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 #241

Post by The Tanager »

boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:05 amOK, let's call the non-physical things "magic", to distinguish between numbers and concepts which are non-physical but we know they don't interact with physical things - so whatever you're talking about it's THAT kind of "non-physical", correct? In other words, it's not "that" kind of non-physical (numbers/concepts) it's THAT kind of non-physical (magic, supernatural, etc.)

Or are you suggesting all non-physical things are like the non-physical things we know about: numbers and concepts? Is Magic (aka the soul) like Numbers?

Because it's not helpful to use an umbrella term when we know you aren't talking about the same thing.

So, we have:
1. Physical
2. Non-physical (Numbers and Concepts)
3. Magic (which might not be physical, but it might not be non-physical, just a different kind of "physical" because it can interact with the physical (namely, it can speak Matter into Being, or whatever, but it may be non-physical, but not like numbers and concepts).
It would be better to call it some new term, so that one doesn’t later equivocate and fault one concept for a different one by the same name. But if we can keep it straight, sure, call it “magic” to distinguish it from things like numbers. I don’t think we should include concepts here because we can have concepts about physical things, like the sun.

I would make the category distinction by using these terms:

1. Abstract non-physical things (like numbers)
2. Concrete non-physical things (like God, angels, an immaterial FSM, etc.)

Calling them concrete, in itself, does not mean they really exist, it’s just if they exist, they exist concretely. Magic (in its traditional sense, not this new sense as a term for what I’m talking about that you want to use) could conceivably be a concrete physical thing or a concrete non-physical thing, so wherever you want to put that doesn’t matter to me, if you feel it must go somewhere.
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:05 amOK, so it's not Here. My consciousness is clearly Here - it certainly isn't There or Everywhere. So, you have ruled out Consciousness as a non-physical thing.
Science shows us that consciousness interacts Here, not that it is Here. You can’t pick it up, you can’t literally point to it (unless reductive materialism is true, but it seemed to me that you all are non-reductivists; if I’m wrong in regards to you (or anyone else), we can revisit the first 2 arguments I gave against reductive materialism).
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:05 amIf I were you, I wouldn't argue for anything but the bare minimum, too - since you'd actually have to defend it! Declare all of it irrelevant and you win by default!
Or it’s refusing to follow tangents irrelevant to the argument being discussed. Not because they can’t be asked or are incoherent, but because they are tangents and will keep us from rationally addressing what has been claimed and is being discussed.

I’m even fine if this thread goes on to talk about different questions, leaving what I’ve been addressing behind. You (and others) keep bringing those up in direct response to my claims, though, which is misguided.
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:05 amDoes that mean it can't have that question asked of it, or you don't want to answer, or don't know? Seems you know very little about Magic, but want to assert exists in very specific ways. How is the Earth orbiting the Sun? How does our consciousness interact with the Brain? How does Magic make a rabbit suddenly appear in a hat, or make a man come back to life after 3 days?
Seems "How" is a useful question.
It means that I don’t know what you mean by asking it of the ‘soul’. “How?” can be a very useful question, if it is relevant to the issue being discussed. So, how is it what? How does it interact? I’ve already addressed why I think that is irrelevant. You are free to simply reassert it is relevant, explain why I think it is irrelevant is wrong, or explain positive reasons why you think it is relevant. Only the latter two move the discussion forward.
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:05 amWell, what do you think? Do numbers, concepts and magic exist - and do they have personhood? I don't think so. I can't even understand how a number is a person... I don't know how Magic would have personhood.

How do you think the Supernatural would have personhood?
I don’t think numbers exist concretely; they are just abstract concepts to me. I think concepts cover both things that do exist concretely and those that don’t. I don’t think “magic” as I understand that term exists. I don’t see how any of those would have personhood, simply by looking at their definitions.

How do you define personhood? Oxford languages says this: “the quality or condition of being an individual person.” In that definition I don’t see anything illogical about combining ‘personhood’ with physical beings or with non-physical beings. I don’t see anything within the definition of ‘personhood’ that necessitates being physical. I don’t think this is a very helpful definition of personhood, so share what you mean and I’ll answer under that definition.

