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
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
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 #221

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 5:36 amNot 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."
Okay, so at one point the ONLY thing that exists is some unified substance that’s neither mind nor matter? What do you want to call that? It needs to be something without mind or matter in there to avoid confusion since you are saying matter isn’t matter unless it is organized and it’s not pure mind.
William wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 5:36 amThe short answer is because no one has been able to explain what is known about this so-called "supernatural" mind.
There are explanations as to what can be known about it, so are you just saying here that the offered explanations don’t convince you? If so, then to say “as it is generally understood, is unknown” is confusing because you would seemingly be saying something about some people hearing the explanation (and not others who are convinced by the explanations) rather than the explanation itself.
William wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 5:36 amThere is a distinction between unorganized matter and organized matter. The distinction is that unorganized matter is immaterial.
This is part of what’s confusing me. I believe the immaterial existed without matter and then, at some point, we have both immaterial and material, just like you seem to be saying here.
William wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 5:36 amThis 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.
“Immaterial matter” is logically impossible by definition. It’s like saying a “round square”. You shouldn’t have to say “material matter” because that is the only kind of matter that can exist. To be material simply means to be made up of matter. For your statements to make sense you have to be equivocating on “matter,” which is simply confusing; use a different term. Immaterial “stuff” and material “stuff” or whatever.

Then you’d be saying The Mind is immaterial stuff and it organizes its immaterial stuff (all of itself or part of itself?) into material stuff, which is what I’ve thought you’ve been saying all along.
William wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 5:36 amEnlighten 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"?
It depends on what you mean by “realm”. How can I enlighten you on that if I don’t know what you mean by ‘realm’? Is it conceptual only, being a useful categorization tool? Is it an actual place? I would say the former, not the latter because it doesn’t make logical sense to say the immaterial is an actual place or dimension within which immaterial things move around and experience forces upon them as though it is identical to a material realm.
William wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 5:36 amBased 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.
But not identical? Is the Mind more than the sum of the material stuff and minds?
William wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 5:36 amI 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.
To call “unorganized matter” immaterial sounds to me like calling a “floogle square” round. This isn’t an argument, just a factual description of what it sounds like you are saying to me. If a “floogle square” is round then it can’t be what is commonly known as a square, by the very definitions. To call it a square is simply begging for misunderstandings; I should just call it a “floogle shape” or something like that.
William wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 5:36 amHave 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?
I’m sorry, I didn’t know that was unclear. Creation ex nihilo of both soul and material body.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
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 #222

Post by The Tanager »

Clownboat wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 11:19 amNeato. Your beliefs about a soul are not needed when discussing consciousness though, so why do you believe that there is a soul?
Clownboat wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 11:19 amNot so fast. You just inserted this un-needed soul idea again and then claimed that a brain needs it. Why did you do that?
You said if a soul provides consciousness, then affecting a brain wouldn’t affect consciousness. I asked you to support that claim. I agree that this is true if the soul and body are completely distinct. I don’t see why it would be true if the soul and body make up a composite being. Unless you can show it is true in both cases, then your claim is unsupported because it is a claim covering all situations.
Clownboat wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 11:19 amWhat 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?
Assertions that arguments are weak or reasons invalid aren’t rational discussions; you’ve got to show the reasoning. You had moved towards showing, so why fall back now to just asserting? I have shared why I think how is irrelevant to the that question numerous times. In response you just keep saying it is relevant without any reasoning offered.
Clownboat wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 11:19 am
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.
I said it functions the same; the point is about being materially different.
Clownboat wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 11:19 amYou'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.
I didn’t just complain, but explained why this wouldn’t happen. If you disagree, then show where my explanation is wrong or explain why it would happen.
Clownboat wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 11:19 amNo, 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.
So, you are after the truth, but I’m after just holding onto my religious belief? How do you know this? Give the reader an objective reason rather than just your claim that you aren’t new here and know why I argue for a soul.
Clownboat wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 11:19 amA 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.
Yes, and different cars, performing the same function, exist as distinct material things. It’s not about changing the function, but the matter.

I have never thought or said the function should change, so how can I be complaining that that doesn’t happen? Saying my argument is about function is a misunderstanding; it’s about the material makeup and what that matter produces (which then performs various functions).

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 #223

Post by boatsnguitars »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 1:25 pm 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.
Why do you insist on declaring what and what isn't relevant to intellectual discourse?

How about this: You ask, "What standard do you use for Morals" and I simply respond, "That's not relevant." You keep saying it because you can't answer it, so you figure the way to shed the burden is to declare it irrelevant. That's just bad thinking. It's an admission that you have nothing to your theory other than gaps.

