it as an argument from ignorance.

I’m willing to move this discussion forward (i.e., not just re-asserting previous assertions) if you want to. If not, then our posts will stand as is.