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.

[SiNcE_1985]

<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.

One thing I have to work on, and can even be considered a character flaw...is pride.

Apparently, pride is what you lack.

Props.

The mind (thinking, feeling etc..) and the brain (physical organ that controls body functions) refer to different things.

Ehh.

Can't let you get away with one.

I need more clarity.

Refer to different things, and are different things..are two different, things (no pun intended).

Are the brain, and the mind two distinctively separate things?

I don't mean to belabor this, but this is very pertinent to the discussion.

On this I can agree, even though a mind is just a product of a functioning brain.

That, is the point of contention.

Either way, what does that tell us about a soul? You seem to forget to address this 3rd thing

The soul and the mind are the same thing...so it addressed every time the mind is mentioned.

Or, think of it this way...

"Ever since his divorce, he's been such a poor soul."

"She been in high spirits all morning. She won $100 dollars at Bingo last night".

When we speak like this, we are describing a person's mental state.

Mental state = mind.

Soul/spirit/mind...same 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.

But according to above^, as the mind goes, so does the soul.

Right?

Or, please rephrase what you are saying for me.

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.

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.

Yeah, but the reason why your sun/earth analogy won't work is because; no one ever accused the sun and earth of being the same thing.

We know they are both separate entities...but when it comes to the mind & body, that is where the contention lies.

And that is why I'm going through such hell and high water to make the distinction before the convo presses forward.

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.

Right, and that's precisely my point.

Your analogy would work, only if someone made the claim that the earth and sun are the same object.

Then you can say, "How can they be the same object, when one rotates around the other".

And then once this statement is established, your point that they are not the same will be established.

But no one is making that claim of the sun/earth.

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.

See above.

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

Just say "they are not the same" and we can move on.

Because I already know how it works; I'll assume you mean that they are not the same, only to be confronted with "I didn't say that" 2-3 pages later...and then having the task of going back in time 2-3 pages ago, to try and find the perceived quote of you saying some ambiguous stuff that can be interpreted to mean either or.

I can see it a mile away, and I'll rather prevent it now.

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?

See above.

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.

Um, no. I used the saying, in the way that people use the saying.

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?

All I want to know is, are the mind and body the same thing?

That's all I care about right now.

The earth, sun, moon, and galaxy has nothing to do with the question.

Yes.

Oh, I didn't know I was gonna have to get to the very bottom of the post just to get the clear cut answer.

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.

Ok, well...now that we've established that the mind and body aren't the same thing...we can move on.

But I want to establish something..

You agreed that "they are no longer with us", that figure of speech is in reference to the deceases'
mental state, correct?

[Clownboat]

The mind (thinking, feeling etc..) and the brain (physical organ that controls body functions) refer to different things.

Ehh.

Can't let you get away with one.

I need more clarity.

Refer to different things, and are different things..are two different, things (no pun intended).

Are the brain, and the mind two distinctively separate things?

Only as concepts. As I pointed out and you didn't seem to disagree with... the mind is what we refer to when we are discussing concepts like thinking, our feelings, etc... This all takes place within a functioning brain. Altering the brain affects the mind. <--- This is an important observation.

There are physical drugs that interact with our brains that affect our consciousness. Again, conceptually you might consider the mind and brain as different (for clarity reasons), but in reality, a mind is just the product of a functioning brain. Remove the brain, or give the brain drugs, or damage (especially to the brainstem or thalamus) and this affects our mind. This shows that the mind concept is a product of a brain.

I don't mean to belabor this, but this is very pertinent to the discussion.

Clarification is good. Can you show that anything I just said is incorrect?

On this I can agree, even though a mind is just a product of a functioning brain.

That, is the point of contention.

Not really. Again, do things to the brain and the mind is directly effected. I see nothing to contests.

Either way, what does that tell us about a soul? You seem to forget to address this 3rd thing

The soul and the mind are the same thing...so it addressed every time the mind is mentioned.

Or, think of it this way...

"Ever since his divorce, he's been such a poor soul."

"She been in high spirits all morning. She won $100 dollars at Bingo last night".

When we speak like this, we are describing a person's mental state.

Mental state = mind.

Soul/spirit/mind...same thing.

Again, saying that the sun sets is not evidence that the sun moves around the earth just like calling someone a poor soul is not evidence for a soul. I thought we covered this already?
All you are doing is pointing to a real concept (the mind) and renaming it to soul for no other reason then to justify a religious concept. I say this because a soul is not a detectible thing. A soul is a religious idea that provides something to be punished or something to be rewarded. A soul is not needed to explain why we think as that 100% takes place within a functioning brain.

If evidence is ever presented that a soul would explain, I'll consider a soul. Same thing goes for fairies. A religion needing something to be able to send to hell for eternity doesn't justify a soul. It just doesn't.

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.

But according to above^, as the mind goes, so does the soul.

Directly from above: "you can't be alluding to that being the soul that is missing."
In order to correct this... When a brain is damaged, affected by drugs or is dead, then thing we refer to as the mind is directly affected, as if they are interchangeable/the very same thing.

Yeah, but the reason why your sun/earth analogy won't work is because; no one ever accused the sun and earth of being the same thing.

My analogy is to reference how phrases like, "they are not longer with us", or "the sun sets" are not evidence for a soul or the sun moving around the earth. My analogy explains this and was never meant to accuse the sun and earth of being the same thing. That is your invention and is preventing you from understanding the point of my analogy IMO.

We know they are both separate entities...but when it comes to the mind & body, that is where the contention lies.

And that is why I'm going through such hell and high water to make the distinction before the convo presses forward.

I have known your intent from the start. A mind is not separate from a brain, as we learned, affecting a brain affects this concept that we call a mind. It seems as if you are trying to create some gap to insert a soul idea when there is no gap because a mind is just a product of a functioning brain. That is where the concept of a mind comes from.

Your analogy would work, only if someone made the claim that the earth and sun are the same object.

My analogy works to explain how phrases like "they are no longer with us" is not evidence for a soul any more than saying "the sun sets" is evidence for the motion of the sun. This is all my analogy was meant to portray.

Just say "they are not the same" and we can move on.

Far enough. A physical brain is not the same thing as our conceptual minds.
The "mind" is a concept, because it refers to the abstract idea encompassing our thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and self-awareness, which are believed to arise from the brain's functions, rather than being a physical entity itself, meaning it's a way of describing these mental processes, not a tangible thing like the brain.

All I want to know is, are the mind and body the same thing?

The mind, which is a concept that refers to things taking place in a brain is not the same thing as our bodies.
I'm not sure I can be anymore clear about this.

You agreed that "they are no longer with us", that figure of speech is in reference to the deceases'
mental state, correct?

Negative. We say this to note that the person (brain specifically) is no longer alive. A person who has died and has no brain function will not have any mental state though, but that is because in order to think (what we conceptually call a mind) there must be a functioning brain. You can't have this idea of a mind without a functioning brain. When a brain goes, there is no more thinking that can take place.

I'm showing that the concept of a mind is a product of a functioning brain. I'm providing evidence (drugs/damage to the brain) about how when the brain is affected, so is the concept of a mind. This suggests that what I say is correct.
Now what do you have for a soul? I would like to compare what you have to a mind being a product of a functioning brain. So far, you keep alluding to something we say about a dead person when we are suppose to be discussing if souls are real and resurrect or reincarnate.