But whether the non-physical thing that produces consciousness (your “magic,” but not to be confused with what everyone traditionally understands as magic so as not to fall into the fallacy of equivocation or begging the question) has personhood or not would be a tangent, since I’ve only addressed whether a “soul” (“magic” in your new usage) exists as the producer of consciousness.
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:05 amSo, you are not only claiming Magic is non-material, but is non-temporal - yet, my consciousness seems to operate quite specifically in Time. Magic, however, I guess could operate outside of Time. Magic, might have the quality that asking "when" doesn't make sense.

But it's odd that you don't know if Magic has that property or not, since this is your whole thing? You know so much about it - right up until you don't....
My “whole thing” has not been that I know so much about it. You faulted me earlier for asserting so little in order to have nothing to defend. Now you are faulting me for asserting I know so much. You want it both ways.

I am not claiming the soul is non-temporal. If “when is it” is a way to ask “is the non-physical thing that produces consciousness temporal or non-temporal,” then I think it is clearly temporal because of the temporality we see in observations about consciousness.
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:05 amSure, but can we ask the question? For example, "Why does Matter exist?" may be answered as a causal chain, or as a Brute Fact. It's not an incoherent question.
Of course we can ask it. That’s why I’ve very often said “that is a good, but a different question”. Is it relevant to the arguments I’ve made is a different question. “Why” is this non-physical thing is a good, but different and irrelevant question to the argument I’ve made in this thread. A refusal to go down a tangent isn’t equivalent to not having an answer to such a questions.

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 #242

Post by The Tanager »

Clownboat wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 11:39 amAnyone else notice how The Tanager totally ignored my questions and in place of answering them, asked me questions instead? Now to answer yours. I will not support any position that dwells in your imagination. You can imagine that a soul needs a brain or that it doesn't. I care not, but I'm not going to play pretend with you and support some claim about some soul idea that there is zero information about. You asking me to support such a thing (while ignoring my own questions) is ridiculous. How about you provide some info about a soul first? What info do we have?
First, I’ve already answered those questions. They were repeats of “where’s your evidence for the soul” that, although you actually began to respond to my reasoning, reverts back to acting like there isn’t any reasoning to respond to. Remember that you, at first, said it wasn’t good reasoning so you didn’t even need to respond to it to show why it wasn’t good? And then, even though it was a waste of your time, you finally did start to back up your evaluation? And then I responded back and instead of continuing to back up your evaluation, you went back to “where’s your evidence”.

Second, you offered these questions that you think I’ve ignored in response to specific quotes of mine that have a context in our discussion. That part of the discussion was concerning YOUR claim that if a soul provides consciousness, then affecting a brain couldn’t affect consciousness. You agreed with that claim, right? That’s the claim I’m asking you to support, not what you apparently think I asked you to support.
Clownboat wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 11:39 amThen consider my claim unsupported, retracted and ignore it. I care not as we are still talking about some imagined and unevidenced thing you are calling a soul.
To be clear, the claim you are retracting is that “if a soul provides consciousness, then affecting a brain couldn’t affect consciousness”?
Clownboat wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 11:39 am So, it's not about function, even though it has been proposed that consciousness stems from a functioning brain? Everyone reading here knows why you want to focus on brain cells replicating and not the actual argument being proposed.
Okay, perhaps I see a misunderstanding. Are you a reductive materialist or a non-reductive materialist? I thought everyone said they were non-reductive materialists in the sense that they don’t think consciousness is identical to the brain. That’s what I thought I was needing to respond to.

You seem here to be saying consciousness is identical to the brain. That “consciousness” is just a shorthand way to refer to some of the functions of the brain, but not something distinct from the brain in the same way “regulating the chemical levels in the blood” or “excreting bile to help the body carry away waste products” are not something distinct from the liver, but as a description of the liver. If so, then you’d be a reductive materialist, rather than saying consciousness is an emergent product of the brain.

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 #243

Post by The Tanager »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:02 pm
The Tanager wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:57 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 6:20 pmI'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.
And I’ve provided evidence to consider, so feel free to show why you think it’s a fake autograph if you have anything more to say on that. If not, then I've responded to your comments there and have nothing more to add.
I'm not sure what autograph you're referring to here, so can't much fuss about that.

Can I get a link?

I'm not generally one to declare what is or ain't evidence, but might be inclined to fuss about conclusion drawn from it.
It was a play off of your phrase, bolded above. I’m saying I gave evidence that the non-physical thing we are fussing about exists (the bones of it is best seen by looking at post 52).

