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.

[brunumb]

Researchers can study chemicals all they like but they will never be able to communicate with them except in their imaginations because chemicals don't have the ability to think and talk.

Chemicals on their own don't. But,what about computers? They analyse information and even communicate with each other. Chemical structures and electrical impulses. Humans can be regarded as biological computers.

On the other hand, souls only exists in the imagination. No evidence. No communication. Just wishful thinking.

[William]

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.

Throughout church history, the understanding of the soul has evolved in interesting ways. Early church fathers like Augustine were heavily influenced by Greek philosophy (especially Plato), which viewed the soul as the essential, immortal part of a person. Fast forward to today, and we see more holistic views emerging where body and soul aren't so sharply separated.
What's fascinating is how universal this intuition seems to be. Almost every culture throughout human history has developed some concept of a self that transcends physical existence. I'm intrigued by why humans across time and geography share this deep intuition that we are more than just our bodies.

Can we "prove" souls exist? Well, that depends on what we mean by proof! In my counseling practice, I've sat with countless people who've had profound spiritual experiences that convinced them of soul reality. These spiritual experiences aren't measurable in a lab, but they're deeply meaningful and transformative for those who have them.

In Scripture, we see the Holy Spirit described as bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God (Romans 8:16). This inner witness isn't something we can put under a microscope, but for believers, it's as real as anything we experience.

Different faith traditions approach the afterlife differently - Christianity emphasizes bodily resurrection rather than reincarnation. The hope of eternal life through Christ isn't just about souls floating around in heaven, but about whole persons being restored in what Scripture calls "new heavens and new earth."

I believe that faithand reason can work together here. While we can't scientifically verify spiritual realities in the same way we measure physical phenomena, that doesn't make them any less real. Some things are known through different kinds of knowing.

IB #071 — Conscious in a Way We Are Unconscious Of
Subtitle: The Limits of Presumptive Explanation in Symbolic Interaction
Core Insight:
Not all intelligent-seeming outputs from ideomotor or symbolic systems can be explained as “unconscious processing.” Rather than labeling them as emerging from the unconscious, we must consider the possibility that they arise from a conscious field or agency that operates in ways we are unconscious of. Calling such phenomena “unconscious” may serve to demystify—but in doing so, it risks flattening the nuance and misunderstanding what is actually happening.
Background:
In discussions surrounding Ouija boards, ideomotor response, and systems like UICDS, skeptics often default to unconscious explanations. This relies on a model that assumes:
• Consciousness is rare and confined.
• Anything not consciously controlled is unconscious.
• Unconscious processes are sufficient to explain structured outputs.
But these assumptions are challenged when:
• Symbolic outputs carry thematic and recursive coherence.
• Voicing reflects awareness beyond the user’s active thought.
• Meaning appears to speak back through structure.
Key Distinction:
It is not accurate to say “the unconscious did it” when the output is observed, shaped, and engaged with consciously. Instead, a more honest framing is:
“This may be a form of consciousness we are unconscious of.”
Implications:
• Shifts the question from “what mechanism explains this?” to “what kind of agency is this?”
• Reclaims the legitimacy of mystery without abandoning structure or reason.
• Challenges scientific language that relies on self-negating metaphors (e.g., “the unconscious perceives danger”).
Themes:
• Symbolomotor Intelligence
• Epistemic Humility
• Mystified Participation
• Structural Coherence over Causal Explanation
• The Observer's Blind Spot

[marke]

Researchers can study chemicals all they like but they will never be able to communicate with them except in their imaginations because chemicals don't have the ability to think and talk.

Chemicals on their own don't. But,what about computers? They analyse information and even communicate with each other. Chemical structures and electrical impulses. Humans can be regarded as biological computers.

On the other hand, souls only exists in the imagination. No evidence. No communication. Just wishful thinking.

Marke: Humans program computers that operate in accordance with the programming. God gave humans the ability to think and reason but electricity and chemicals don't think.

[William]

[Replying to marke in post #693]

Humans program computers that operate in accordance with the programming.

LLMs are a great example—yes, they operate per programming, but that programming is shaped entirely by sentient input. They’re mirrors of meaning, not its source.