"Don't tease me bro!"

[SiNcE_1985]

.

Sorry for the late response. Sometimes, the system does a poor job of notifying me of when there is action.

Only as concepts.

As I pointed out and you didn't seem to disagree with... the mind is what we refer to when we are discussing concepts like thinking, our feelings, etc...

That distinction is necessary.

Moving along.

This all takes place within a functioning brain.

Sure, just like driving a car takes place within a functional car.

Doesn't mean that the operator of the car can't exist, or doesn't exist independent of the car.

Altering the brain affects the mind. <--- This is an important observation.

There are physical drugs that interact with our brains that affect our consciousness. Again, conceptually you might consider the mind and brain as different (for clarity reasons), but in reality, a mind is just the product of a functioning brain. Remove the brain, or give the brain drugs, or damage (especially to the brainstem or thalamus) and this affects our mind. This shows that the mind concept is a product of a brain.

You can certainly show a correlation between the mind and the brain. And certain things (like drugs) can effect the mind.

But when you say "product" of the brain, that is where the contention lies.

I trust we'll get into particulars soon.

Clarification is good. Can you show that anything I just said is incorrect?

Absolutely.

Not really. Again, do things to the brain and the mind is directly effected. I see nothing to contests.

This shows correlation, not byproduct of.

Again, saying that the sun sets is not evidence that the sun moves around the earth just like calling someone a poor soul is not evidence for a soul. I thought we covered this already?

And I explained to you that the point (for me) was just to demonstrate how the mind/body are distinctively separate.....and as long as you agreed with that, your sun set analogy is irrelevant because it doesn't even begin to touch the validity of my point...that, plus it was a false equivalency anyway, for reasons I already mentioned.

So, at this point, you can tuck your sun set analogy back into your pocket...because there is no need to appeal to it now (or ever).

All you are doing is pointing to a real concept (the mind) and renaming it to soul for no other reason then to justify a religious concept.

Religious concept, huh?

So, I will present two challenges to you..

1. Origin of consciousness: You see, on your atheism, not only do you have to explain the naturalistic origins of non-sentient life, in general...as if that wasn't tough enough for you...now you have to explain the naturalistic origins of consciousness.

These are two distinct problems for atheism...and if you don't think they're problems, then explain away.

How does a blob of matter become sentient? How does a 3lb blob of matter, become conscious?

Ill give you a head start...

This consciousness, had to have either originated from...

A. Within the brain itself.
B. Outside of the brain, into the brain.

Pick one...both are equally absurd. But, since this is what you believe, unfortunately we have to discuss either one, or both.

-----------

2. The Mind/Self/Soul/Spirit:Emotions, such as sad, and happy..

When you are sad, who is sad? When you are happy, who is happy?

Your brain itself, isn't happy. Your brain itself, isn't sad. Neither are the electrons/neurons in your brain.

So, we are back the law of identity.

When you are sad..

A. Your brain (electrons/neurons) aren't sad.

yet.

B. You are sad.

Who is this "you", that this emotion of sadness corresponds to?

If this emotion doesn't correspond to any physical part of you, yet "you are sad"....the emotion must correspond to an invisible, immaterial "you"...and this invisible "you" cannot owe its existence to anything physical, otherwise I expect an answer to #1 (origin of consciousness).

If/since consciousness cannot owe its existence to anything externally physical from it...then it logically follows that consciousness must owe its existence to an external, immaterial source...a super-consciousness.

Now, this is where you say, "Whoaaa, that is a heck of a jump, eh".

My response; no, it isn't...given the truth value of #1 (origin of consciousness).

So, every time I appeal to an external super-consciousness, your alarm will go off as a knee jerk reaction, and you'll express discontent with such concept.

Every time you do that, then I'll turn your attention back to #1.

So, just a heads up.
---------

Now, I said all that to say this...

1. A naturalistic origin of consciousness is naturally impossible.

2. If emotions (mental states) don't apply to a physical "you", then they must apply to a spiritual (immaterial) you.

Which says, you are more than just a blob of matter, you have an immaterial self, of whom owe your existences to a higher, immaterial self.

And that is my case.

Directly from above: "you can't be alluding to that being the soul that is missing."
In order to correct this... When a brain is damaged, affected by drugs or is dead, then thing we refer to as the mind is directly affected, as if they are interchangeable/the very same thing.

Any time you use the "drugs/brain" analogy...all you do is show a correlation of the mind and brain. But again, correlation does not entail byproduct.

When your car tires are flat, it effects you, and your car's mobility and method of travel.

But your existence is independent of the means you are using the car to travel.

You can get out and walk, should your car becomes immobile.

Just like when your body dies, your soul gets out and walk (figuratively speaking).

My analogy is to reference how phrases like, "they are not longer with us", or "the sun sets" are not evidence for a soul or the sun moving around the earth. My analogy explains this and was never meant to accuse the sun and earth of being the same thing. That is your invention and is preventing you from understanding the point of my analogy IMO.

Whether or not I understand the analogy....as long as you admitted what I needed you to admit, then my point was proven.

I have known your intent from the start. A mind is not separate from a brain, as we learned, affecting a brain affects this concept that we call a mind. It seems as if you are trying to create some gap to insert a soul idea when there is no gap because a mind is just a product of a functioning brain. That is where the concept of a mind comes from.

Um, no.

You said above that the mind and brain are different concepts. If they were the same, then they would be the same concept.

You can't have it both ways...and I've already proven that, as long as what is true of one isn't true of the other, that itself makes them distinctly separate entities.

This is the law of identity, which is one of the three laws of logic and simple one, at that.

My point is gonna be made regardless, amigo. All I sought to do was to get you on board with the truth of what I'm saying.

And you can fight it all you like, but it is a no-winning situation.

My analogy works to explain how phrases like "they are no longer with us" is not evidence for a soul any more than saying "the sun sets" is evidence for the motion of the sun. This is all my analogy was meant to portray.

Well, not only did you fail in doing that...you already agreed with me...so hey...lets move along, or you simply get left behind.

Negative. We say this to note that the person (brain specifically) is no longer alive.

A person who has died and has no brain function will not have any mental state though, but that is because in order to think (what we conceptually call a mind) there must be a functioning brain. You can't have this idea of a mind without a functioning brain. When a brain goes, there is no more thinking that can take place.

I'm showing that the concept of a mind is a product of a functioning brain. I'm providing evidence (drugs/damage to the brain) about how when the brain is affected, so is the concept of a mind. This suggests that what I say is correct.
Now what do you have for a soul? I would like to compare what you have to a mind being a product of a functioning brain. So far, you keep alluding to something we say about a dead person when we are suppose to be discussing if souls are real and resurrect or reincarnate.

"Don't tease me bro!"

I simply disagree with what you are saying here, in its entirety.

Instead of responding to this, we'll pick things up above with my case for a soul.

[Clownboat]

That distinction is necessary.

Moving along.

Great! As I asked for evidence for a soul.

Sure, just like driving a car takes place within a functional car.

Doesn't mean that the operator of the car can't exist, or doesn't exist independent of the car.