If i claimed I could cut a woman in half, and put her back together on a stage within a few minutes. I can declare it's Magic. You'd say, apparently, "Sure, Magic can do that - we don't care how - we just need to believe it exists and Voila!"

This is literally the depth of your argument.

And now you just keep referring to "post 52" as if it's an answer. It's not.

Just admit you have no answers, just belief. Or, attempt to answer the questions posed to you rather than trying to steer the conversation to your narrow apologetic cheat sheet, or wherever you are getting the idea that you don't have to address certain topics.

The fact, is, like a ghost would be unable to be visible, move anything, interact with anything - because they aren't Matter - so too your God. You can't declare ghosts, Gods, or supernatural Minds are undetectable by any means, then declare they can interact with Matter - which would literally make them detectable and have properties similar to Matter - which would mean that you could prove something about them - because we'd detect them with objective measurements.

This so basic, again, it hurts to have to repeat this over and over and see you completely miss the point.
“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 #224

Post by JoeyKnothead »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 1:23 pm 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?
JK wrote: Because science.
Then why didn’t you say that instead of that rain and humans are both mostly water?
I assumed the reason was obvious.
The Tanager wrote: 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?
That depends on what's meant by "non-physical".

If that's a euphemism for the supernatural, I leave such to the claimant.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
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 #225

Post by The Tanager »

boatsnguitars wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 1:49 pmWhy do you insist on declaring what and what isn't relevant to intellectual discourse?

How about this: You ask, "What standard do you use for Morals" and I simply respond, "That's not relevant." You keep saying it because you can't answer it, so you figure the way to shed the burden is to declare it irrelevant. That's just bad thinking. It's an admission that you have nothing to your theory other than gaps.
I have repeatedly said the how question is a good question, but a different one and irrelevant to the that question. I haven’t just declared this is so, but explained reasons as to why it is irrelevant. You can choose to just assert it’s relevant or (like I’m doing) give reasons to back up your claim.
boatsnguitars wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 1:49 pmIf i claimed I could cut a woman in half, and put her back together on a stage within a few minutes. I can declare it's Magic. You'd say, apparently, "Sure, Magic can do that - we don't care how - we just need to believe it exists and Voila!"

This is literally the depth of your argument.
Analogically, I’d be fine saying “Yes, if what you described is true, then magic exists” which is clearly different than agreeing that magic actually does exist.
boatsnguitars wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 1:49 pmAnd now you just keep referring to "post 52" as if it's an answer. It's not.

Just admit you have no answers, just belief. Or, attempt to answer the questions posed to you rather than trying to steer the conversation to your narrow apologetic cheat sheet, or wherever you are getting the idea that you don't have to address certain topics.
It’s an answer to when you ask what evidence/support I have for my claims about the ‘soul’ being the producer of consciousness since you keep claiming that I’ve offered nothing. I have.

As to addressing whatever topic you want to change the conversation to, I do not have to do that. You responded to the topic I was talking about. Doing so by changing the topic isn’t a rational move.
boatsnguitars wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 1:49 pmThe fact, is, like a ghost would be unable to be visible, move anything, interact with anything - because they aren't Matter - so too your God. You can't declare ghosts, Gods, or supernatural Minds are undetectable by any means, then declare they can interact with Matter - which would literally make them detectable and have properties similar to Matter - which would mean that you could prove something about them - because we'd detect them with objective measurements.
What is your support for this being a “fact”? This is just reasserting your conclusion. Not reasserting your support because I’m ignoring it, but reasserting your conclusion with no further support.

You began supporting it. You spoke of the need for similarity. That was a bit vague, but then you clarified what you meant, helpfully. I responded to that clarification in the last post. That physical thing A contributes certain physical elements and physical thing B contributes certain physical elements, in their interaction, of course, is true. This doesn’t address your claim that non-physical things can’t interact with physical things.

In the same way that physical A contributes physical things, we should expect non-physical C to contribute in non-physical ways if an interaction takes place. This doesn't mean it does or doesn't take place, just what we expect if one does take place. The truth you shared about what physical things contribute to interactions says nothing to that question. Instead of responding to that reasoning, you simply reassert your conclusion. You can still support the conclusion further though, noting where I'm wrong and why.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
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 #226

Post by The Tanager »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 4:53 pm
The Tanager wrote: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?
That depends on what's meant by "non-physical".

If that's a euphemism for the supernatural, I leave such to the claimant.
It simply means not physical. Science can explain the physical elements of physical things when they interact with something else. But the question is why would it be logically impossible for something that isn’t physical to interact with something that is physical. You seem to agree it can’t. Why? Is your answer “because science”? If so, how does science prove that? If not, then what is your answer?