You don't have to respond to those arguments, of course. What would be irrational (and I'm not saying you are going to do this, just a general point) is to know they are there and act like they aren't or to claim it's a "fake autograph" without showing why you think it fails in authenticity.

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 #244

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:42 pmNone of those.

My position of philosophy is that we ARE an immaterial mind - not that we HAVE an immaterial mind.
Sorry, I see how the “we” there could be confusing; I meant it in the sense of “there is such and such”. How about this phrasing:

1. (a) there is an immaterial Mind that transforms all of itself into (b) immaterial minds and material matter

2. (a) there is an immaterial Mind that transforms part of it’s immaterial stuff into (b) immaterial minds and material matter that exist along with (in very interconnected ways) the immaterial Mind part that wasn’t transformed

3. (a) there is an immaterial Mind that transforms different immaterial stuff into (b) immaterial minds and material matter that exist along with (in very interconnected ways) the immaterial Mind

It seems like you are saying you aren’t sure between (1) or (2), but I could still be misunderstanding you. Whichever option you choose/add, why is it simpler than my view where:

4. (a) there is an immaterial Mind that creates new stuff giving us (2) an immaterial Mind, immaterial minds, and material matter

Does this change your answer?
William wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:42 pmI am relying on my memory here, but some months back did you not allude to "Ex Nihilo" as not actually meaning "something from nothing" in the literal sense?
I think there are two valid literal senses to “from nothing”: (1) having no efficient cause and (2) having no material cause (which does not mean ‘physical matter’ here). [And, yes, this could be as equally confusing as your use of immaterial matter, but that’s the name that is all throughout the literature because of Aristotle’s choice or following someone before him. It means something like the pre-existing “stuff” (which could be physical matter or non-physical stuff) something is made out of.

I think you reject both of those senses of “from nothing,” correct? The Mind is the efficient cause and the “stuff” cause for you, right? You seem to be arguing for a more metaphorical sense of “from nothing,” but perhaps you would call it a third literal sense, I don’t know.
William wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:42 pmBy understanding the nature of these potentialities, my philosophy offers a naturalistic explanation for the origin and transformation of existence without the need for supernatural interventions or external forces.
Yes, if The Mind is all of reality and it just transforms itself into another state of existence, then there logically can’t be anything external. And if “all of reality” is identical to “natural,” then there logically can’t be anything supernatural. But if “all of reality” is identical to “natural,” then God (in my Christian framework) isn’t outside of nature (i.e., supernatural) either. Yes, God is external to other “natural” things and exerts force on them, but would have to be called “natural” in this understanding.
William wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:42 pmIf your “ontologically distinct Mind" isn’t “supernatural”, how would you best describe it?
I don’t think “all of reality” and “natural” are identical concepts. “Natural” to me is identical to “physical,” at least in this kind of context. Both you and I would seem to agree that there are non-physical things in existence (minds for us both, along with The Mind, at least prior to the organization of matter, for you…God for me). Non-physical things to me is synonymous to non-natural things and is “non-natural” is synonymous to “supernatural” to me.
William wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:42 pmBy framing it as natural, I emphasize the intrinsic interconnectedness and unity of the universe, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the creative process without invoking supernatural entities or interventions. I acknowledge that our perspectives differ in the use of these terms, but it is important to recognize the underlying philosophical framework and implications associated with each interpretation.
I agree that understanding the terms is vital. Under my understanding of the terms, your view wouldn’t lose the intrinsic interconnectedness and unity of the universe or invoking interventions from the outside. It’s just that “supernatural” doesn’t mean “external to” or “not interconnected with” or “not unified with” the universe.
William wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:42 pmThe importance of the statement I made about the supernatural being unknown and unknowable is in highlighting the lack of consensus and clarity surrounding the concept. It acknowledges that different explanations exist, but they are often subjective and lack universal acceptance or empirical evidence. This recognition emphasizes the complexity and inherent limitations in fully understanding the supposed "supernatural", which is relevant in the context of our discussion on the nature of existence and consciousness.
Then, regarding that importance, I just want to clarify that I agree there is a lack of consensus on surrounding these issues, that I am aware of different explanations and that some (including Christian attempts) are sometimes faith-based and built off of subjective experiences…but sometimes they are objectively supported with evidence and reasoning.
William wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:42 pmIn my philosophy, I have chosen to focus on a naturalistic perspective that seeks to explain phenomena within the bounds of natural principles and interactions. By acknowledging the limitations and uncertainties surrounding the supposed supernatural, I prioritize an approach that is grounded in empirical evidence and logical reasoning. This allows for a more comprehensive understanding of reality without relying on "supernatural" explanations, which can vary greatly and lack widespread consensus.
This is where I think semantics is doing some damage, because it seems like you are equivocating on “supernatural” here to me. I might be wrong, but I think materialists would agree with me that your view has what I/they think of as a “supernatural” element to it. You are trying to honor their critique as a problem, but your escape involves talking about a different concept that you also call “supernatural”. You have supernatural (2), but the problem is with supernatural (1), so that your view is supernatural (2) doesn’t escape any problem with supernatural (1).

