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]

By different person I mean that they are different from the way they were before the procedure or accident. Changes to the brain affect the personality and abilities of the person whose brain has changed due to procedures or accidents. There is a fundamental problem when assessing consciousness.

That’s not a different consciousness, though. People who don’t have these accidents change their personalities throughout their life.

For example, I can't prove to you that I am not a philosophical zombie and you can't prove to me that you are not a philosophical zombie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

There is also the problem of testing the Panpsychism hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

This is why I am an agnostic about who or what is actually conscious even though another human or a dog or a whale appears to be conscious and a rock or a brick or a car appears to be not conscious.

I am also agnostic about whether or not souls exist. It's possible that I am a solipsistic soul and nothing else is real. I can't test the solipsism hypothesis either.

And you can’t prove I am a philosophical zombie or that panpsychism is true. The reason you are an agnostic, I think, is that your standard is too high. It seems like you think 100% certainty is the standard or one should be an agnostic. If that’s correct, why do you think that?

[Compassionist]

By different person I mean that they are different from the way they were before the procedure or accident. Changes to the brain affect the personality and abilities of the person whose brain has changed due to procedures or accidents. There is a fundamental problem when assessing consciousness.

That’s not a different consciousness, though. People who don’t have these accidents change their personalities throughout their life.

For example, I can't prove to you that I am not a philosophical zombie and you can't prove to me that you are not a philosophical zombie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

There is also the problem of testing the Panpsychism hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

This is why I am an agnostic about who or what is actually conscious even though another human or a dog or a whale appears to be conscious and a rock or a brick or a car appears to be not conscious.

I am also agnostic about whether or not souls exist. It's possible that I am a solipsistic soul and nothing else is real. I can't test the solipsism hypothesis either.

And you can’t prove I am a philosophical zombie or that panpsychism is true. The reason you are an agnostic, I think, is that your standard is too high. It seems like you think 100% certainty is the standard or one should be an agnostic. If that’s correct, why do you think that?

We can't actually know what it is like to be someone else. What we can observe is what people say and do and which brain regions light up on functional MRI or PET scans. My point is that changes to the brain, whether through procedures or accidents, change the mind.

I am completely certain of the following:

1. I am conscious.
2. I am typing in English.
3. I am not all-knowing.
4. I am not all-powerful.
5. I change.
6. I can't do lots of things I really want to do e.g. go back in time and prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths and make all living things forever happy.
7. I do some things even though I don't want to do them. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:

1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die

I am almost certain of the following:

1. I and all the other organisms currently alive will die. Every second brings all organisms closer to death.
2. My body, other organisms, the Earth and the Universe really exist and they are not part of a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion.
3. Other organisms e.g. humans, cows, dogs, cats, chickens, pigs, lions, elephants, butterflies, whales, dolphins, etc. are sentient beings who feel pain.
4. Being a non-consumer is more ethical than being an autotroph, being an autotroph is more ethical than being a vegan/herbivore, being a vegan is more ethical than being a vegetarian, and being a vegetarian is more ethical than being an omnivore or carnivore.
5. Gods do not exist.
6. Souls do not exist.
7. Reincarnation does not happen.
8. Resurrection does not happen.
10. Organisms evolved and were not created by God or Gods.
11. 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth became extinct in 5 mass extinctions long before humans evolved.
12. Humans and other organisms do not have free will. Our wills are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. The reason I have put this one in the almost certain category is that it is possible that bodies, genes, cells, stars, planets, moons, galaxies, universes may not actually exist. These things could be part of a simulation or dream or hallucination or illusion. It is impossible to know with complete certainty. I could be a solipsistic soul experiencing the illusion of being in a human body on a planet in a universe or I could be a body without any soul - I don't know these things for sure, hence I am an agnostic. 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, pantheism 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 think these thoughts because of my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. If I had your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences I would think your thoughts, feel your emotions, have your values and beliefs and make your choices and vice versa.

[The Tanager]

We can't actually know what it is like to be someone else. What we can observe is what people say and do and which brain regions light up on functional MRI or PET scans. My point is that changes to the brain, whether through procedures or accidents, change the mind.

And my point remains. I agree minds are affected by such things. That is not the same thing as being a completely new person/consciousness.

