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.

[Clownboat]

That's the same point I've been making. You could have just said, "I agree with you here".

You asked what it meant and I explained it to you. I apologize, but you sure seemed confused about it. Remember, you specifically asked what it meant and I often find it hard to tell when you are being honest.

What???

Ohhh, I get it; come up with some futile counter-example that isn't comparative at all to the one I gave.

If that was the plan, then you've proved your point...as it doesn't change or negate the truth value of anything I said.

Readers, if someone displayed confusion about what is meant when we say about a dead person that they are no longer with us, it seems reasonable to compare that to someone that might get confused about what we mean when we say the sun sets and rises.
My example about the sun is very on point when compared to one that would be confused about dead bodies and what we mean about the person no longer being with us.

You said: "The corpse of the person, the statement "this person is no longer with us" can be applied to the deceased person, and is commonly used in reference to people who have died..
So, what does this mean?"

I addressed your question head on and hopefully you now know what it means, about both the dead and the sun.

All we know for sure is that the functioning mind that we use to converse with is no longer there, functioning.

Thus, the point. Again, just say "I agree with you here, too".

Sorry, but you must first show that you have an understanding before I can agree with you. You generally seemed confused about what we mean about dead bodies when we say "the person that is no longer with us". It was like you were using such a phrase to justify a soul or something without quite saying what you might have even meant.

We could argue that the sun orbits the earth using your line of thought. Therefore your line of thought must be rejected for being invalid.

No point is being made here.

What is true of the sun, is or isn't true of what?

You think you miss the point. When humans say about a dead body, that "they are no longer with us", that seemed to generally confuse you to the point that, that is evidence for a soul or something. In hopes of relating such words to those we use about the sun, I thought to clarify. The sun doesn't move even though we claim such a thing when discussing it rising or setting. When it comes to a dead body, yes, the body is still here, but we cannot interact with dead people even though we make statements about them no longer being with us.

Makes no sense. You didn't think it all the way through..and that is the problem when you are so focused on arguing, instead of taking the time to think about it.

I am here to debate. Do you have any debate questions for me?

[SiNcE_1985]

You asked what it meant and I explained it to you. I apologize, but you sure seemed confused about it.
Remember, you specifically asked what it meant and I often find it hard to tell when you are being honest.

Reading comprehension.

The question was rhetorical, and the answer I provided was preceded with "the answer is simple"....so obviously, based on me answering my own question, and the fact that your answer mirrored my answer, there could hardly be any "I seemed confused by it" interpretation.

You're just trying to score cheap, rhetorical points..as you've been doing.

Readers, if someone displayed confusion about what is meant when we say about a dead person that they are no longer with us, it seems reasonable to compare that to someone that might get confused about what we mean when we say the sun sets and rises.

Makes no sense. Your definition agreed with mines..so where is the confusion?

There is none.

Again, yet another paragraph lacking substance...where all of these technicalities have to be addressed and explained because one person wants to argue meaningless points that have nothing to do with the discussion.

So we spend more time focused on that nonsense, than the actual stuff that we're here for.

My example about the sun is very on point when compared to one that would be confused about dead bodies and what we mean about the person no longer being with us.

You said: "The corpse of the person, the statement "this person is no longer with us" can be applied to the deceased person, and is commonly used in reference to people who have died..
So, what does this mean?"

The answer to that rhetorical question, was provided in the immediate context of the question.

The question was not asked because I was ignorant of the answer.

So, your "help" was irrelevant, not needed, and unwarranted.

I addressed your question head on and hopefully you now know what it means, about both the dead and the sun.

Nonsense. In my example, there are two subjects.

Mind (X)
Body (Y)

*Body is synonymous with brain*

I showed how X and Y are distinctively separate, which is the first step in "proving" what the OP is asking to be proved.

In your counter-example..

Sun (X)

There is an X, but there is no Y.

So, like I said, it is a false equivalency. It was a failed "gotcha" moment.

Sorry, but you must first show that you have an understanding before I can agree with you. You generally seemed confused about what we mean about dead bodies when we say "the person that is no longer with us". It was like you were using such a phrase to justify a soul or something without quite saying what you might have even meant.

So, tell me...what is it about my definition of "X is no longer with us", that differs from your definition of the same figure of speech.

Put the two definitions (yours and mines), side by side (up & down), and do a comparative analysis of both, and tell me how they differ.

I'll wait.

You think you miss the point. When humans say about a dead body, that "they are no longer with us", that seemed to generally confuse you to the point that, that is evidence for a soul or something.

First of all, that's not what I'm doing...not at this point in the argument.

All I aimed to show at this point, is that the mind and body are not the same thing.

That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

And from the looks of things, you actually agreed with me...yet, you are so focused on trying to fight, that you're blinded by the fact that we are saying the same thing.

It's ok, we can agree from time to time. We don't have to disagree on everything...I know agreeing with a theist may be a foreign concept to you, but it's ok.

You won't die from it. You can breath.