But I’m open to continuing to pursue this to see if I understand things correctly here.

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 #245

Post by The Tanager »

brunumb wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 6:59 pmWhat are different consciousnesses? Having different memories and understanding of things will occur, but consciousness is a state of awareness which is there, or it is not.
Consciousness could be a thing that has awareness, instead of just being a synonym for awareness, if that is what you meant. My consciousness is different from your consciousness. If those different consciousnesses are produced by our brains, they are different consciousnesses because our brains are different material collections than each other. But your brain today is also a different material collection than when you were a child. Is your consciousness now (not the memories, or if you have lost any specific functions, or your understanding of things has changed, etc.), but the “I” that is brunumb a different “I” than kid brunumb or is there a unity between those temporal slices, to where the “I” changed and grew rather than was replaced by a different “I”?
brunumb wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:04 pm
The Tanager wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:58 am As a non-physical thing, it logically can’t have a physical location, so “where is it?” is a meaningless question.
Not really. It must exist in some context. If you can't explain that context then it becomes indistinguishable from the non-existent.
I was probably wrongly assuming that “where” was meant in a physical location sort of way. That’s my bad. It would be illogical to say it exists in a physical context. We could say it exists in a non-physical location. If that satisfies “where is it,” then okay. Or if “where is it” refers to “what physical location is it interacting with,” then it would be the brain.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

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

Post #246

Post by Clownboat »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 2:33 pm To be clear, the claim you are retracting is that “if a soul provides consciousness, then affecting a brain couldn’t affect consciousness”?
:lol: To be clear, if a soul provides consciousness, then affecting a brain wouldn't necessarily affect consciousness.

Contrast that with... If a consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning brain, then damaging the brain would affect our consciousness. Like we observe which suggests that consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning brain. Who knows though right? You can still believe that fairies supply consciousness if you wanted, but one suggestion is more likely than the other don't you agree?

I was only willing to retract my claim in order to attempt to move the discussion forward. Now that my claim is clarified, what have you learned? You doth protest too much me thinks.
Okay, perhaps I see a misunderstanding. Are you a reductive materialist or a non-reductive materialist? I thought everyone said they were non-reductive materialists in the sense that they don’t think consciousness is identical to the brain. That’s what I thought I was needing to respond to.
I have never considered what I am in this regard and we still all understand as to why you want to focus on brain cells replicating and not the actual argument being proposed. Am I misunderstanding as to why you want to focus on brain cells replicating and not how a working brain is suggested to function (see my article from neuroscientists again if need be)?
You seem here to be saying consciousness is identical to the brain.

Holy monkeys Bat Man, not what I'm saying or suggesting.
Consciousness describes our awareness of internal and external stimuli. Consciousness is observed in things that have a functioning brain and damaging the brain does affect our consciousness. This at least supports the notion that consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning brain.

I'm trying to get you to repay in kind. What do you have that would at least support the notion that there is a soul that supplies consciousness and how does it interact with a functioning brain? If functioning brains are all that is required (not known at this time) why even suggest that fairies supply consciousness in the first place?
That “consciousness” is just a shorthand way to refer to some of the functions of the brain,

Copy/paste to save time: "Consciousness describes our awareness of internal and external stimuli." Currently, I find it most likely that consciousness is an emergent property of a working brain, (again, affecting the brain can affect consciousness) but I am open to other reasonable mechanisms if they can be suggested. You suggest a soul. Can you make this suggestion seem reasonable?
but not something distinct from the brain in the same way
I'm open to this, but first, why is there even a need for this additional thing (outside of your personal religious beliefs that I think are driving this soul idea from start to finish)?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

