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.

[Diagoras]

You have my position correct, but I fail to see the point.

The truth value to that, doesn't move the needle forward or backwards either way.

The point is that in a Science debate forum, you are expected to provide more than opinion and unsupported claims.

I think its best to use them both interchangeably.

I'll define both as the immaterial "self" (mind).

Basically, mind/body dualism.

That’s fine, although I then wonder why you brought up the distinction in the first place.

The mind and body (brain) are two different entities, although there is a correlation between both.

I'll drive home this point with a question...have you ever been to an open-casket funeral?

To answer the question: No, although I have seen corpses. Please explain your point further.

Mainly because when it states that God made man in his image (Gen 1:26), it is clear that it isn't talking about a physical image, as God is not physical.

So, it must mean spiritual, as God is spirit (John 4:24).

So, since God has sentience, yet, God isn't physical, it follows that God must be an unembodied mind...and we were made in his image, although our mind is veiled in human flesh.

I said all that to say, scripture doesnt state that animals were made in God's image.

Although, admittedly, what is meant by "made in God's image" has been up for debate.

However, I just shared my own understanding.

<bolding mine>

Thanks for sharing that. The parts I bolded simply demonstrate that biblical sources are very weak evidence for souls or spirits.

I agree. But there is too much sweeping of abiogenesis under the rug.

No one wants to talk about it.

But everyone wants to pound away at theistic claims.

You guys are gonna start having to answer for your claims (or implicated claims) as well.

<bolding mine>

Not true - scientists are very interested in abiogenesis and love discussing it. There have been several threads on it here.

Any hypothesis of abiogenesis remains unproven, until such time as life is created in a laboratory. That’s not a weakness of science, it’s its strength. Every idea can be attacked, and when the evidence is presented that disproves a claim or theory, a good scientist will (should) discard that theory in favour of one that does fit all available observations including the ones that disproved the original.

To be clear: nothing is being ‘swept under the rug’.

[SiNcE_1985]

The point is that in a Science debate forum, you are expected to provide more than opinion and unsupported claims.

We were talking about living entities besides humans possessing souls, which may be may not be true.

But regardless of the truth value of that, it has nothing to do with whether humans have souls.

In other words, my support (proof) for one, does not carry over to the other...nor does it need to be.

That’s fine, although I then wonder why you brought up the distinction in the first place.

Because, sometimes terms have to be defined to prevent confusion and the stalling of progress.

To answer the question: No, although I have seen corpses. Please explain your point further.

Interesting. Same thing.

So, the corpse...

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..and I'm sure you've heard it before.

So, what does this mean?

How can we say the deceased person is no longer with us, if their deceased body remains physically and visibly with us?

The answer is simple.

When we say "X person is no longer with us" we are not talking about the physical part of them, but rather, the mental (sentient) part of them.

So, when we make such statement, we are in return making the distinction between the deceases' mind, and their body.

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

Why?

Because what is true of their mind, is not true of their body.

If the mind and body where the same, then what is true of their mind, would also be true of their body (law of identity).

But, the exact opposite is true, thus; mind-body dualism.

Now, there is more to it than that...because even with the truth value of that^, it doesn't follow that therefore, the mind can exist outside of the body (brain).

More argumentation is needed...more supported premises.

But demonstrating the dualism with the concept is the first step towards getting anywhere.

Thanks for sharing that. The parts I bolded simply demonstrate that biblical sources are very weak evidence for souls or spirits.

Understood. Admittedly, more argumentation is needed...but we'll definitely get there with this argumentation.

<bolding mine>
Not true - scientists are very interested in abiogenesis and love discussing it. There have been several threads on it here.

I'm sure that for as long as this forum has been around, it has been discussed in some form or fashion.

But for a long as I've been around on this forum, it's been hushy-hushy, dodgy-dodgy.