In hopes of relating such words to those we use about the sun, I thought to clarify. The sun doesn't move even though we claim such a thing when discussing it rising or setting. When it comes to a dead body, yes, the body is still here, but we cannot interact with dead people even though we make statements about them no longer being with us.

Well gosh darnnit...look at that, we are in agreement here, yet again.

Now that we agree that the mind-body are not the same thing, can we move along?

I am here to debate. Do you have any debate questions for me?

See above.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #607]

Are you gonna address this, or not?

I did address it - just not in the way that you’d like.

All the business about a corpse being physically present while the mind has ceased to function (and the words we use) only served to make this claim:

This distinction demonstrates, that the mind is distinct from the body.

Now, mind-body duality is a philosophical argument and has some criticism levelled against it: notably the problem of causal interaction. There are also a number of distinct schools of thought within dualism. Some recent thinking about ‘emergent properties’ has had an impact in this area, which I find fascinating.

If we’re to explore this further, then I would appreciate a quick yes/no answer from you:

Are the words ‘soul’, ‘spirit’ and ‘mind’ equivalent within the context of what the OP is asking?

If ‘yes’, then I’d like to explore the implications of that further, but if ‘no’, then we don’t actually require the tangent of mind-body dualism to continue the debate about souls.

My claimed ‘avoidance’ was in fact pointing out where you had changed the debate, and so asking you for clarification. Surely it’s better for everyone to be on the same debating track rather than talking past each other?

[SiNcE_1985]

I did address it - just not in the way that you’d like.

All the business about a corpse being physically present while the mind has ceased to function (and the words we use) only served to make this claim:

"This distinction demonstrates, that the mind is distinct from the body."

Yeah, it served to make that claim. Do you have any issues with the truth value of the claim?

Yes or no?

The question helps set the framework for the discussion.

Are you gonna answer the question?

Now, mind-body duality is a philosophical argument and has some criticism levelled against it: notably the problem of causal interaction. There are also a number of distinct schools of thought within dualism. Some recent thinking about ‘emergent properties’ has had an impact in this area, which I find fascinating.

That's all fine and dandy. But are you going to answer the question^.

If we’re to explore this further, then I would appreciate a quick yes/no answer from you:

Are the words ‘soul’, ‘spirit’ and ‘mind’ equivalent within the context of what the OP is asking?

Funny, a couple posts ago, when I sought to define terms and elaborate of what each meant, you made it seem like it was unnecessary for me to do so.

Now, here you are asking me is it relevant when obviously, it is relevant.

Go back to what I said about spirit and soul, and you tell me if it is relevant.

If ‘yes’, then I’d like to explore the implications of that further, but if ‘no’, then we don’t actually require the tangent of mind-body dualism to continue the debate about souls.

You tell me.

My claimed ‘avoidance’ was in fact pointing out where you had changed the debate, and so asking you for clarification. Surely it’s better for everyone to be on the same debating track rather than talking past each other?

I didn't change the debate. Everything I said was on topic.

[Diagoras]

Yeah, it served to make that claim. Do you have any issues with the truth value of the claim?

Yes, as included in my answer above - dualism has been criticised, so that would mean there are ‘issues’.

If we’re to explore this further, then I would appreciate a quick yes/no answer from you:

Are the words ‘soul’, ‘spirit’ and ‘mind’ equivalent within the context of what the OP is asking?

You replied:

Funny, a couple posts ago, when I sought to define terms and elaborate of what each meant, you made it seem like it was unnecessary for me to do so.

Now, here you are asking me is it relevant when obviously, it is relevant.

Go back to what I said about spirit and soul, and you tell me if it is relevant.

OK, let’s do that.

Admittedly, things tend to get tricky when distinguishing the spirit from the soul.

Sometimes they are used interchangeably, and sometimes they are identified as separate.

At the very least, it seems as if humans have two natures, physical and spiritual.

Our spirit is the immaterial form of "us".

<bolding mine>

Yes, defining terms is definitely relevant, which is why I asked:

Are the words ‘soul’, ‘spirit’ and ‘mind’ equivalent within the context of what the OP is asking?

From your post when you said it was ‘tricky’ to distinguish soul from spirit, and that it ‘seemed’ that the soul was the ‘self, it looks to me like you can answer my bolded question with a ‘yes’, but I’d like to hear it from you rather than making an assumption.

[SiNcE_1985]

Yeah, it served to make that claim. Do you have any issues with the truth value of the claim?

Yes, as included in my answer above - dualism has been criticised, so that would mean there are ‘issues’.

Anyone can criticize anything...Dr. Craig once responded to some of the criticisms of his KCA, and most of those criticisms were due to misunderstandings of the argument, strawmans, and other fallacious reasons.

Anyone can criticize anything. The question is, do those criticisms hold weight?

So, I'll wait for you to tell me how/why the mind and body are the same thing.

Because that's what this is all about, at this point in the discussion.

From your post when you said it was ‘tricky’ to distinguish soul from spirit, and that it ‘seemed’ that the soul was the ‘self, it looks to me like you can answer my bolded question with a ‘yes’, but I’d like to hear it from you rather than making an assumption.