I am completely certain of the following:

…

I am almost certain of the following:

…

Is 100% certainty the standard? On those things that you are almost certain of, do you think you should still be agnostic because it’s not 100%, or do you think you should treat those almost certain beliefs as true when trying to think about reality?

[Compassionist]

We can't actually know what it is like to be someone else. What we can observe is what people say and do and which brain regions light up on functional MRI or PET scans. My point is that changes to the brain, whether through procedures or accidents, change the mind.

And my point remains. I agree minds are affected by such things. That is not the same thing as being a completely new person/consciousness.

I am completely certain of the following:

…

I am almost certain of the following:

…

Is 100% certainty the standard? On those things that you are almost certain of, do you think you should still be agnostic because it’s not 100%, or do you think you should treat those almost certain beliefs as true when trying to think about reality?

The fact that changes to the brain affect personality shows that materialism (i.e. brain produces the mind) could be true. You are just quibbling over semantics. One could argue that a changed person is a new person because they are different from the person they were before.

Complete certainty is my goal. I have reached my goal for the following:

1. I am conscious.
2. I am typing in English.
3. I am not all-knowing.
4. I am not all-powerful.
5. I change.
6. I can't do lots of things I really want to do e.g. go back in time and prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths and make all living things forever happy.
7. I do some things even though I don't want to do them. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:

1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die

I have not reached complete certainty about anything else. If you can help me reach complete certainty about other aspects of my existence, please do. Thank you.

[The Tanager]

The fact that changes to the brain affect personality shows that materialism (i.e. brain produces the mind) could be true.

I agree it could be true. Those changes are consistent with materialism. They are also consistent with the existence of non-natural minds.

You are just quibbling over semantics. One could argue that a changed person is a new person because they are different from the person they were before.

There are good quibbles over semantics and bad ones. This one is a vitally good one to have. It is vitally important to define what we are talking about involving what changes are just changes within the same entity and what changes makes that thing a completely new thing. I don’t think these brain changes are evidence that we have a completely new thing that is as different as you are from me.

Complete certainty is my goal.

Why? I understand that would be great, but why can't "most rational good view" be good enough for the majority of our beliefs.

[Compassionist]

The fact that changes to the brain affect personality shows that materialism (i.e. brain produces the mind) could be true.

I agree it could be true. Those changes are consistent with materialism. They are also consistent with the existence of non-natural minds.

You are just quibbling over semantics. One could argue that a changed person is a new person because they are different from the person they were before.

There are good quibbles over semantics and bad ones. This one is a vitally good one to have. It is vitally important to define what we are talking about involving what changes are just changes within the same entity and what changes makes that thing a completely new thing. I don’t think these brain changes are evidence that we have a completely new thing that is as different as you are from me.

Complete certainty is my goal.

Why? I understand that would be great, but why can't "most rational good view" be good enough for the majority of our beliefs.

What's "non-natural minds"? Either materialism is true or false. I am agnostic about it because we can't test the soul hypothesis. Religious people simply have faith in souls even though we can't detect souls in brain scans. I don't see how we can conclude that something is the most rational view when we can't test many hypotheses.

[The Tanager]

What's "non-natural minds"? Either materialism is true or false. I am agnostic about it because we can't test the soul hypothesis. Religious people simply have faith in souls even though we can't detect souls in brain scans. I don't see how we can conclude that something is the most rational view when we can't test many hypotheses.

Materialists seem to basically believe that what we call the mind is reducible to some natural thing. By “non-natural mind” I’m distinguishing that from what they believe the mind to be. What, traditionally, most people meant when they talk about the soul or the mind.

I do not simply have faith in souls. I gave four reasoned arguments in this thread for it. You may disagree with them, but I don’t. That’s not me just having faith; I’m actually convinced those are sound arguments. Yes, we can’t detect souls in brain scans. And that’s absolutely no problem because souls aren’t physical things that logically could be detected in brain scans. That doesn’t mean it is untestable, but just tested by different means, by rational arguments like those I gave. By definition, science is not the way to test the existence of non-physical or non-natural souls/minds. It is logically impossible for science alone to give us an answer here. It must include philosophical testing through logical analysis.

[Compassionist]

What's "non-natural minds"? Either materialism is true or false. I am agnostic about it because we can't test the soul hypothesis. Religious people simply have faith in souls even though we can't detect souls in brain scans. I don't see how we can conclude that something is the most rational view when we can't test many hypotheses.