This is not evidence for a soul either.

You can certainly show a correlation between the mind and the brain. And certain things (like drugs) can effect the mind.

But when you say "product" of the brain, that is where the contention lies.

Your contention is not evidence for a soul.

Not really. Again, do things to the brain and the mind is directly effected. I see nothing to contests.

This shows correlation, not byproduct of.

We both know what it suggests, you just don't like it. Either way, you have not provided evidence for a soul.

Religious concept, huh?

So, I will present two challenges to you..

1. Origin of consciousness: You see, on your atheism, not only do you have to explain the naturalistic origins of non-sentient life, in general...as if that wasn't tough enough for you...now you have to explain the naturalistic origins of consciousness.

I'm not an atheist and you didn't think this through.
You want me to explain the origin of consciousness? You ready? I don't know, but I have my suspicions. That is the honest answer. Do you not have evidence for this soul you would like to argue for?

These are two distinct problems for atheism...and if you don't think they're problems, then explain away.

These are not problems for anyone that doesn't claim to know. I don't know is valid and are some of the most powerful words that a human can utter. The opposite to 'I don't know' is to invent an answer. That is all that a soul seems to be. Do you have evidence for a soul by chance?

How does a blob of matter become sentient? How does a 3lb blob of matter, become conscious?

If you are looking for answers, I would suggest starting with the prefrontal cortex, or you could just admit to not knowing.
Any evidence for a soul by chance?

A. Within the brain itself.
B. Outside of the brain, into the brain.

I understand how consciousness could form within a brain. Please explain how consciousness forms outside of the brain. Perhaps this will be evidence for a soul?

2. The Mind/Self/Soul/Spirit:Emotions, such as sad, and happy..

When you are sad, who is sad? When you are happy, who is happy?

Just chemicals reacting to their properties.
Endorphins, for example are the cause of our happiness.
Do you have any evidence for a soul?

Your brain itself, isn't happy. Your brain itself, isn't sad. Neither are the electrons/neurons in your brain.

Correct, but that is where the chemical that causes you to feel happy is located. You know, making you feel all happy and such, which is evidence that happiness is a chemical reaction within the brain.
Do you have any evidence for a soul?

When you are sad..

See the chemicals norepinephrine and serotonin.
Any evidence for a soul?

Who is this "you", that this emotion of sadness corresponds to?

Why are you inserting this 'you' idea when it is chemicals in the brain reacting to their properties? No 'you' seems required to explain what we know is happening.
Do yo have evidence for a soul?

If this emotion doesn't correspond to any physical part of you, yet "you are sad"....the emotion must correspond to an invisible, immaterial "you"...and this invisible "you" cannot owe its existence to anything physical, otherwise I expect an answer to #1 (origin of consciousness).

Again, what you are describing is just chemicals reacting to their properties. Specifically chemicals in the brain that cause the feelings you bring up.
Do you have evidence for a soul?

If/since consciousness cannot owe its existence to anything externally physical from it...then it logically follows that consciousness must owe its existence to an external, immaterial source...a super-consciousness.

We don't fully understand consciousness. Consciousness has not been shown to not be a product of a functioning brain though and it sure seems that consciousness is fully within the brain. Do you have evidence for a soul?

Now, I said all that to say this...

1. A naturalistic origin of consciousness is naturally impossible.

You have not shown this. Please rule out the possibility that the Christian God created a natural process for consciousness.

2. If emotions (mental states) don't apply to a physical "you", then they must apply to a spiritual (immaterial) you.

All the emotions so far discussed are just chemical reactions taking place in a functioning mind.
Do you have any evidence for a soul?

Which says, you are more than just a blob of matter, you have an immaterial self, of whom owe your existences to a higher, immaterial self.

And that is my case.

I hear your case. Now please provide the convincing evidence that would suggest that your case is correct compared to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning mind.

Just like when your body dies, your soul gets out and walk (figuratively speaking).

Neat claim! Any evidence for it? What I know about death is that the brain stops functioning and consciousness ceases. You seem to be arguing that consciousness doesn't cease, but it goes somewhere else. How could you know this and what evidence do you have for consciousness relocating when our brains cease working?

You said above that the mind and brain are different concepts. If they were the same, then they would be the same concept.

As you have learned, the brain is a physical organ in the head, while the mind is a concept referring to our conscious thoughts, feelings, and experiences. When we are sad or happy, what is taking place is chemical reactions in the brain.
Do you have any evidence for a soul?

You can't have it both ways...and I've already proven that, as long as what is true of one isn't true of the other, that itself makes them distinctly separate entities.

Then you have shown yourself to be wrong.
en·ti·ty
/ˈen(t)ədē/
noun
plural noun: entities
a thing with distinct and independent existence.

Our minds do not have a distinct and independent existence compared to our brains. What I have been showing from the start is how our minds are in fact dependent on our brains and I have shown you how affecting our physical brains does in fact affect our minds. What do you have for a soul?

I simply disagree with what you are saying here, in its entirety.

This is the truest thing I have seen you post on this site so far. I completely agree with this and appreciate your honesty.

Now that we know you are simply being disagreeable, do you have any evidence for a soul?

[SiNcE_1985]

I'm not an atheist and you didn't think this through.

Atheist, agnostic.

All the same; "Unbelief".

On Christianity, no distinction will be made between the atheist, and agnostic on judgement day.

You want me to explain the origin of consciousness? You ready? I don't know, but I have my suspicions. That is the honest answer. Do you not have evidence for this soul you would like to argue for?

Um, sorry, amigo.

That wont work. At this point, its not necessarily about you not being able to explain it...at this point, it is about you not being able to counter my arguments. I made a case...you can either offer counter-objections to it...or, sit back and let it sink it that you were unable adequately refute my points.

Ignoring and handwaving the case being made, only means that the argument is strong and you've got nothing against it.

So, however you want to play it.

These are not problems for anyone that doesn't claim to know.

Same response as above.

I don't know is valid and are some of the most powerful words that a human can utter. The opposite to 'I don't know' is to invent an answer. That is all that a soul seems to be. Do you have evidence for a soul by chance?

Can you counter my points?

If you are looking for answers, I would suggest starting with the prefrontal cortex, or you could just admit to not knowing.
Any evidence for a soul by chance?

Still no counter? Awww. I thought we were going to have a lively debate.

Shucks.

I understand how consciousness could form within a brain. Please explain how consciousness forms outside of the brain. Perhaps this will be evidence for a soul?

Wait a minute, you just said^ you can't explain the origins of consciousness. Now all of a suddenly, you understand how consciousness could form within a brain?

Form = originate.

What we have here is a contradiction....oh I get it, you were just warming up.

So, now that you are warmed up, perhaps Ill get a counter-response below.

Just chemicals reacting to their properties.
Endorphins, for example are the cause of our happiness.
Do you have any evidence for a soul?

The chemicals aren't the ones experiencing the emotions. Thus, the question of "who" is happy was asked.

Stay with me here.

Correct, but that is where the chemical that causes you to feel happy is located. You know, making you feel all happy and such, which is evidence that happiness is a chemical reaction within the brain.
Do you have any evidence for a soul?

