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

[Compassionist]

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

[Clownboat]

I did not say someone said chemicals can think.

And yet you brought it up anyway.

Straw man
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion.

In post 653 (and others) it was made known that our thoughts and reasoning can be affected by affecting the brain itself.
"Swamp the brain with chemicals or inflict a sound blow to the head and see what happens to thought and reasoning."

This shows that our affecting our brains affects our reasoning and no soul concept is needed to explain this. Rather than addressing this valid observation, you created a strawman about chemicals not being able to think, something that nobody has brought up. This straw man fallacy doesn't have anything to do with the actual observation that was made.

Not being able to counter valid observations that go against what you want to be true can be uncomfortable, but that should be a time where you investigate further or amend your thinking on the matter. Not where fallacies are offered instead.

[Clownboat]

I claim humans have spirits and souls because that is what the Bible says

This part is true.
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

and because that is what common sense leads us to believe.

This part is false. Common sense suggests that we our products of a working brain. No soul concept is even needed to explain this.

Occam's razor is a principle that favors the simplest explanation for a phenomenon over more complex explanations. It's also known as the "law of parsimony"

[Clownboat]

I still cannot avoid the obvious fact that no scientist has ever tried to prove that electrical charges create thoughts without any input from spirits.

You mean, like this?:
What are thoughts made of? They’re really just electro-chemical reactions
https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask- ... s-made-of/

I assume you have amended your thinking.

[marke]

I did not say someone said chemicals can think.

And yet you brought it up anyway.

Straw man
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion.

In post 653 (and others) it was made known that our thoughts and reasoning can be affected by affecting the brain itself.
"Swamp the brain with chemicals or inflict a sound blow to the head and see what happens to thought and reasoning."

This shows that our affecting our brains affects our reasoning and no soul concept is needed to explain this. Rather than addressing this valid observation, you created a strawman about chemicals not being able to think, something that nobody has brought up. This straw man fallacy doesn't have anything to do with the actual observation that was made.

Not being able to counter valid observations that go against what you want to be true can be uncomfortable, but that should be a time where you investigate further or amend your thinking on the matter. Not where fallacies are offered instead.

Marke: Humans cannot think on earth without a physical brain but that does not mean the chemical and electrical reactions in the human brain do the thinking for them.

[marke]

I still cannot avoid the obvious fact that no scientist has ever tried to prove that electrical charges create thoughts without any input from spirits.

You mean, like this?:
What are thoughts made of? They’re really just electro-chemical reactions
https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask- ... s-made-of/

I assume you have amended your thinking.

Marke: Do MIT engineers suggest that the desires to mass murder innocent people are just bad chemical or electrical impulses? Are mass murderers innocent of mass murder because their chemical mixes made them do it?

[marke]

Marke: The invisible soul is what enables the physical brain to form thoughts.

Please explain how it does that.

Marke: The operations of souls and spirits are not observable or even definable in human or scientific terms. Trying to explain how spirits operate would be like trying to describe colors to a blind man.

In other words you have made a completely unsubstantiated claim which may simply be dismissed. If it's not observable or even definable in human or scientific terms, then it is no different from imaginary or made up stuff and therefore there is no good reason to believe any of it.

Marke: Those humans who refuse to believe anything they cannot see with their eyes suffer from ignorance of realities they will never become aware of.

[William]

[Replying to marke in post #674]

Humans cannot think on earth without a physical brain but that does not mean the chemical and electrical reactions in the human brain do the thinking for them.

I am still unsure exactly how you are defining "humans"...

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #674]

Humans cannot think on earth without a physical brain but that does not mean the chemical and electrical reactions in the human brain do the thinking for them.

I am still unsure exactly how you are defining "humans"...

Marke: Maybe you should first explain how you define the word "defining."

[William]

[Replying to marke in post #674]

Humans cannot think on earth without a physical brain but that does not mean the chemical and electrical reactions in the human brain do the thinking for them.

I am still unsure exactly how you are defining "humans"...

Marke: Maybe you should first explain how you define the word "defining."

If one cannot define 'definition,' then on what ground does one argue for the undefined?

If ‘spirit’ remains undefined—and even the act of defining is in question—then what exactly are we discussing? An intuition? A belief? A metaphor? If so, say that. But don’t mistake poetic gesture for ontological ground.

[Clownboat]

I did not say someone said chemicals can think.

And yet you brought it up anyway.

Straw man
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion.

In post 653 (and others) it was made known that our thoughts and reasoning can be affected by affecting the brain itself.
"Swamp the brain with chemicals or inflict a sound blow to the head and see what happens to thought and reasoning."

This shows that our affecting our brains affects our reasoning and no soul concept is needed to explain this. Rather than addressing this valid observation, you created a strawman about chemicals not being able to think, something that nobody has brought up. This straw man fallacy doesn't have anything to do with the actual observation that was made.

Not being able to counter valid observations that go against what you want to be true can be uncomfortable, but that should be a time where you investigate further or amend your thinking on the matter. Not where fallacies are offered instead.

Marke: Humans cannot think on earth without a physical brain but that does not mean the chemical and electrical reactions in the human brain do the thinking for them.

I agree.
Now, will you address my post? You quoted it after all.