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.

[Compassionist]

Let me remind you of your own words just a few lines up: "I never claimed that arguments simply as arguments are evidence."
Notice though that arguing for a soul is all we get. No detectable or even unexplainable effects for us to examine, just arguments and we both agree that is not evidence for a proposition.

No, I am saying arguments as arguments are not good evidence but arguments as good arguments are good evidence. These arguments include our observational data and reason beyond them to get to the soul.

Fair enough. List the premises you would like me to examine. We still agree that arguments are not evidence, right?

Perhaps we need to discuss why good arguments aren't/are good evidence for believing something to be true, first, but I'll list the premises here if we get back around to them. Why don't you think good arguments aren't evidence?

The first two were about differentiating conscious states and brain states:

A1. If there are things true of X that aren’t true of Y, then X and Y are not the same thing
A2. There are things true of conscious states that aren’t true of brain states.
A3. Therefore, conscious states and brain states are not the same thing.

B1. If one can gain knowledge of X that goes beyond the facts of the physical states of X, then consciousness is not identical to physical states.
B2. One can gain knowledge of X that goes beyond the facts of the physical states of X.
B3. Therefore, consciousness is not identical to physical states.

The last two were about whether consciousness resides in the brain or some non-physical element (usually called a soul):

C1. If my body and brain are divisible, but my consciousness is either fully present or not present at all, then my consciousness can’t be my brain or body
C2. My body and brain are divisible, while my consciousness remains fully present (like in Dandy-Walker syndrome)
C3. Therefore, my consciousness isn’t my brain or body.

D1. If consciousness was just the product of our brains, when our brains gain/lose parts, then we would not be the same self from one day to the next.
D2. But we are the same self from one day to the next.
D3. Therefore, consciousness is not just the product of our brains.

I also said the existence of free will is an argument for the existence of the soul as well as the truth of the Christian worldview via the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus and the reliability of the NT to capture his teachings, but I didn’t want to get into those debates, as they are done aplenty in this forum elsewhere.

Sorry about my delayed reply. I am struggling with health problems, hence the delay.

I am not convinced that your statements A2, B2 and C2 are true. Can you please prove the statements to be true?

Thank you very much.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #541]

I am sorry about your continued health problems and don't expect you to rush at all in responding. Thank you for continuing to talk with me.

A2. There are things true of conscious states that aren’t true of brain states.

Our brain states, which can be measured by scientists, have size, shape, location. Our mental states, thoughts of how the Cubs won the World Series in 2016 don’t have those attributes. So size, shape, location is true of one of these but not the other.

Our mental beliefs can be true or false. It’s true that the Cubs did win the World Series in 2016. Our brain states aren’t true or false. They aren’t about something, but just exist. That’s another difference.

There’s a what it’s like to be pain, to be angry, to taste ice cream. That’s a truth about our mental states. There isn’t a what’s it like to be an electron, to be negatively charged, to be a neuron, to be a chunk of matter, to be a physical property. That’s another difference.


B2. One can knowledge of X that goes beyond the facts of the physical states of X.

Suppose in the future that neuroscientists know everything there is to know about the brain, central nervous system, matter. Mary is one of those neuroscientists. She knows everything there is to know about the physical theory of hearing. But she was born deaf. Then, other scientists figure out how to get her the ability to hear. Wouldn’t she gain knowledge she didn’t have before? About what it is like to hear. If she knew all the physical facts prior to gaining her hearing, then this mental state (of knowing what it is like to hear) cannot be fully explained by the physical facts or she would have already known it.


C2. My body and brain are divisible, while my consciousness remains fully present.

People with Dandy-Walker syndrome, have 10 percent of a brain and are said to be 60-70 percent functional. But we still say they are 1 person or consciousness. They aren’t 1/10th of a person. They aren’t 2/3rds of a person. They are still one consciousness that can undergo various mental states. This is their brain being divisible while their consciousness is fully present.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #541]

I am sorry about your continued health problems and don't expect you to rush at all in responding. Thank you for continuing to talk with me.