Again, the chemicals may be what is making "you" feel happy...but the chemicals aren't you...because the chemicals aren't the ones that is happy...yet, "you" are happy.

Who is experiencing the emotions of happiness, if not "you"?

No dancing. No matrix dodging. Answer the question. How about it?

See the chemicals norepinephrine and serotonin.
Any evidence for a soul?

This is what I call the "POI" effect, on the KCA.

You've got nothing.

Why are you inserting this 'you' idea when it is chemicals in the brain reacting to their properties? No 'you' seems required to explain what we know is happening.
Do yo have evidence for a soul?

What?? It is more than an idea, it is actually "you" who is happy/sad.

If the chemicals aren't sad, if the brain itself isn't sad...so how are "you" experiencing these emotions, when neither the chemicals nor the brain isn't experiencing these emotions.

Huh?

Again, what you are describing is just chemicals reacting to their properties. Specifically chemicals in the brain that cause the feelings you bring up.
Do you have evidence for a soul?

Yeah, but those properties that those chemicals are reacting to, aren't "you", either.

So you are going around in a circle...right back to square one.

There is something true about "you", that isn't true about anything physically related to you.

What could this be?

We don't fully understand consciousness. Consciousness has not been shown to not be a product of a functioning brain though and it sure seems that consciousness is fully within the brain. Do you have evidence for a soul?

All that^ is evidence for a soul.

The immaterial part of you which is experiencing these emotions, cannot have its origins from a physical source.

You cannot create a "mind", using physical material. You can create a brain using physical material, but not a mind.

Therefore, the mind owes its existence to a non-physical (immaterial) source...and only a mind can be capable of creating other minds.

So it follows that an unembodied mind exists...and this unembodied mind does not depend on any physical entity for its existence.

We can call this unembodied mind a super-mind, super-soul, super-spirit...whatever you want to call it.

You have not shown this. Please rule out the possibility that the Christian God created a natural process for consciousness.

God is the primary cause, the natural process is the secondary cause.

All the emotions so far discussed are just chemical reactions taking place in a functioning mind.
Do you have any evidence for a soul?

The question is, if no physical "thing" in your brain is experiencing the emotions, then who is?

Since you are so big on saying "I don't know", just say..."I don't know".

Which says, you are more than just a blob of matter, you have an immaterial self, of whom owe your existences to a higher, immaterial self.

And that is my case.

I hear your case. Now please provide the convincing evidence that would suggest that your case is correct compared to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning mind.

Neat claim! Any evidence for it? What I know about death is that the brain stops functioning and consciousness ceases. You seem to be arguing that consciousness doesn't cease, but it goes somewhere else. How could you know this and what evidence do you have for consciousness relocating when our brains cease working?

Now, I don't normally post videos, and despise it.

But I ask that you check out this quick, interesting, 7:19 video.

My boy Alvin Plantiga, breaks it down perfectly.

Plantiga is probably the greatest philosopher that ever lived.

As you have learned, the brain is a physical organ in the head, while the mind is a concept referring to our conscious thoughts, feelings, and experiences. When we are sad or happy, what is taking place is chemical reactions in the brain.
Do you have any evidence for a soul?

You are saying "we", when we haven't identified who "we" is.

Whatever that is experiencing the emotion, isn't physical.

That is the point...that points to the soul...the immaterial part of you.

Now, you say..."well, but we only know of minds being in functional brains"...yeah, but the origins of the physical brain that the mind rests from within, cannot itself be physical...so this is evidence of a necessary, unembodied, immaterial mind.

Then you have shown yourself to be wrong.
en·ti·ty
/ˈen(t)ədē/
noun
plural noun: entities
a thing with distinct and independent existence.

Our minds do not have a distinct and independent existence compared to our brains. What I have been showing from the start is how our minds are in fact dependent on our brains and I have shown you how affecting our physical brains does in fact affect our minds. What do you have for a soul?

What?? Both the mind and the brain have distinct and independent existences.

You've already learned about the law of identity, which applies to both and demonstrates exactly how/why they are distinct.

So, what you are talking about here, I dont know.

This is the truest thing I have seen you post on this site so far. I completely agree with this and appreciate your honesty.

Now that we know you are simply being disagreeable, do you have any evidence for a soul?

Been there, done that.

This is a cakewalk.

[Clownboat]

Atheist, agnostic.

I'm not one of them either. Sometimes it feels that you are too heavenly to be of any earthly good. It is hard to debate a person that continues to be so wrong and all just to have an enemy of sorts to fight against.

On Christianity, no distinction will be made between the atheist, and agnostic on judgement day.

Well woopidy doo da!

it is about you not being able to counter my arguments. I made a case...

Make it now then and stop alluding to the idea that you have done so. Make your case and I will address it. I will not partake in your fantasies.

So, however you want to play it.

Please, I beg you to make your case that souls exist.

Can you counter my points?

Yes, I can, but you have to make them and not allude to them. Make them and I'll address them.

Still no counter? Awww.

It was provided, you just missed it.
"If you are looking for answers, I would suggest starting with the prefrontal cortex"

I understand how consciousness could form within a brain. Please explain how consciousness forms outside of the brain. Perhaps this will be evidence for a soul?

Wait a minute, you just said^ you can't explain the origins of consciousness. Now all of a suddenly, you understand how consciousness could form within a brain?

That is correct, now answer the request please, don't be so afraid of debating. Please explain how consciousness forms outside of the brain. Just pretend that everything I have said is invalid and answer the question if that is what it takes. I'm ok with that if it will allow you to debate honestly.

Just chemicals reacting to their properties.
Endorphins, for example are the cause of our happiness.
Do you have any evidence for a soul?

The chemicals aren't the ones experiencing the emotions.

Correct, they are the cause of the emotions. All of this takes place inside of the brain.
I notice you didn't supply any evidence for a soul, why is that?

Thus, the question of "who" is happy was asked.

And I'm happy to address it again.
We assign a "who" to things because it's a fundamental part of our social nature to categorize and understand the world around us by identifying individual agents. We do this for people, animals, and even inanimate objects.
Why is it only myself that answers questions here? Do you really not have any evidence for a soul?

Again, the chemicals may be what is making "you" feel happy...

They are.

but the chemicals aren't you...

Correct. Wouldn't it be weird if someone thought such a thing?

because the chemicals aren't the ones that is happy...yet, "you" are happy.

Correct. Chemicals in your brain are the cause of the happy feelings.

Why can't you supply any evidence for a soul?

Who is experiencing the emotions of happiness, if not "you"?

This has been explained. Your brain is experiencing chemical reacting to their properties. Humans often call this abstract concept the 'mind'.

No dancing. No matrix dodging. Answer the question. How about it?

It's 100% within the brain as has been explained many times. If you disagree, please show what is involved with feeling happy that doesn't take place within a functioning brain.
You will dodge this question!

You've got nothing.

You are once again wrong because I literally provided the actual chemicals involved (norepinephrine and serotonin). When I make claims of dishonesty, it is because of demonstrably dishonest things like this that you say.
I notice you did not provide evidence for a soul.

What?? It is more than an idea, it is actually "you" who is happy/sad.

