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

[Compassionist]

Most religions claim that souls exist. Some religions claim that souls are immortal and are reincarnated after the death of the body while other religions claim that souls are immortal and are resurrected after the death of the body. Can anyone please prove that souls exist and are either resurrected or reincarnated? Thank you.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #530]

Anyone that reads the arguments I gave for the soul can clearly see they aren't "X can't be explained, therefore the soul!" If you disagree with them, note the premise and why it is wrong. Drop the empty rhetoric.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #530]

Anyone that reads the arguments I gave for the soul can clearly see they aren't "X can't be explained, therefore the soul!" If you disagree with them, note the premise and why it is wrong. Drop the empty rhetoric.

Empty rhetoric! Please. Your strawman isn't even a good one.
Copy/paste to save time: "Do you find fairies to be a rational view for the lost keys or would such a claim seem irrational? Checking for consistency."

You are afraid to answer the actual questions posed to you because you will be exposed for being inconsistent. Everyone reading here can see this. Of course you wouldn't find fairies to be a rational explanation and you clearly see the similarities between attributing a soul and attributing fairies.

[The Tanager]

Empty rhetoric! Please. Your strawman isn't even a good one.
Copy/paste to save time: "Do you find fairies to be a rational view for the lost keys or would such a claim seem irrational? Checking for consistency."

You are afraid to answer the actual questions posed to you because you will be exposed for being inconsistent. Everyone reading here can see this. Of course you wouldn't find fairies to be a rational explanation and you clearly see the similarities between attributing a soul and attributing fairies.

No, I don't see any similarities at all. I'm unaware of rational arguments for fairies. I gave four rational arguments in arguing for the soul. I'm willing to discuss any actual premises of those arguments you want.

[Clownboat]

No, I don't see any similarities at all.

There is zero evidence for either. Surely this similarity didn't escape you, nor how significant this knowledge is?

I'm unaware of rational arguments for fairies.

I pray you do not operate your life in this way in other instances. Could you imagine being impressed that fairies might be real (or the earth if flat) because someone made a rational argument for them without being able to present any evidence that they are real and interact with the world we live in?

I gave four rational arguments in arguing for the soul.

Those arguments failed to gain any traction and the counter arguments were more impressive. No matter if we are being honest though, because if souls were real, they would affect our world and those effects would be detectable. Same goes for any of the available god concepts I would add and I have it on good authority that you don't believe in Allah even though rational arguments are made.

I'm willing to discuss any actual premises of those arguments you want.

Let's start with showing that arguments are not evidence, but we'll use fairies.
Premise 1: The matter/energy that composes the things in the universe can take on many different shapes. It can take on the shape of humans, plants, planets, dinosaurs, stones, and many other things.
Premise 2: Fairies, if they existed, would basically just be matter/energy shaped like little persons with wings (or however you imagine fairies to look like).
Premise 3: There is no compelling reason why it should only be possible for matter/energy to take on the shape of certain things (humans, plants, etc.), but not of others (fairies).

Please tell me you are not on the verge of believing in fairies now that you have heard an argument. Surely more is needed, right? It's the 'more' that is lacking when it comes to soul claims. Furthermore, what makes a soul unlikely is that nobody knows what constitutes a soul.

What got me involved in this thread again was:
"Yes, we disagree on what the rational view to take is."

So back full circle: "Do you find fairies to be a rational view for the lost keys or would such a claim seem irrational? Checking for consistency."

[The Tanager]

Those arguments failed to gain any traction and the counter arguments were more impressive.

Perhaps that is true. I don’t really see the need to rehash what our conclusions are of the discussion. Everybody knows this is your view and I disagree with it.

No matter if we are being honest though, because if souls were real, they would affect our world and those effects would be detectable.

Detectable how?

Same goes for any of the available god concepts I would add and I have it on good authority that you don't believe in Allah even though rational arguments are made.

It’s not about them being made, but about how rational they actually are.

Let's start with showing that arguments are not evidence, but we'll use fairies.
Premise 1: The matter/energy that composes the things in the universe can take on many different shapes. It can take on the shape of humans, plants, planets, dinosaurs, stones, and many other things.
Premise 2: Fairies, if they existed, would basically just be matter/energy shaped like little persons with wings (or however you imagine fairies to look like).
Premise 3: There is no compelling reason why it should only be possible for matter/energy to take on the shape of certain things (humans, plants, etc.), but not of others (fairies).

This argument is completely rational. But what is the conclusion? That fairies exist? No. Premise 3 simply asserts that it is logically possible that matter/energy could come in the shape of little persons with wings. That’s perfectly logical. The string of arguments I gave for the soul did not conclude with it’s logically possible the soul exists. So, you’ve still got rational work to do to show a parallel if you are really wanting to check for consistency.