Any hypothesis of abiogenesis remains unproven, until such time as life is created in a laboratory. That’s not a weakness of science, it’s its strength. Every idea can be attacked, and when the evidence is presented that disproves a claim or theory, a good scientist will (should) discard that theory in favour of one that does fit all available observations including the ones that disproved the original.

To be clear: nothing is being ‘swept under the rug’.

Opinions.

....

And, btw, this conversation that we are having, is one of the chief reasons WHY abiogenesis is naturally, positively, 100% false.

Just wanted to put that out there.

[Diagoras]

We were talking about living entities besides humans possessing souls, which may be may not be true.

But regardless of the truth value of that, it has nothing to do with whether humans have souls.

Your position appears to be that humans have souls and that this is because it says so in the Bible. Further, that animals aren’t mentioned in the Bible as having souls, therefore probably haven’t got one.

There’s no reason to link those claims to the theory of abiogenesis.

So, the corpse...

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..and I'm sure you've heard it before.

So, what does this mean?

How can we say the deceased person is no longer with us, if their deceased body remains physically and visibly with us?

The answer is simple.

I find this interesting because of the similarity between interpretations of biblical words and phrases to a modern day idiom like ‘no longer with us’. You are inferring logic where none exists.

When I come off the football field at half time and remark, “It’s hell out there!”, do you imagine that an argument for heaven existing can be made from it? Same deal here. A figure of speech doesn’t support an argument for mind-body dualism.

Now, there is more to it than that...because even with the truth value of that^, it doesn't follow that therefore, the mind can exist outside of the body (brain).

More argumentation is needed...more supported premises.

Agreed. What this debate needs then, is some evidence that the mind can exist outside the body.

But for a long as I've been around on this forum, it's been hushy-hushy, dodgy-dodgy.

Have you actively searched for such threads, or started any yourself?

And, btw, this conversation that we are having, is one of the chief reasons WHY abiogenesis is naturally, positively, 100% false.

I’m not sure how me debating you determines that. You might simply be restating ‘Science doesn’t know!’ but it doesn’t matter anyway. Please just offer some evidence for humans having souls (or animals having spirits), if you still want to debate the OP. If you prefer to switch to abiogenesis, I’m happy to join a new thread on that.

[SiNcE_1985]

Your position appears to be that humans have souls and that this is because it says so in the Bible.

Ehh. Not necessarily.

I used the Bible because, it does a good job of distinguishing the mind from the body, probably more so that any other religion that I'm aware of..which I don't think is a coincidence.

That, followed by the fact the background information I have of the Bible being true, valid, and trustworthy.

But still, the mere concept of mind-body dualism would still be true, even if Christianity is false.

So it isn't necessarily Christian dependent.

I find this interesting because of the similarity between interpretations of biblical words and phrases to a modern day idiom like ‘no longer with us’. You are inferring logic where none exists.

When I come off the football field at half time and remark, “It’s hell out there!”, do you imagine that an argument for heaven existing can be made from it? Same deal here. A figure of speech doesn’t support an argument for mind-body dualism.

You know full well that it depends on the context you are using the word.

The statement "X is no longer with us", literally means that the persons sentience (conscience, mental) state, is no longer in the shell of the persons body.

It's gone.

That's what the saying literally means.

One is gone (mind), and the other is still present (brain).

This means that the mind and body are not the same, because if they were, what is true for one would be true of the other.

Can't really put it any simpler than that.

Agreed. What this debate needs then, is some evidence that the mind can exist outside the body.

First, what we need is for you to acknowledge that the mind and body are two separate entities...they are not the same.

Do you have anything to say against my case, thus far?

Have you actively searched for such threads, or started any yourself?

No, no need to do all that when my own personal experience of it being exactly how described, works just fine.

I’m not sure how me debating you determines that. You might simply be restating ‘Science doesn’t know!’ but it doesn’t matter anyway. Please just offer some evidence for humans having souls (or animals having spirits), if you still want to debate the OP. If you prefer to switch to abiogenesis, I’m happy to join a new thread on that.