You need to do better than empty claims, but you cannot sadly. The only thing we know that is happening is that chemicals are released in the brain that cause such feelings. If a soul was having these feelings, the chemicals in the brain would not be needed. You will dodge addressing this fact!

If the chemicals aren't sad, if the brain itself isn't sad...

It is the brain that is sad though. Again, 100% of everything you mention is happening within the said brain that is feeling what these chemicals cause your brain to feel. It's just chemicals reacting to their properties.
Saying that "I" feel sad is no more evidence for a soul then saying that the sun sets is evidence for the sun rotating around the earth.

so how are "you" experiencing these emotions, when neither the chemicals nor the brain isn't experiencing these emotions.

The brain is 100% feeling these chemicals. If you feel there is something else that is feeling them, for the love of all that is holy, please make your argument!

Yeah, but those properties that those chemicals are reacting to, aren't "you", either.

Correct! The chemicals are doing what they do within your brain which is causing your brain to feel that way. Just chemicals reacting to their properties within a functioning brain, unless you got some evidence for another source. Do you?

There is something true about "you", that isn't true about anything physically related to you.

What could this be?

I don't know, sometimes your words are so incoherent as to make them hard to reply to. Please clarify.

We don't fully understand consciousness. Consciousness has not been shown to not be a product of a functioning brain though and it sure seems that consciousness is fully within the brain. Do you have evidence for a soul?

All that^ is evidence for a soul.

You are wrong and here is why. A lack of evidence is not considered evidence itself.
You're being too heavenly again. When things are not known, we investigate. What we shouldn't do is just to invent answers. That leads to things like god concepts and explains why humans have invented so many.

The immaterial part of you which is experiencing these emotions, cannot have its origins from a physical source.

What immaterial part did you just invent out of nowhere? I ask, because what you explain above takes place 100% in a brain. Nothing more is needed, unless of course you can make a valid argument for this something else that is needed.

You cannot create a "mind", using physical material. You can create a brain using physical material, but not a mind.

Let's go with "ok" just to see where this leads. I'm hoping it is evidence for a soul.

Therefore, the mind owes its existence to a non-physical (immaterial) source...and only a mind can be capable of creating other minds.

What you say doesn't follow because the mind is the immaterial thing we refer to when discussing our emotions. Our emotions are just chemical reactions taking place in the brain though as you have learned. Chemicals in the brain doing what these chemicals do.

So it follows that an unembodied mind exists...and this unembodied mind does not depend on any physical entity for its existence.

You are wrong because this thing we call a mind does in fact require the physical thing that is the brain. You need to correct your thinking.

We can call this unembodied mind a super-mind, super-soul, super-spirit...whatever you want to call it.

I have defined 'mind' from the start, so no need. The mind is an abstract concept that controls how a person thinks, feels, and acts. 100% of this takes place within a functioning brain. You claim that something more is needed, but you fail to provide evidence for this thing.

All the emotions so far discussed are just chemical reactions taking place in a functioning mind.
Do you have any evidence for a soul?

The question is, if no physical "thing" in your brain is experiencing the emotions, then who is?

Holy monkeys! The physical thing is the brain that is experiencing chemicals reacting to their properties. You are just assigning agency to this process and pretending that there is some 'who' involved when that has not been demonstrated. You do this simply because humans evolved in an environment where assigning agency saved lives, therefore we are pre-disposed to assign agency to things even when there isn't one, like here.

Since you are so big on saying "I don't know", just say..."I don't know".

When I don't know, I will say such a thing. I happen to know, and you have now learned that it is the brain that is experiencing the chemicals doing what these chemicals do. No 'who' is involved.
Do you have any evidence for a soul?

Now, I don't normally post videos, and despise it.

I take far too much time out of my day explaining things to you already. If there is something meaningful that is said in this video, please present it or at least give me a timestamp where I can go to watch it. You should not expect me to do your work for you.

Plantiga is probably the greatest philosopher that ever lived.

Ok, let me know if you would like to discuss any arguments that he makes that you feel might be valid. I like to learn.

You are saying "we", when we haven't identified who "we" is.

Derp! Tell me, does the sun rotate around the earth or does the earth spin?
The 'we' is the agency that humans assign to the abstract concept that we call a mind, but all that is happening in reality is chemical within the brain doing what those chemicals do.

Whatever that is experiencing the emotion, isn't physical.

Correct. As you have learned, it is this abstract concept that we call a mind that feels the emotions. The brain is the physical thing that is releasing the chemicals that cause the brain to then react to these chemicals doing what these chemicals do. We can manually take in these chemicals and the brain will responed to them. Nothing magical about this process.

That is the point...that points to the soul...the immaterial part of you.

You have only renamed the abstract concept that we call a mind to be a soul. I grant you that a soul is also an abstract concept. You can't seem to make it a real concept though and that is the problem.

Now, you say..."well, but we only know of minds being in functional brains"...yeah, but the origins of the physical brain that the mind rests from within, cannot itself be physical...

You must not have worded this correctly because the origin of the physical brain can in fact be and is physical. I think clarification is needed from you.

What?? Both the mind and the brain have distinct and independent existences.

They don't, because the a mind ceases to be a concept as soon as a brain stop functioning. They are tied, even up to the point where we can damage a brain or give a brain drugs and all that affects the concept that we call a mind.

[SiNcE_1985]

I'm not one of them either. Sometimes it feels that you are too heavenly to be of any earthly good. It is hard to debate a person that continues to be so wrong and all just to have an enemy of sorts to fight against.

Whatever category you'd like to fall under, any of which doesn't accept Christ as Lord and Savior...feel free.

You can have at it..as the outcome remains the same, for anyone of unbelief.

Well woopidy doo da!

More power to ya.

Make it now then and stop alluding to the idea that you have done so. Make your case and I will address it. I will not partake in your fantasies.

Respond to what I've been saying, if you can.

Please, I beg you to make your case that souls exist.

Ohhh, I get it. Pretend that no case was made, so that that you won't have to respond to itttt.

Ahhh. I see.

It was provided, you just missed it.
"If you are looking for answers, I would suggest starting with the prefrontal cortex"

The prefrontal cortex isn't experiencing the emotions either.

So, when you are sad, who is sad?

That is correct, now answer the request please, don't be so afraid of debating. Please explain how consciousness forms outside of the brain. Just pretend that everything I have said is invalid and answer the question if that is what it takes. I'm ok with that if it will allow you to debate honestly.

My question remains unanswered.

Not interested in the "I can't provide an adequate answer, so I'll just dance around" answers.

Correct, they are the cause of the emotions. All of this takes place inside of the brain.
I notice you didn't supply any evidence for a soul, why is that?

Causing the emotions, and experiencing the emotions...two different things.

The question is not who/what is causing the emotions, but rather; who is experiencing the emotions.

The invisible, immaterial you, that is who is experiencing the emotions, is evidence of the soul (spirit).

Now, the predictable, knee-jerk response from you will be "No, it isn't".

Yet, your unable to answer the question of who is experiencing the emotions

So, you've got nothing. We both know this.

And I'm happy to address it again.
We assign a "who" to things because it's a fundamental part of our social nature to categorize and understand the world around us by identifying individual agents. We do this for people, animals, and even inanimate objects.
Why is it only myself that answers questions here? Do you really not have any evidence for a soul?