A2. There are things true of conscious states that aren’t true of brain states.

Our brain states, which can be measured by scientists, have size, shape, location. Our mental states, thoughts of how the Cubs won the World Series in 2016 don’t have those attributes. So size, shape, location is true of one of these but not the other.

Our mental beliefs can be true or false. It’s true that the Cubs did win the World Series in 2016. Our brain states aren’t true or false. They aren’t about something, but just exist. That’s another difference.

There’s a what it’s like to be pain, to be angry, to taste ice cream. That’s a truth about our mental states. There isn’t a what’s it like to be an electron, to be negatively charged, to be a neuron, to be a chunk of matter, to be a physical property. That’s another difference.


B2. One can knowledge of X that goes beyond the facts of the physical states of X.

Suppose in the future that neuroscientists know everything there is to know about the brain, central nervous system, matter. Mary is one of those neuroscientists. She knows everything there is to know about the physical theory of hearing. But she was born deaf. Then, other scientists figure out how to get her the ability to hear. Wouldn’t she gain knowledge she didn’t have before? About what it is like to hear. If she knew all the physical facts prior to gaining her hearing, then this mental state (of knowing what it is like to hear) cannot be fully explained by the physical facts or she would have already known it.


C2. My body and brain are divisible, while my consciousness remains fully present.

People with Dandy-Walker syndrome, have 10 percent of a brain and are said to be 60-70 percent functional. But we still say they are 1 person or consciousness. They aren’t 1/10th of a person. They aren’t 2/3rds of a person. They are still one consciousness that can undergo various mental states. This is their brain being divisible while their consciousness is fully present.

Thank you for explaining what you mean and for being so understanding about my health problems. I am sorry if this disappoints you, but I don't agree with you.

How do you know that electrons are not conscious? How do you know that I am conscious? I could be a Philosophical Zombie instead of being a conscious organism. You could be a Philosophical Zombie instead of being a conscious organism. How do I know that you are conscious? How do you or I know whether panpsychism is true or false? There are many hypotheses that can't be tested e.g. simulation hypothesis, illusion hypothesis, dream hypothesis, hallucination hypothesis, solipsism hypothesis, philosophical zombie hypothesis, panpsychism hypothesis, deism hypothesis, theism hypothesis, pantheism hypothesis, panentheism hypothesis, etc. Just because a hypothesis can't be tested it does not mean it is true or false. It just means that it is currently untestable.

I am quoting ChatGPT 3.5:

The relationship between brain damage and consciousness is complex, and the effects depend on various factors, including the location and extent of the damage. The brain is intricately involved in generating and maintaining consciousness, and damage to certain areas can alter or disrupt conscious experience. Here are some ways in which brain damage can impact consciousness:

Impairment of Specific Brain Regions:

Damage to specific brain regions can result in the impairment of certain cognitive functions, sensory perceptions, or motor control, which can influence conscious experience. For example, damage to the occipital lobe may affect visual perception, while damage to the motor cortex may impact voluntary movement.

Alteration of Neural Networks:

Consciousness emerges from the coordinated activity of neural networks in the brain. Damage to key nodes within these networks can disrupt the flow of information and communication among brain regions, leading to changes in consciousness.

Loss of Consciousness:

Severe brain damage, such as traumatic brain injury, strokes, or certain neurological disorders, can lead to a loss of consciousness. This may occur due to disruptions in the reticular activating system (RAS) or widespread dysfunction in critical areas of the brain.

Impaired Self-Awareness:

Damage to brain regions associated with self-awareness, such as the prefrontal cortex, may result in impaired introspection, self-monitoring, and awareness of one's own thoughts and actions.

Disruption of Memory Systems:

The hippocampus and surrounding structures play a crucial role in memory formation and retrieval. Damage to these regions can lead to amnesia and impact an individual's conscious awareness of past events.

Changes in Sensory Perception:

Brain damage can affect sensory processing, leading to alterations in the perception of the external world. For example, damage to the auditory cortex may result in hearing impairments, while damage to the somatosensory cortex may impact tactile sensations.