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 #227

Post by JoeyKnothead »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 5:20 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 4:53 pm
The Tanager wrote: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?
That depends on what's meant by "non-physical".

If that's a euphemism for the supernatural, I leave such to the claimant.
It simply means not physical. Science can explain the physical elements of physical things when they interact with something else. But the question is why would it be logically impossible for something that isn’t physical to interact with something that is physical. You seem to agree it can’t. Why? Is your answer “because science”? If so, how does science prove that? If not, then what is your answer?
I'm from the school that says sure, all things are possible.

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

Lacking that data, I'm perfectly rational to sit by the fireplace on Christmas Eve, hoping to get Santa's autograph.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

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

Post #228

Post by brunumb »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 1:24 pm
brunumb wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 7:31 pmIt's not the collection of matter itself that gives rise to consciousness. It is the way the collection of matter functions. Different computers contain collections of different matter, but they still function in the same way.
Yes, but they are still different computers producing different states that function in the same ways as each other.
Yes, as is the case with consciousness.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
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 #229

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #221]
Okay, so at one point the ONLY thing that exists is some unified substance that’s neither mind nor matter? What do you want to call that? It needs to be something without mind or matter in there to avoid confusion since you are saying matter isn’t matter unless it is organized and it’s not pure mind.
I appreciate your engagement in this discussion, but I want to clarify a point of confusion. When I mentioned a unified substance, I was referring to a philosophical concept of a foundational substance that is mind/unorganized matter. This unified substance is not synonymous with The Mind itself. The Mind, as I have explained before, is the immaterial aspect that is inherent within individual minds and connected to the organization/materialization of unorganized matter.

So, it's not a matter of The Mind not being The Mind, but rather acknowledging that the unified substance encompasses both mind and matter yet to be organized. This understanding allows us to see that matter is not purely material until it is organized, and that organization is influenced by the immaterial aspect - The Mind. By recognizing this interconnectedness, we can better grasp the relationship between mind and matter.

To further clarify the concept of The Mind and its relationship to unorganized matter. The Mind, in its pure and unorganized state, exists as a fully conscious and self-aware entity, comprehending its own existence. It does not require the creation of temporal experiences through the mindful organization of immaterial into material formations in order to understand itself.

The organization of matter, which we observe in the universe, is a process by which The Mind manifests and expresses itself. It is through this organization that The Mind experiences and interacts with the universe of organized matter. The organized matter serves as a medium through which The Mind can engage with its own consciousness and explore different facets of existence.

In essence, unorganized matter is the pure state of The Mind's self-awareness, while organized matter provides a means for The Mind to engage with its own existence through temporal experiences. This understanding highlights the interconnectedness of The Mind and the material world, with organized matter serving as a vehicle for conscious exploration.

I hope this helps clarify the concept I've been discussing.
There are explanations as to what can be known about it, so are you just saying here that the offered explanations don’t convince you? If so, then to say “as it is generally understood, is unknown” is confusing because you would seemingly be saying something about some people hearing the explanation (and not others who are convinced by the explanations) rather than the explanation itself.
When I mentioned that the supernatural is unknown and unknowable, I was referring to the lack of a universally accepted and comprehensive explanation for what is considered supernatural. While some explanations have been put forward, they often vary greatly and are not universally convincing or supported by empirical evidence. Therefore, the supernatural, as it is generally understood, remains unknown in terms of a concrete and widely accepted understanding.

It is important to note that my statement does not imply that nobody is convinced by the explanations offered for the supernatural. Rather, it suggests that the lack of consensus and the diversity of explanations make it difficult to establish a definitive understanding of what supernatural is. Different individuals may have different interpretations and beliefs regarding the supernatural based on their own experiences, beliefs, or personal convictions.

If you or anyone else has a specific explanation of the supernatural that they find convincing, I would be interested in hearing such perspective and engaging in further discussion on the matter.
This is part of what’s confusing me. I believe the immaterial existed without matter and then, at some point, we have both immaterial and material, just like you seem to be saying here.
You are correct that according to my understanding, there is a distinction between unorganized matter (immaterial) and organized matter (material). What I meant to convey is that unorganized matter, in its immaterial state, is not structured or organized in a way that allows for the experiences we associate with material existence. However, at some point, there is a transition or organization of this immaterial matter into material form, which then gives rise to the experiences and phenomena we mindfully observe and interact with in the material world.

The distinction I am making is not about the existence of the immaterial separate from matter, but rather the different states or forms matter can take. Unorganized matter, in its immaterial state, lacks the organization and structure necessary for the experiences we associate with materiality. It is through the process of organization that immaterial matter manifests as material and becomes capable of the diverse phenomena we observe in the world.