Materialists seem to basically believe that what we call the mind is reducible to some natural thing. By “non-natural mind” I’m distinguishing that from what they believe the mind to be. What, traditionally, most people meant when they talk about the soul or the mind.

I do not simply have faith in souls. I gave four reasoned arguments in this thread for it. You may disagree with them, but I don’t. That’s not me just having faith; I’m actually convinced those are sound arguments. Yes, we can’t detect souls in brain scans. And that’s absolutely no problem because souls aren’t physical things that logically could be detected in brain scans. That doesn’t mean it is untestable, but just tested by different means, by rational arguments like those I gave. By definition, science is not the way to test the existence of non-physical or non-natural souls/minds. It is logically impossible for science alone to give us an answer here. It must include philosophical testing through logical analysis.

Thank you for explaining what you meant. I think it is more rational to be an Agnostic than to be anything else e.g. Atheist, Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, Sikh, Bahai, Zoroastrian, Animist, Jew, Christian, Muslim, Taoist, Confucianist, Deist, Theist, Pantheist, Panpsychist, Simulationist, Illusionist, Solipsist, Hallucinationist, Dreamist, New Ageist, Polytheist, etc. I am not convinced by the arguments you laid out. I am not here to change yours on anyone else's mind about anything. I am merely doing what is inevitable given my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

The fact that we can't detect souls on brain scans could be because souls don't exist or souls can't be detected. I think the possibility that souls don't exist is more likely as it is simpler. Also, if souls exist and are not made of matter or energy how does it interact with the brain which is made of matter? I think dualism is more complex than monism which makes monism more likely to be true.

[The Tanager]

Thank you for explaining what you meant. I think it is more rational to be an Agnostic than to be anything else e.g. Atheist, Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, Sikh, Bahai, Zoroastrian, Animist, Jew, Christian, Muslim, Taoist, Confucianist, Deist, Theist, Pantheist, Panpsychist, Simulationist, Illusionist, Solipsist, Hallucinationist, Dreamist, New Ageist, Polytheist, etc. I am not convinced by the arguments you laid out. I am not here to change yours on anyone else's mind about anything. I am merely doing what is inevitable given my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

I wouldn’t have a problem if you were trying to change my mind, because it would mean you think the truth is important and think well enough of me to challenge my view of the truth. Yes, we disagree on what the rational view to take is. I’m always willing to continue challenging each other’s thoughts on any issue.

The fact that we can't detect souls on brain scans could be because souls don't exist or souls can't be detected. I think the possibility that souls don't exist is more likely as it is simpler.

Yes, it is simpler. If there was no other evidence/reasoning to consider, then simplicity should be the deciding factor. But if there is other evidence swaying one way or the other, then simplicity just doesn’t matter. I think that is the case here.

Also, if souls exist and are not made of matter or energy how does it interact with the brain which is made of matter?

First, that is a secondary question. There are tons of scientific things in this world that you don’t know how it works; that doesn’t mean they don’t work. That something is true and how it all works are separate questions. Not knowing how X works doesn’t count against X existing. But, second, I don’t see what is so hard to believe about something immaterial interacting with something material. Many naturalists say this, but there is nothing illogical about it. There is nothing fancy about it. It would simply have a power, like material things do, to cause certain effects.

[Clownboat]

Yes, we disagree on what the rational view to take is.

If you lost your keys, I highly doubt your mind would consider that fairies took them. I would think you would have a rational position about what happened to them, like they were misplaced for example. Sure, goblins could have taken them, but is that really rational?

I hope you do not operate your life this way... outside of claiming a soul is real that is.

I personally don't understand how you can justify calling your view rational as it is on par with fairies and goblins as an explanation. What's worse is that the fairies and goblins would be unevidenced, undetectable and untestable to even be compared with this soul idea.

Person A: What happened to your keys?
Person B: Fairies took them again.
Person A: Really? Fairies!
Person B: Yup, they are undetectable though, so that is why you don't know about them. Well, outside of what I just told you about them as I happen to have this unknowable knowledge that escapes you and I happen to claim that fairies are a rational view. We just disagree on what a rational view is.

Do you find fairies to be a rational view for the lost keys or would such a claim seem irrational? Checking for consistency.