Consciousness-Altering Conditions:

Certain conditions, such as epilepsy or seizures, involve abnormal patterns of neural activity that can temporarily alter consciousness. Brain damage associated with these conditions may contribute to changes in conscious states.

Coma and Vegetative States:

Severe brain damage can result in states of reduced or altered consciousness, such as coma or a vegetative state. These conditions are often associated with significant impairment of cognitive and sensory functions.
It's important to recognize that consciousness is a multi-faceted phenomenon, and our understanding of its neural basis is still evolving. Different aspects of consciousness, including wakefulness, self-awareness, and the experience of sensory perceptions, are associated with distinct neural mechanisms.

Research in neuroscience and clinical neurology continues to shed light on the intricate relationship between the brain and consciousness, and ongoing studies explore how damage to specific brain regions can influence various facets of conscious experience.

If you stimulate the claustrum of the brain with an electrode you can switch off consciousness. By stopping the stimulation you can switch consciousness on again. Reference: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -in-brain/

This video



shows that we are at the early stages of being able to read minds by looking at brain scans.

All of the above points show that consciousness is dependent on the brain. There is no evidence that souls exist.

[The Tanager]

If you stimulate the claustrum of the brain with an electrode you can switch off consciousness. By stopping the stimulation you can switch consciousness on again. Reference: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -in-brain/

This video



shows that we are at the early stages of being able to read minds by looking at brain scans.

All of the above points show that consciousness is dependent on the brain. There is no evidence that souls exist.

I never said human consciousness wasn’t dependent on the brain; I’ve said it is. That doesn’t decide the question we are asking. This data fits perfectly with a soul-brain relationship that is like a pianist and a piano. If the piano is broken, the pianist can’t make it produce the desired effects.

The evidence for the soul over alternatives are the arguments I gave that you have rejected for self-defeating reasons. Lack of 100% certainty is not a rational defeater of an argument. It logically can’t be because the reasons you reject my arguments having 100% certainty are themselves not 100% certain. To remain consistent, you’d have to reject those supposed defeaters of the argument.

[Compassionist]

If you stimulate the claustrum of the brain with an electrode you can switch off consciousness. By stopping the stimulation you can switch consciousness on again. Reference: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -in-brain/

This video



shows that we are at the early stages of being able to read minds by looking at brain scans.

All of the above points show that consciousness is dependent on the brain. There is no evidence that souls exist.

I never said human consciousness wasn’t dependent on the brain; I’ve said it is. That doesn’t decide the question we are asking. This data fits perfectly with a soul-brain relationship that is like a pianist and a piano. If the piano is broken, the pianist can’t make it produce the desired effects.

The evidence for the soul over alternatives are the arguments I gave that you have rejected for self-defeating reasons. Lack of 100% certainty is not a rational defeater of an argument. It logically can’t be because the reasons you reject my arguments having 100% certainty are themselves not 100% certain. To remain consistent, you’d have to reject those supposed defeaters of the argument.

Arguments are not the same as evidence. I can argue that what we perceive as reality is simulated, but that is not evidence of reality being simulated. What evidence do you have that the relationship between the soul and the brain is the relationship between a pianist and a piano? You have not shown me any evidence for the existence of souls. Monism is simpler than dualism. This makes it more likely that monism is true. I think it is more likely that materialist monism is true i.e. the brain produces all aspects of the mind. Why do you claim that souls exist when there is no evidence for souls?

[The Tanager]

Arguments are not the same as evidence. I can argue that reality is simulated, but that is not evidence for reality being simulated. What evidence do you have that the relationship between the soul and the brain is the relationship between a pianist and a piano? You have not shown me any evidence for the existence of souls.

Good arguments are good evidence. If you have a good argument for reality being simulated, good logical reasoning built off of true premises that come from science, history, other philosophical arguments, etc., then that is evidence for the conclusion. I gave four arguments that you are rejecting for self-defeating reasons because you seem to think 100% certainty isn't only ideal, but necessary without support for why it is necessary.