I hope this clarification helps to address your confusion.
“Immaterial matter” is logically impossible by definition. It’s like saying a “round square”. You shouldn’t have to say “material matter” because that is the only kind of matter that can exist. To be material simply means to be made up of matter. For your statements to make sense you have to be equivocating on “matter,” which is simply confusing; use a different term. Immaterial “stuff” and material “stuff” or whatever.

Then you’d be saying The Mind is immaterial stuff and it organizes its immaterial stuff (all of itself or part of itself?) into material stuff, which is what I’ve thought you’ve been saying all along.

I apologize for any confusion caused by the term "immaterial matter." You are correct that the term itself may seem contradictory since "matter" typically refers to material substances. I understand that it can be confusing, and I appreciate your suggestion to use different terminology.

To clarify, when I refer to "immaterial matter," I am using it as a descriptive term to highlight the nature of unorganized matter before it takes on material form. It is not meant to imply that immaterial matter is the same as material matter, but rather to emphasize the transition from an immaterial state to a material state through organization.

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

I hope this clarification helps to address the confusion surrounding the terminology.
It depends on what you mean by “realm”. How can I enlighten you on that if I don’t know what you mean by ‘realm’? Is it conceptual only, being a useful categorization tool? Is it an actual place? I would say the former, not the latter because it doesn’t make logical sense to say the immaterial is an actual place or dimension within which immaterial things move around and experience forces upon them as though it is identical to a material realm.
When I used the term 'realm' to describe the supernatural concept you believe is responsible for the existence of our Universe Realm, I am using it as a conceptual distinction. I am interested in understanding your perspective on the "supernatural" as a separate domain or framework of existence, distinct from the physical universe. So, if you prefer not to refer to it as a 'realm,' how would you describe or conceptualize this supernatural concept that you believe is responsible for the creational influences of our universe?
But not identical? Is the Mind more than the sum of the material stuff and minds?
The Mind is an interconnected field of consciousness that is shaped and influenced by each individual mind within it, creating a mutually influencing relationship. It is a natural phenomenon that arises from the complex interactions of individual minds and their personality-producing consciousness when interacting with the experience of being human.
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.
To call “unorganized matter” immaterial sounds to me like calling a “floogle square” round. This isn’t an argument, just a factual description of what it sounds like you are saying to me. If a “floogle square” is round then it can’t be what is commonly known as a square, by the very definitions. To call it a square is simply begging for misunderstandings; I should just call it a “floogle shape” or something like that.
The term "immaterial" is used to emphasize the state of unorganized matter before it takes on physical properties. It does not mean that unorganized matter is non-existent or devoid of any properties altogether. Instead, it highlights that unorganized matter is not yet defined by physical characteristics and is in a potential state of becoming. By using the term "immaterial," I am drawing attention to this transitional state rather than suggesting that unorganized matter does not actually exist because it is immaterial.

I understand that the use of the term 'supernatural' contributes to misunderstandings, as it is a concept that lacks a clear and universally agreed-upon definition. It is often associated with phenomena that are considered outside the realm of natural explanations.

To avoid confusion and promote clearer understanding, I prefer to focus on exploring the natural phenomena and processes that we can observe and study. Rather than using terms like 'supernatural' or 'floggle,' I find it more meaningful to delve into the depths of our human experience, consciousness, and the interconnectedness of our minds.

By acknowledging the complexity and interconnected nature of our existence, we can gain a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world around us without relying on supernaturalisms speculative concepts which hinder clarity and open dialogue.
I’m sorry, I didn’t know that was unclear. Creation ex nihilo of both soul and material body.
While both our philosophies engage with the concept of something from nothing, there is a fundamental difference in how we approach this concept. In my philosophy, I provide an explanation that doesn't rely on supernaturalism or the intervention of external supernatural forces.

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

By exploring the interconnectedness of consciousness and the inherent potential within unorganized matter, I offer a framework that accounts for the transformation and organization of immaterial elements into the material manifestations we observe.

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

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 #230

Post by boatsnguitars »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 5:20 pm This doesn’t address your claim that non-physical things can’t interact with physical things.

In the same way that physical A contributes physical things, we should expect non-physical C to contribute in non-physical ways if an interaction takes place. This doesn't mean it does or doesn't take place, just what we expect if one does take place. The truth you shared about what physical things contribute to interactions says nothing to that question. Instead of responding to that reasoning, you simply reassert your conclusion. You can still support the conclusion further though, noting where I'm wrong and why.
What non-physical thing is interacting with another thing, physical or non-physical? Where is it, what is it, how is it, who is it, when is it, why is it? I am asking for you to provide any information other than speculation.

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

Explain yourself.
“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

Post Reply