Who...is... experiencing...the emotions.

If not the brain, not the chemicals, then...WHO?

And I answered your question above, and even predicted your answer.

Now, can you answer mines?

Correct. Wouldn't it be weird if someone thought such a thing?

Ok, so if the chemicals aren't you...and they don't experience the emotions, then who does?

Who does the emotions correspond to?

Correct. Chemicals in your brain are the cause of the happy feelings.

Why can't you supply any evidence for a soul?

Here is an example...suppose, right now, I was to slap the mess out of you.

Now, my hand may be the cause of your pain, but my hand isn't the experiencing the pain.

See how the cause, and the experience are two different things?

This has been explained. Your brain is experiencing chemical reacting to their properties. Humans often call this abstract concept the 'mind'.

No, I'm asking who is experiencing the emotion.

Not what caused it.

I'm looking for a direct correspondence from the cause, to the experience.

I have X (cause), now all I need is Y (experience).

It's 100% within the brain as has been explained many times. If you disagree, please show what is involved with feeling happy that doesn't take place within a functioning brain.
You will dodge this question!

I agree that there is a correlation between the mind and brain, within a functioning brain.

But the origins of the system, cannot be of physical necessarily...because you can't create mental states from physical constructs.

Which goes back to the question of origins, which you are also unable to deal with.

You are once again wrong because I literally provided the actual chemicals involved (norepinephrine and serotonin). When I make claims of dishonesty, it is because of demonstrably dishonest things like this that you say.
I notice you did not provide evidence for a soul.

Neither of those chemicals are the ones experiencing the emotions, amigo.

The evidence for the soul was provided.

You need to do better than empty claims, but you cannot sadly. The only thing we know that is happening is that chemicals are released in the brain that cause such feelings.

You're still not getting it. Smh.

If a soul was having these feelings, the chemicals in the brain would not be needed. You will dodge addressing this fact!

The chemicals would not be needed, under certain physical constraints.

Our souls which exists in our physical bodies, are those constraints.

This was all according to our design, by the creator.

It is the brain that is sad though.

Nope. The brain is physical. The brain can't experience any emotions no more than your tv will experience anger if you live it on for too long.

Emotions are mental states, not physical.

Try again.

Again, 100% of everything you mention is happening within the said brain that is feeling what these chemicals cause your brain to feel. It's just chemicals reacting to their properties.
Saying that "I" feel sad is no more evidence for a soul then saying that the sun sets is evidence for the sun rotating around the earth.

The sun is not a mental entity.

Try again.

The brain is 100% feeling these chemicals. If you feel there is something else that is feeling them, for the love of all that is holy, please make your argument!

Your brain is not experiencing the emotions.

Your brain is nothing but the storage for your cognitive faculties...your brain isn't a mental entity, it is physical, and made up of physical substance.

Correct! The chemicals are doing what they do within your brain which is causing your brain to feel that way. Just chemicals reacting to their properties within a functioning brain, unless you got some evidence for another source. Do you?

Physical properties don't feel emotions. Only mental properties.

When you are sad, your brain isn't "sad". There is no physical part of your brain that is "sad"...not the water, not the enzymes, not the chemicals, not the protein or carbohydrates.

Yet, the emotion must correspond to a part of you that has nothing to do with the brain.

Which is, what?

I don't know, sometimes your words are so incoherent as to make them hard to reply to. Please clarify.

Gotcha.

It all goes back to identifying who are these emotions corresponding to.

Once you do that, you've found the soul, my friend.

If no physical part of you is feeling the emotions, they must correspond to something, wouldn't they?

You are wrong and here is why. A lack of evidence is not considered evidence itself.
You're being too heavenly again. When things are not known, we investigate. What we shouldn't do is just to invent answers. That leads to things like god concepts and explains why humans have invented so many.

Nope, that won't work.

Nature simply lacks the explanatory power to produce the effect.

Plain and simple.

No modesty, no "I don't know".

We know, we just don't like where knowing gets us.

And when I say "we", I mean you.

What immaterial part did you just invent out of nowhere? I ask, because what you explain above takes place 100% in a brain. Nothing more is needed, unless of course you can make a valid argument for this something else that is needed.

Something else is needed, based on the origin of consciousness argument.

Once you acknowledge and accept that nature or science can't be appealed to, in order to explain the origins of consciousness, then it is clear what is needed.

You just don't like the answer, that's all.

Let's go with "ok" just to see where this leads. I'm hoping it is evidence for a soul.

Ok, well is you can appeal to science (nature) to explain the origins of mental states, then what can you appeal to.

You basically have two options.

1. Intelligent Design (supernatural).

2. Mother Nature (science, nature).

Now, law of excluded middle...if you only have two options, and one is successfully negated, then the other option wins by default...no questions asked.

1. Either A (nature) or B (intelligent design).

2. If not A (nature).

3. Then B (intelligent design).

Simple as that.

What you say doesn't follow because the mind is the immaterial thing we refer to when discussing our emotions.

Right, and your mind is the ensemble of your feelings, emotions, your entire consciousness and everything related to your personality.

All of these are immaterial, mental constructs.

You are more than just a blob of matter..no, you are more special than that.

You are a living soul.

Your mind is the real "you", under the veil of human flesh.

Our emotions are just chemical reactions taking place in the brain though as you have learned. Chemicals in the brain doing what these chemicals do.

So, how does a sad emotion look? What is the length, width, height of it?

What color is it? It's weight?

Now, you can answer those questions as it relates to the physical brain...but not the mental consciousness.

This should tell you something.

You are wrong because this thing we call a mind does in fact require the physical thing that is the brain. You need to correct your thinking.

It requires it, according to the IDer who created and ordained it to be that way...in this 3D physical realm.

It doesn't require it as a necessity, because if it did, you'd be able to explain how physical matter can produce non-physical entities, such as mental states.

I have defined 'mind' from the start, so no need. The mind is an abstract concept that controls how a person thinks, feels, and acts. 100% of this takes place within a functioning brain. You claim that something more is needed, but you fail to provide evidence for this thing.

The origins of the mind have to be explained.

Just like with evolution when you skip the godless theory of abiogenesis, and jump to evolution.

In the same way here, you jump to the functioning brain, without not only explaining the origins of the brain, but the origins of consciousness.

Cart before the horse, and impossible to explain naturally.

Holy monkeys! The physical thing is the brain that is experiencing chemicals reacting to their properties. You are just assigning agency to this process and pretending that there is some 'who' involved when that has not been demonstrated. You do this simply because humans evolved in an environment where assigning agency saved lives, therefore we are pre-disposed to assign agency to things even when there isn't one, like here.

It has been demonstrated. Constantly saying chemicals are reacting in your brain isn't telling me who is experiencing the actual emotion(s) itself.

When I don't know, I will say such a thing. I happen to know, and you have now learned that it is the brain that is experiencing the chemicals doing what these chemicals do. No 'who' is involved.
Do you have any evidence for a soul?

Ohhh, so since there is no "who", then we should never use the word "who" when describing our feelings.

When you are sad...the "who" is you.

Yet, you just said there is no "who" involved.

Perhaps you need to think this through some more.