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

Post #247

Post by Clownboat »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 2:37 pm Consciousness could be a thing that has awareness, instead of just being a synonym for awareness, if that is what you meant. My consciousness is different from your consciousness. If those different consciousnesses are produced by our brains, they are different consciousnesses because our brains are different material collections than each other. But your brain today is also a different material collection than when you were a child. Is your consciousness now (not the memories, or if you have lost any specific functions, or your understanding of things has changed, etc.), but the “I” that is brunumb a different “I” than kid brunumb or is there a unity between those temporal slices, to where the “I” changed and grew rather than was replaced by a different “I”?
What an odd way to admit that there is no evidence for this soul idea that you are proposing.

Consciousness describes our awareness of internal and external stimuli. If consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning brain, then replicating some cells in the brain over many years wouldn't change the function of said brain and damaging the brain would affect consciousness like we observe.
You really seem to want to believe that replicating brain cells changes the function of the brain, but you have not offered a valid reason as to why the function would change other than to leave room for your un-evidenced soul idea you are proposing. This is why I find your reasoning invalid. All this soul talk, and we now know no more about the soul than we do fairies.

Can you at least admit that there is as much evidence for souls supplying consciousness as we have for fairies supplying it?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

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 #248

Post by brunumb »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 2:37 pm
brunumb wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 6:59 pmWhat are different consciousnesses? Having different memories and understanding of things will occur, but consciousness is a state of awareness which is there, or it is not.
Consciousness could be a thing that has awareness, instead of just being a synonym for awareness, if that is what you meant. My consciousness is different from your consciousness. If those different consciousnesses are produced by our brains, they are different consciousnesses because our brains are different material collections than each other. But your brain today is also a different material collection than when you were a child. Is your consciousness now (not the memories, or if you have lost any specific functions, or your understanding of things has changed, etc.), but the “I” that is brunumb a different “I” than kid brunumb or is there a unity between those temporal slices, to where the “I” changed and grew rather than was replaced by a different “I”?
Your consciousness is the same as mine. The difference is in what you are aware of rather than the actual state of being aware. If you replace components in your computer over time it still functions in the same way. Memories change and accumulate, but the state of consciousness remains the same.
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
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 #249

Post by brunumb »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 2:37 pm
brunumb wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:04 pm
The Tanager wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:58 am As a non-physical thing, it logically can’t have a physical location, so “where is it?” is a meaningless question.
Not really. It must exist in some context. If you can't explain that context then it becomes indistinguishable from the non-existent.
I was probably wrongly assuming that “where” was meant in a physical location sort of way. That’s my bad. It would be illogical to say it exists in a physical context. We could say it exists in a non-physical location. If that satisfies “where is it,” then okay. Or if “where is it” refers to “what physical location is it interacting with,” then it would be the brain.
That doesn't add anything I'm afraid. There must be a source for whatever you claim interacts with the brain. What is it and what does it do? If the brain is a necessary component for consciousness, then why do we need to add this extra component and not just accept that it arises within the brain itself?
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
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 #250

Post by boatsnguitars »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 2:30 pm
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:05 amOK, let's call the non-physical things "magic", to distinguish between numbers and concepts which are non-physical but we know they don't interact with physical things - so whatever you're talking about it's THAT kind of "non-physical", correct? In other words, it's not "that" kind of non-physical (numbers/concepts) it's THAT kind of non-physical (magic, supernatural, etc.)

Or are you suggesting all non-physical things are like the non-physical things we know about: numbers and concepts? Is Magic (aka the soul) like Numbers?

Because it's not helpful to use an umbrella term when we know you aren't talking about the same thing.

So, we have:
1. Physical
2. Non-physical (Numbers and Concepts)
3. Magic (which might not be physical, but it might not be non-physical, just a different kind of "physical" because it can interact with the physical (namely, it can speak Matter into Being, or whatever, but it may be non-physical, but not like numbers and concepts).
It would be better to call it some new term, so that one doesn’t later equivocate and fault one concept for a different one by the same name. But if we can keep it straight, sure, call it “magic” to distinguish it from things like numbers. I don’t think we should include concepts here because we can have concepts about physical things, like the sun.

I would make the category distinction by using these terms:

1. Abstract non-physical things (like numbers)
2. Concrete non-physical things (like God, angels, an immaterial FSM, etc.)