I use the soul/self/spirit all, interchangeably.

[Diagoras]

Anyone can criticize anything. The question is, do those criticisms hold weight?

So, I'll wait for you to tell me how/why the mind and body are the same thing.

Thanks for waiting. I’ve just got a few things to get straightened out before I do that.

I use the soul/self/spirit all, interchangeably.

Can you see any way that might cause confusion or a problem? For instance…

Let’s try it without mentioning the ‘E-word’, then.

Do chimpanzees have souls? Do dogs?

What about fish? Worms? Bacteria? Viruses?

Could a prion have a soul?

I doubt any of those things have souls.

But do you consider a chimpanzee or a dog to have a mind? Can you see where I’m going with this?

[SiNcE_1985]

But do you consider a chimpanzee or a dog to have a mind? Can you see where I’m going with this?

Ehhhhh.

Yeah, I see where your going with it...and I was hoping you wouldn't take it there lol.

But you did. Props to you. Good catch.

I am lead to believe that animals have minds, but they don't have spirits/souls.

I don't have a fireproof argument for this, though. Pure speculation on my part.

However, my overarching point for mind-body dualism isn't effected by this.

[Clownboat]

<snipped reading comprehension allegations>
<snipped talk about dead bodies and the sun> I apologize. You were apparently not as confused about this as it seemed to me.

Nonsense. In my example, there are two subjects.

Mind (X)
Body (Y)

*Body is synonymous with brain*

I showed how X and Y are distinctively separate, which is the first step in "proving" what the OP is asking to be proved.

The mind (thinking, feeling etc..) and the brain (physical organ that controls body functions) refer to different things. On this I can agree, even though a mind is just a product of a functioning brain. Either way, what does that tell us about a soul? You seem to forget to address this 3rd thing and it seems you are clear about what we mean when we say 'they are no longer with us', so you can't be alluding to that being the soul that is missing. Unless you are. Please tell me you aren't or my comment about what we mean when we say the sun sets will become relevant again.

So, like I said, it is a false equivalency. It was a failed "gotcha" moment.

Not if you are using such a phrase as evidence for a soul. If you are, I have evidence that the sun moves around the earth.

So, tell me...what is it about my definition of "X is no longer with us", that differs from your definition of the same figure of speech.

A person that was confused about what we mean when we say 'they are no longer with us' may also be confused about 'the sun sets'. You claim not to be such a person though. So unless you try to use, 'they are no longer with us' as evidence for a soul, we are fine, because if you do, I'll point out once again the when we say 'the sun sets' that is not evidence for the sun moving in relation to the earth.

Put the two definitions (yours and mines), side by side (up & down), and do a comparative analysis of both, and tell me how they differ.

No need. Since hearing 'they are no longer with us' is not evidence for a soul being gone, there is nothing to compare. If you are trying to use such a statement as evidence for a soul, I'll again point that 'the sun sets' is not evidence for the sun moving.

All I aimed to show at this point, is that the mind and body are not the same thing.

Agreed. One is physical and the other discusses non physical traits that requires the first to be functioning.

That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Super! So saying 'they are no longer with us' has nothing to do with souls, right?
Just like saying that the sun sets has nothing to do with the sun moving in relation to the earth, right?

And from the looks of things, you actually agreed with me...yet, you are so focused on trying to fight, that you're blinded by the fact that we are saying the same thing.

I apologize. You were apparently not as confused about this as it seemed to me.
Unless you actually are trying to use 'they are no longer with us' to mean something it doesn't. You know, like with the sun setting doesn't mean the sun moves around the earth.

<snipped patronization about agreeing with a theist>

In hopes of relating such words to those we use about the sun, I thought to clarify. The sun doesn't move even though we claim such a thing when discussing it rising or setting. When it comes to a dead body, yes, the body is still here, but we cannot interact with dead people even though we make statements about them no longer being with us.

Well gosh darnnit...look at that, we are in agreement here, yet again.

It seems so. Now I have to ask, why did you bring up 'they are no longer with us'. Surely that is not evidence for a soul, right? Your sure my sun setting comment isn't spot on, right?

Now that we agree that the mind-body are not the same thing, can we move along?

Yes. I await for you to now make a debate point about it and trust that I was way off and you are not trying to justify a soul concept off of words such as 'they are no longer with us'. You already know what I will allude to if you do, but surely, that is not what you are doing, so I await to hear your reasoning.

[Diagoras]

But do you consider a chimpanzee or a dog to have a mind? Can you see where I’m going with this?

Ehhhhh.

Yeah, I see where your going with it...and I was hoping you wouldn't take it there lol.

But you did. Props to you. Good catch.

I am lead to believe that animals have minds, but they don't have spirits/souls.

I don't have a fireproof argument for this, though. Pure speculation on my part.

However, my overarching point for mind-body dualism isn't effected by this.

That’s pretty big of you to put that admission out there. Not everyone would do that.

So thanks for engaging on the topic. It was fun, and opens up some other interesting ideas (like dualism) for future debate.