[Compassionist]

Arguments are not the same as evidence. I can argue that reality is simulated, but that is not evidence for reality being simulated. What evidence do you have that the relationship between the soul and the brain is the relationship between a pianist and a piano? You have not shown me any evidence for the existence of souls.

Good arguments are good evidence. If you have a good argument for reality being simulated, good logical reasoning built off of true premises that come from science, history, other philosophical arguments, etc., then that is evidence for the conclusion. I gave four arguments that you are rejecting for self-defeating reasons because you seem to think 100% certainty isn't only ideal, but necessary without support for why it is necessary.

Your statements A2, B2 and C2 in your earlier post are not true statements. Consciousness can be altered and even switched off by brain damage or by administering general anaesthesia or stimulating the claustrum of the brain using an electrode. You don't have any evidence for the existence of souls that is why you have resorted to sophistry.

Even good arguments are not the same as good evidence. Besides, your arguments are not good.

[The Tanager]

Your statements A2, B2 and C2 in your earlier post are not true statements. Consciousness can be altered and even switched off by brain damage or by administering general anaesthesia or stimulating the claustrum of the brain using an electrode. You don't have any evidence for the existence of souls that is why you have resorted to sophistry.

Even good arguments are not the same as good evidence. Besides, your arguments are not good.

I agree that affecting the brain affects human consciousness in examples like that. That does nothing to counter A2, B2, or C2. How does that counter (1) the differences between mental beliefs and brain states that I mentioned, (2) that Mary would still gain knowledge unexplained by all the physical facts, and (3) that either the brain isn't divisible or one's consciousness (not functioning, but consciousness itself) is divisible?

[Compassionist]

Your statements A2, B2 and C2 in your earlier post are not true statements. Consciousness can be altered and even switched off by brain damage or by administering general anaesthesia or stimulating the claustrum of the brain using an electrode. You don't have any evidence for the existence of souls that is why you have resorted to sophistry.

Even good arguments are not the same as good evidence. Besides, your arguments are not good.

I agree that affecting the brain affects human consciousness in examples like that. That does nothing to counter A2, B2, or C2. How does that counter (1) the differences between mental beliefs and brain states that I mentioned, (2) that Mary would still gain knowledge unexplained by all the physical facts, and (3) that either the brain isn't divisible or one's consciousness (not functioning, but consciousness itself) is divisible?

Mental states are determined by brain states. Did you not watch the video about how it is possible to tell who is thinking of suicide from a brain scan? Every perception, thought, word, action, inaction, belief and choice is determined by the electrochemical activities of the brain. Mary gaining new knowledge is determined by changes to her brain state. Damage to the brain alters and even shuts down consciousness depending on the location and degree of the damage. Also, consciousness can be switched off by administering general anaesthesia. It can also be switched off by stimulating the claustrum of the brain with an electrode.

"For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly." - Mark 7:21-22, The Bible (New International Version). Our thoughts, emotions, values, beliefs, words, actions, and inactions are produced by the electrochemical activities of the brain. The heart is a pump which pumps blood. People receive other people's hearts during transplant operations. This does not change their personalities or values which would have happened if the heart could do the things claimed by the Bible. The brain is where thoughts, emotions, values and desires reside.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #549]

You don’t seem to have a further critique of A2 that I saw, since you talked of how mental states are determined by brain states, not identical to brain states.

Your critique of B2 misses. Even if Mary’s new knowledge is determined by changes in her brain states, it is still true that Mary gains knowledge unexplained by all the physical facts that she scientifically exhausted about hearing before that moment. Therefore, B3 remains the logical conclusion: consciousness is not identical to physical states.

And, in response to C2, all that the examples you bring up show is that there is a connection of mental states and brain states (which I agree with), not that the connection begins in the brain state and determines the mental state. You simply repeated what I’ve already agreed with. The altering and shutting down doesn’t disagree with C2.

As to the Bible’s claims about the heart, it’s not talking about a physical heart. They didn’t distinguish between brains, hearts, bowels when talking about why people do what they do.