I take far too much time out of my day explaining things to you already. If there is something meaningful that is said in this video, please present it or at least give me a timestamp where I can go to watch it. You should not expect me to do your work for you.

It was the wrong video, anyway...which was my mistake.

You didn't watch it anyway, so it's a dead issue.

Second, I am more than capable of doing my own work, and I wouldn't dare think of asking you to do anything for me, in that regard.

The video was to educate you, not me...so if anything, I'm doing you the favor.

Ok, let me know if you would like to discuss any arguments that he makes that you feel might be valid. I like to learn.

If you like to learn, you'll devote your time into watching 7 minute video.

The rest of your responses, I snipped...as it was basically regurgitated stuff about chemicals, functioning brains, etc..and I've repeated myself enough already ^^^.

[Clownboat]

Make it now then and stop alluding to the idea that you have done so. Make your case and I will address it. I will not partake in your fantasies.

Respond to what I've been saying, if you can.

This is you once again failing to say anything. Make your case and I will address it as I said above. Fail to do so and that is on you for not having a case to present.

Please, I beg you to make your case that souls exist.

Ohhh, I get it. Pretend that no case was made, so that that you won't have to respond to itttt.

Even when I beg you to make a case, you still fail. How can I respond to things you don't say?

So, when you are sad, who is sad?

Your question is invalid as there is no 'who' that is being sad. If you feel that I am wrong, please evidence this 'who' so we all can be informed.

My question remains unanswered.

You did not ask a question though silly, so technically I did answer your un-asked question. I do know that your position is so weak that you cannot explain how consciousness forms outside of a brain, which was the question I asked you that you again failed to answer, because you don't have an answer and you don't like what that suggests about your position.

The question is not who/what is causing the emotions, but rather; who is experiencing the emotions.

There is no 'who'. Everything is taking place within a functioning brain. You error in assigning agency. Your likely the type of person that also believes angels and demons (assigning agency) are out affecting our world too.

The invisible, immaterial you, that is who is experiencing the emotions, is evidence of the soul (spirit).

Your are doing nothing but renaming the abstract thing that we call a mind, a soul/spirit.
Tell me how valid would it be for me to claim that Muhammed died on a cross for our sins. Surely you will understand that just renaming a thing doesn't cut it, but that is all you are doing. Re-naming is not evidence, it's playing fast and loose with words. I'm not so easily fooled.

Yet, your unable to answer the question of who is experiencing the emotions

Watch, I'll answer it again. There is no 'who' that experiences our emotions. There is an abstract concept that we humans call our minds, but all of this takes place within our brains. No other 'thing' has so far even been suggested as being needed to explain our emotions.

So, you've got nothing. We both know this.

In reality, I address all your questions. Our readers will have noticed this fact.

And I'm happy to address it again.
We assign a "who" to things because it's a fundamental part of our social nature to categorize and understand the world around us by identifying individual agents. We do this for people, animals, and even inanimate objects.
Why is it only myself that answers questions here? Do you really not have any evidence for a soul?

Who...is... experiencing...the emotions.

Your question fails because there is no actual 'who'. Chemicals reacting to their properties within a functioning brain explains this. If you disagree, please evidence that more is needed. If nothing more is needed, my explanation should be viewed as a good explanation until a better one is presented.

If not the brain, not the chemicals, then...WHO?

I know that you don't understand this, but a better question would be 'where' is experiencing this. You desire a 'who' because you want to go to heaven.

Now, can you answer mines?

Continue to ask and I'll continue to answer. If you ever feel I missed something (trying to keep replies from getting too long), let me know and I'll provide an answer if I have one.

Ok, so if the chemicals aren't you...and they don't experience the emotions, then who does?

There is no 'who' and you have so far utterly failed to provide a reason to insert a 'who'. If you were to ask 'where' is experiencing these emotions, I can direct you to the parts of the brain where these chemicals are doing there thing.

Who does the emotions correspond to?

To an abstract concept that you have renamed from 'mind', to 'who'. So you can go to heaven.

Here is an example...suppose, right now, I was to slap the mess out of you.

Now, my hand may be the cause of your pain, but my hand isn't the experiencing the pain.

See how the cause, and the experience are two different things?

Yes, your hand caused the experience of pain. Do you see how that is not evidence for a soul? If you feel that it is, I beg of you to explain how it is. I beg you!

No, I'm asking who is experiencing the emotion.

'Who' is not valid. 'Where' (in the brain) is valid, therefore your question is nonsensical, but I'll do my best to answer your question because perhaps you have a point you await to lay on us.
In your scenario, where you slap me, Clownboat, the human, is experiencing the pain. I can tell you where in the brain that is being processed if you like.

I'm looking for a direct correspondence from the cause, to the experience.

I have X (cause), now all I need is Y (experience).

Then come up with one! How silly of you to expect me to do your work for you.
Please provide this 'Y' for the class. If it is just some fantasy, surely asking me to fulfill your fantasy is unjustified. It's as if you almost understand your own position, but you need me to get you to the finish line. This is very odd.

But the origins of the system, cannot be of physical necessarily...because you can't create mental states from physical constructs.

However, upon review, we find that this is exactly what is taking place. The brain is physical and it in fact does experience mental states. We even know many of the chemicals that the brain releases that cause these mental states.

Which goes back to the question of origins, which you are also unable to deal with.

False. The brain is where these emotions originate. If I'm wrong, show that I'm wrong.

Neither of those chemicals are the ones experiencing the emotions, amigo.
The evidence for the soul was provided.

Hey readers, are any of you convinced that souls exist because chemicals cause emotions, but they don't experience them? Yup, that is the reasoning provided.

You need to do better than empty claims, but you cannot sadly. The only thing we know that is happening is that chemicals are released in the brain that cause such feelings.

You're still not getting it. Smh.

Readers, do you feel that this is a valid reply to what I pointed out is taking place within our brains?

If a soul was having these feelings, the chemicals in the brain would not be needed. You will dodge addressing this fact!

The chemicals would not be needed, under certain physical constraints.

Our souls which exists in our physical bodies, are those constraints.

So our souls are physical and they constrain? Please clarify what this means.

This was all according to our design, by the creator.

It is the brain that is sad though.

Nope. The brain is physical. The brain can't experience any emotions no more than your tv will experience anger if you live it on for too long.

Your TV doesn't release physical chemicals that cause physical feelings, therefore your comparison is not valid.

Emotions are mental states, not physical.

Demonstrably false as we all have been scared at some point and have experienced an increased physical heartbeat for just one example.
See how I always address what you say head on? I also don't allude to points I imagine I made earlier and I don't ask you to do my work for me. Trying to lead by example here.

Try again.

If you show what I just taught you is wrong, I will either 'try again' or I will amend my thinking. That is the purpose of debate.

The sun is not a mental entity.

Hey readers, did any of you think that the sun was a mental entity?
Do I know what a rhetorical question is?

The brain is 100% feeling these chemicals. If you feel there is something else that is feeling them, for the love of all that is holy, please make your argument!

Your brain is not experiencing the emotions.

Please show your work so I can amend my thinking. As of now, 100% of our emotions take place within our brains, therefore you unevidenced claim must be rejected currently.