Calling them concrete, in itself, does not mean they really exist, it’s just if they exist, they exist concretely. Magic (in its traditional sense, not this new sense as a term for what I’m talking about that you want to use) could conceivably be a concrete physical thing or a concrete non-physical thing, so wherever you want to put that doesn’t matter to me, if you feel it must go somewhere.
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:05 amOK, so it's not Here. My consciousness is clearly Here - it certainly isn't There or Everywhere. So, you have ruled out Consciousness as a non-physical thing.
Science shows us that consciousness interacts Here, not that it is Here. You can’t pick it up, you can’t literally point to it (unless reductive materialism is true, but it seemed to me that you all are non-reductivists; if I’m wrong in regards to you (or anyone else), we can revisit the first 2 arguments I gave against reductive materialism).
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:05 amIf I were you, I wouldn't argue for anything but the bare minimum, too - since you'd actually have to defend it! Declare all of it irrelevant and you win by default!
Or it’s refusing to follow tangents irrelevant to the argument being discussed. Not because they can’t be asked or are incoherent, but because they are tangents and will keep us from rationally addressing what has been claimed and is being discussed.

I’m even fine if this thread goes on to talk about different questions, leaving what I’ve been addressing behind. You (and others) keep bringing those up in direct response to my claims, though, which is misguided.
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:05 amDoes that mean it can't have that question asked of it, or you don't want to answer, or don't know? Seems you know very little about Magic, but want to assert exists in very specific ways. How is the Earth orbiting the Sun? How does our consciousness interact with the Brain? How does Magic make a rabbit suddenly appear in a hat, or make a man come back to life after 3 days?
Seems "How" is a useful question.
It means that I don’t know what you mean by asking it of the ‘soul’. “How?” can be a very useful question, if it is relevant to the issue being discussed. So, how is it what? How does it interact? I’ve already addressed why I think that is irrelevant. You are free to simply reassert it is relevant, explain why I think it is irrelevant is wrong, or explain positive reasons why you think it is relevant. Only the latter two move the discussion forward.
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:05 amWell, what do you think? Do numbers, concepts and magic exist - and do they have personhood? I don't think so. I can't even understand how a number is a person... I don't know how Magic would have personhood.

How do you think the Supernatural would have personhood?
I don’t think numbers exist concretely; they are just abstract concepts to me. I think concepts cover both things that do exist concretely and those that don’t. I don’t think “magic” as I understand that term exists. I don’t see how any of those would have personhood, simply by looking at their definitions.

How do you define personhood? Oxford languages says this: “the quality or condition of being an individual person.” In that definition I don’t see anything illogical about combining ‘personhood’ with physical beings or with non-physical beings. I don’t see anything within the definition of ‘personhood’ that necessitates being physical. I don’t think this is a very helpful definition of personhood, so share what you mean and I’ll answer under that definition.

But whether the non-physical thing that produces consciousness (your “magic,” but not to be confused with what everyone traditionally understands as magic so as not to fall into the fallacy of equivocation or begging the question) has personhood or not would be a tangent, since I’ve only addressed whether a “soul” (“magic” in your new usage) exists as the producer of consciousness.
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:05 amSo, you are not only claiming Magic is non-material, but is non-temporal - yet, my consciousness seems to operate quite specifically in Time. Magic, however, I guess could operate outside of Time. Magic, might have the quality that asking "when" doesn't make sense.

But it's odd that you don't know if Magic has that property or not, since this is your whole thing? You know so much about it - right up until you don't....
My “whole thing” has not been that I know so much about it. You faulted me earlier for asserting so little in order to have nothing to defend. Now you are faulting me for asserting I know so much. You want it both ways.

I am not claiming the soul is non-temporal. If “when is it” is a way to ask “is the non-physical thing that produces consciousness temporal or non-temporal,” then I think it is clearly temporal because of the temporality we see in observations about consciousness.
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:05 amSure, but can we ask the question? For example, "Why does Matter exist?" may be answered as a causal chain, or as a Brute Fact. It's not an incoherent question.
Of course we can ask it. That’s why I’ve very often said “that is a good, but a different question”. Is it relevant to the arguments I’ve made is a different question. “Why” is this non-physical thing is a good, but different and irrelevant question to the argument I’ve made in this thread. A refusal to go down a tangent isn’t equivalent to not having an answer to such a questions.
How does something that has personhood, also not have a "here"?
“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