We'll get to all that good stuff in small steps, not leaps and bounds.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #604]

First, what we need is for you to acknowledge that the mind and body are two separate entities...they are not the same.

Do you have anything to say against my case, thus far?

I wasn’t sure what your case actually was, so I went back over the last few posts. As far as I can tell, it started with this claim:

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

To which I asked, “Seems?” because no evidence was offered.

On the subject of defining a ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’, you offered this:

I'll define both as the immaterial "self" (mind).

I missed it the first time round, but have realised you are now equating ‘soul’ with ‘mind’. That suggests a number of things, including:

1. Only humans have a ‘mind’.
2. When you die, you no longer have a soul.
3. People in a vegetative state have either a very weak soul, or none at all.
4. LSD would be classed as a ‘soul-altering drug’.

Etc, etc.

Perhaps we should revisit your definition of ‘soul’ before we address any of those questions. Because from where I’m standing, it looks like you have ‘shifted the goalposts’. The OP asks first:

…please prove that souls exist…

It is not asking for proof that minds exist.

[marke]

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

The formation of thoughts and logic require more than unplanned random chemical or electrical impulses.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #605]

Cutting through the irrelevancy, red herrings, and dodgy-dodgys.

Are you gonna address this, or not?

, the corpse...

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..and I'm sure you've heard it before.

So, what does this mean?

How can we say the deceased person is no longer with us, if their deceased body remains physically and visibly with us?

The answer is simple.

When we say "X person is no longer with us" we are not talking about the physical part of them, but rather, the mental (sentient) part of them.

So, when we make such statement, we are in return making the distinction between the deceases' mind, and their body.

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

Why?

Because what is true of their mind, is not true of their body.

If the mind and body where the same, then what is true of their mind, would also be true of their body (law of identity).

But, the exact opposite is true, thus; mind-body dualism.

Now, there is more to it than that...because even with the truth value of that^, it doesn't follow that therefore, the mind can exist outside of the body (brain).

You basically snipped through the meat and potatoes of the matter, to say some irrelevant stuff that has nothing to do with anything.

Are you going to address this, or not?

[Clownboat]

When you can effectively prove that sentient life can naturally arise from nonlife, then you'll effectively prove the nonexistence of souls.

Why would anyone need to do that? Consider these questions:

Do chimpanzees (sharing 97% of genes with humans) have souls? Do dogs?

What about fish? Worms? Bacteria? Viruses?

Could a prion have a soul?

How far down the evolutionary tree do you have to go before we’re all agreed that something is ‘soulless’? Once we agree where that point is, all you have to do is provide some evidence that supports life ‘above’ that point as having a soul.

I simply don't believe in evolution. So you've lost me there.

This fairly normal human behavior.

There was a time when most humans thought that the earth was at the center of our solar system. Most humans that didn't believe in the heliocentric model never corrected their thinking once we learned the truth. It took for them to die off and for the next generation to get educated for the more accurate answer to be accepted.

Therefore, your lack of belief in the evidence that explains evolution is really not that surprising if you think about it. What matters for human progress is that future generations are able to learn the more valid explanations, not that some are stuck in their preconceived beliefs.

[Clownboat]

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..and I'm sure you've heard it before.

So, what does this mean?

The human that you possibly loved and even had discussions with is no longer here/available for such experiences.

How can we say the deceased person is no longer with us, if their deceased body remains physically and visibly with us?

In the same way we can say that the sun rises and falls in the sky.
Surely such statements don't confuse you about the placement of the sun in our solar system? Or do they?

When we say "X person is no longer with us" we are not talking about the physical part of them, but rather, the mental (sentient) part of them.

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

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.

[SiNcE_1985]

The human that you possibly loved and even had discussions with is no longer here/available for such experiences.

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

In the same way we can say that the sun rises and falls in the sky.

Surely such statements don't confuse you about the placement of the sun in our solar system? Or do they?

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.

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".

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?

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.