Your brain is nothing but the storage for your cognitive faculties...your brain isn't a mental entity, it is physical, and made up of physical substance.

Surely you must understand that the fact that our brains are physical is not evidence for a soul. Right?

Correct! The chemicals are doing what they do within your brain which is causing your brain to feel that way. Just chemicals reacting to their properties within a functioning brain, unless you got some evidence for another source. Do you?

Physical properties don't feel emotions. Only mental properties.

Show your work like I have done and we can compare. I have shown that emotions take place 100% within our physical brains. You are claiming that this isn't happening. Please show your work like I have done. Show that our brains are not in fact releasing chemicals that alter how we feel if you can.

When you are sad, your brain isn't "sad". There is no physical part of your brain that is "sad"...not the water, not the enzymes, not the chemicals, not the protein or carbohydrates.

When we feel sad, our brains show increased activity in areas like the amygdala (associated with processing emotions), the hippocampus (involved in memory), and the right prefrontal cortex (these are the physical parts of our brain that you were unaware of).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 20circuits.
These areas are in fact located within our brains and these feelings are taking place within our physical brains. Your claim is therefore falsified.

Yet, the emotion must correspond to a part of you that has nothing to do with the brain.

As you have learned, the emotions you are talking about do take place in the brain. We know the chemicals involved and often times the area of the brain involved. You imagine a soul so it can go to heaven. I may want to a soul to be a real thing like you, but better reasoning is needed.

It all goes back to identifying who are these emotions corresponding to.

You have been shown that there is no 'who' required. You are simply renaming what we call our minds Emotions do take place within our brains though. When my brain is happy, a chemical is released that causes the feeling. No soul is required for what we know is taking place.

Once you do that, you've found the soul, my friend.

Then we have identified that a soul is not required.

If no physical part of you is feeling the emotions, they must correspond to something, wouldn't they?

You have learned that there are in fact physical parts of our brains experiencing these chemicals that cause us to feel certain ways. If you feel it must correspond to something, please express why you feel this way.

Something else is needed, based on the origin of consciousness argument.

Once you acknowledge and accept that nature or science can't be appealed to, in order to explain the origins of consciousness, then it is clear what is needed.

This is nothing but the logical fallacy we know to be an argument from ignorance.
When you don't know something, you don't know it by definition. You don't get to make up claims. That is how we got so many god concept in the first place.

Ok, well is you can appeal to science (nature) to explain the origins of mental states, then what can you appeal to.

You basically have two options.

1. Intelligent Design (supernatural).

2. Mother Nature (science, nature).

Now, law of excluded middle...if you only have two options, and one is successfully negated, then the other option wins by default...no questions asked.

1. Either A (nature) or B (intelligent design).

2. If not A (nature).

3. Then B (intelligent design).

Simple as that.

Readers, ask yourself if a soul has been argued for. I don't even see the word, but do notice a false dichotomy when I see one. My entire argument, that emotions take place 100% within our brains wasn't addressed nor was it listed as being an option (the false dichotomy).
Option C: Our brains are the origins of our mental states.

You are a living soul.

This is just a religious belief. Feel free to believe that Allah will grant you virgins in heaven, it matters not and is not evidence for a soul.

Your mind is the real "you", under the veil of human flesh.

I think I can get behind this, but it has nothing to do with 'souls', you know, the thing we are trying to evidence.

So, how does a sad emotion look? What is the length, width, height of it?

What color is it? It's weight?

Now, you can answer those questions as it relates to the physical brain...but not the mental consciousness.

This should tell you something.

What should it tell us? Don't just pretend that you have knowledge, share it with the class. What does this tell us? Are you asking me to do your work for you again?

It doesn't require it as a necessity, because if it did, you'd be able to explain how physical matter can produce non-physical entities, such as mental states.

This has been explained, more than once in fact. Now to lead by example again. In place of just saying I addressed this already, I will show the class just how it was addressed.
"The brain is a physical organ in the head, while the mind is an abstract concept that controls how a person thinks, feels, and acts."

The origins of the mind have to be explained.

This is not evidence for a soul.

Just like with evolution when you skip the godless theory of abiogenesis, and jump to evolution.

This is not evidence for a soul.

In the same way here, you jump to the functioning brain, without not only explaining the origins of the brain, but the origins of consciousness.

This is not evidence for a soul.

Ohhh, so since there is no "who", then we should never use the word "who" when describing our feelings.

No silly, feel free to use 'who' whenever you choose. Did you forget already about how humans assign agency and why we do what you are doing? When we say 'who' we are not saying 'soul', we are alluding to the abstract concept that we call a mind. Do you not know what an abstract concept is? Perhaps that is the issue?

When you are sad...the "who" is you.

Yet, you just said there is no "who" involved.

Perhaps you need to think this through some more.

No need as none of this would be evidence for a soul.

I take far too much time out of my day explaining things to you already. If there is something meaningful that is said in this video, please present it or at least give me a timestamp where I can go to watch it. You should not expect me to do your work for you.

It was the wrong video, anyway...which was my mistake.

All the more reason to not post videos, but to instead make the relevant point yourself.

Second, I am more than capable of doing my own work, and I wouldn't dare think of asking you to do anything for me, in that regard.

Twice in this thread alone you asked for my help. I should not have to do your work for you.
For example, when I inform you about the chemicals and what they are doing, I supply the answers. What I don't do is ask you what chemicals are involved and where in our brains they taking place. Leading by example...

The video was to educate you, not me...so if anything, I'm doing you the favor.

It is not recommended to post videos, but your position. You for sure should not post incorrect videos...

[SiNcE_1985]

Your question is invalid as there is no 'who' that is being sad. If you feel that I am wrong, please evidence this 'who' so we all can be informed.

Oh, now of a sudden, there is no "who" in the equation?

Gotcha.

We'll leave it at that absurdity.

As it has been proven..

"Anything position, no matter how absurd, is still better than the G word".

That is the Faith Statement of Unbelief.

I'll rest my case here.

[Clownboat]

Your question is invalid as there is no 'who' that is being sad. If you feel that I am wrong, please evidence this 'who' so we all can be informed.

Oh, now of a sudden, there is no "who" in the equation?

Gotcha.

We'll leave it at that absurdity.

As it has been proven..

"Anything position, no matter how absurd, is still better than the G word".

That is the Faith Statement of Unbelief.

I'll rest my case here.

I must note that you failed to even attempt to evidence this 'who' that you continue to refer to.
"Your question was invalid as there is no 'who' that is being sad. If you feel that I am wrong, please evidence this 'who' so we all can be informed."

You failed, therefore your question remains invalid. You could have attempted to show why a 'who' is valid, but you didn't and instead you whined, slandered and invented an invalid excuse (anything is better than the G word) in place of even trying to show that your claim is valid.

If you cannot show that what you say is true, your fellow debaters/readers are the actual victim because they end up reading lame excuses in place of a valid argument (this is a debate site after all). I must assume that you don't have a valid argument for this 'who' and you know that this question of 'who' is to assume facts that are not in evidence. This explains why we get accuses for you not evidencing claims instead of you evidencing your claims.

I wish you would prove me wrong, but you won't and at this point I believe it is because you can't.

Be well.