[Clownboat]

No matter if we are being honest though, because if souls were real, they would affect our world and those effects would be detectable.

Detectable how?

The effects of things that affect our world are detectible. That is how we know about black holes and wind for starters. If the Tooth Fairy was real, but invisible, we could still detect the affect our our teeth going missing in the middle of the night.

It’s not about them being made, but about how rational they actually are.

Let me remind you of what I was responding to: "I gave four rational arguments in arguing for the soul."

Let's start with showing that arguments are not evidence, but we'll use fairies.

This argument is completely rational. But what is the conclusion? That fairies exist? No. Premise 3 simply asserts that it is logically possible that matter/energy could come in the shape of little persons with wings. That’s perfectly logical. The string of arguments I gave for the soul did not conclude with it’s logically possible the soul exists. So, you’ve still got rational work to do to show a parallel if you are really wanting to check for consistency.

That was not my goal. I bolded it for you above, but here it is again: "Let's start with showing that arguments are not evidence, but we'll use fairies."
Again, in response to this claim of yours: "I gave four rational arguments in arguing for the soul."

I would like to remind the readers as to what you quote mind out of your reply:
"What got me involved in this thread again was:
The Tanager said: "Yes, we disagree on what the rational view to take is."

So back full circle: "Do you find fairies to be a rational view for the lost keys or would such a claim seem irrational? Checking for consistency."

I think that deep down The Tanager knows that fairies and souls are not rational, which is why they don't want to acknowledge that fairies as an explanation is not rational. The effects that fairies have on us are not detectible, just like the effects of a soul, yet one gets argued for being a real explanation. I notice the inconsistency.

[The Tanager]

The effects of things that affect our world are detectible. That is how we know about black holes and wind for starters. If the Tooth Fairy was real, but invisible, we could still detect the affect our our teeth going missing in the middle of the night.

But it could have been a parent instead of the Tooth Fairy, right? How do you propose to detect the difference?

That was not my goal. I bolded it for you above, but here it is again: "Let's start with showing that arguments are not evidence, but we'll use fairies."
Again, in response to this claim of yours: "I gave four rational arguments in arguing for the soul."

I never claimed that arguments simply as arguments are evidence.

So back full circle: "Do you find fairies to be a rational view for the lost keys or would such a claim seem irrational? Checking for consistency."

I think that deep down The Tanager knows that fairies and souls are not rational, which is why they don't want to acknowledge that fairies as an explanation is not rational. The effects that fairies have on us are not detectible, just like the effects of a soul, yet one gets argued for being a real explanation. I notice the inconsistency.

Fairies are not a rational view for the lost keys because there are no good arguments for fairies being the cause of the lost keys. Souls existing are a rational view because there are good arguments for the soul existing. The inconsistency is in the rationality of the arguments argued for one over the other; they are not comparable.

If you disagree, then point out the premise(s) you disagree with or (like I did with your fairy argument) point out how the conclusion of the argument (that fairies are logically possible) isn’t for the claim being put forth (that fairies exist). If you think you have already conclusively done that, then our posts stand as is and there is nothing new to add.

[Clownboat]

But it could have been a parent instead of the Tooth Fairy, right? How do you propose to detect the difference?

This misses the point.
If the Tooth Fairy was real and took our teeth while we sleep and replaced them with money, these effects would be detectable. Surely you agree.
These effects are not detected, which is why we know there is no Tooth Fairy that takes our teeth for money.

What do you claim a soul does? Perhaps we can detect these effects and then speculate on what is causing them? Perhaps it's a soul... or fairies.

I never claimed that arguments simply as arguments are evidence.

This I agree with, but it is all that you have been able to do so far. I truly wish we were discussing the effects souls have in the real world though as that would be much more meaningful then simply arguing for a soul.

Fairies are not a rational view for the lost keys because there are no good arguments for fairies being the cause of the lost keys.

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.

Souls existing are a rational view because there are good arguments for the soul existing. The inconsistency is in the rationality of the arguments argued for one over the other; they are not comparable.

Gah, I have to do it again... sorry.
The Tanager: "I never claimed that arguments simply as arguments are evidence."
I agree you are arguing for a soul.

If you disagree, then point out the premise(s) you disagree with or (like I did with your fairy argument) point out how the conclusion of the argument (that fairies are logically possible) isn’t for the claim being put forth (that fairies exist). If you think you have already conclusively done that, then our posts stand as is and there is nothing new to add.

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

[The Tanager]

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.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to wannabe in post #2]

Believe what you want, but the OP asked for proof.

Let's face it, religious people will never provide proof for their beliefs. Ever.