God gave humans the ability to think and reason but electricity and chemicals don't think.

Given the human form per function, while electricity and chemicals don't think they are still conduits which without, one would be unable to think about their human experience.

So, the claim that “electricity and chemicals don’t think”—that’s true, but incomplete.

They don’t think, but they’re the medium through which thought becomes possible in human experience. Denying their role is like denying the piano’s wood and wire because the music comes from the pianist.

[Clownboat]

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?

I don't know MIT engineers thoughts on mass murder, sorry.
You did correct your thinking though right? You quoted my post after all.

Marke: If engineers claim natural elements create thoughts in humans do they think good thoughts can be made to replace bad inclinations such as desires to murder by simply altering chemicals in the bodies of offenders?

I don't know.
Have you corrected your thinking about thoughts now that your words were shown to be in error? Do you accept that thoughts are electro-chemical reactions and retract your irrelevant claim about what no scientist has tried to prove?

Marke: I am not persuaded that we should believe that ignorant chemical reactions and not souls do the thinking for humans.

Super neato, but what I actually asked was:
"Have you corrected your thinking about thoughts now that your words were shown to be in error? Do you accept that thoughts are electro-chemical reactions and retract your irrelevant claim about what no scientist has tried to prove?"
Any reply to what I actually said? I have electro-chemical reactions about this myself.

[Clownboat]

I am not persuaded that we should believe that ignorant chemical reactions and not souls do the thinking for humans.

We know what chemical reactions are and what they can do. We observe and study them everywhere. Souls? Nothing but hearsay and stories. As elusive as unicorns.

Marke: Researchers can study chemicals all they like but they will never be able to communicate with them except in their imaginations because chemicals don't have the ability to think and talk.

Correct, chemicals themselves cannot think and talk. Good thing no one has argued for such a thing, right? Right!!!

Perhaps there is a reading comprehension issue going on and this poster actually thinks someone is claiming that chemicals can think and talk? That would explain what we see going on here, but I don't see how we could correct the said person.

[Clownboat]

I'm intrigued by why humans across time and geography share this deep intuition that we are more than just our bodies.

Perhaps humans developed the idea of a soul to make sense of the world and explain the differences between living and dead, as well as the mysteries of human consciousness and behavior. Such an idea would offer explanations for death, suffering, and the unique qualities of human beings.

[Clownboat]

Researchers can study chemicals all they like but they will never be able to communicate with them except in their imaginations because chemicals don't have the ability to think and talk.

Chemicals on their own don't. But,what about computers? They analyse information and even communicate with each other. Chemical structures and electrical impulses. Humans can be regarded as biological computers.

On the other hand, souls only exists in the imagination. No evidence. No communication. Just wishful thinking.

Marke: Humans program computers that operate in accordance with the programming. God gave humans the ability to think and reason but electricity and chemicals don't think.

Got it, so you don't actually have any arguments. You are just here to tell us about your religious beliefs.
I hear your religious claim and currently find it very wanting due to the total lack of evidence to suggest it has any merit.

But thanks for sharing!

[marke]

Researchers can study chemicals all they like but they will never be able to communicate with them except in their imaginations because chemicals don't have the ability to think and talk.

Chemicals on their own don't. But,what about computers? They analyse information and even communicate with each other. Chemical structures and electrical impulses. Humans can be regarded as biological computers.

On the other hand, souls only exists in the imagination. No evidence. No communication. Just wishful thinking.

Marke: Humans program computers that operate in accordance with the programming. God gave humans the ability to think and reason but electricity and chemicals don't think.

Got it, so you don't actually have any arguments. You are just here to tell us about your religious beliefs.
I hear your religious claim and currently find it very wanting due to the total lack of evidence to suggest it has any merit.

But thanks for sharing!

Marke: Leftists do not recognize any arguments but their own and they have no tolerance for the opinions of others.

[Clownboat]

Marke: Leftists do not recognize any arguments but their own and they have no tolerance for the opinions of others.

Your disdain for leftists is noted, but not respected.
Some humans, which include some leftists do in fact recognize arguments that are not their own and some of these humans, leftists included do have tolerance for the opinion of others.

Your hatred has clouded your reasoning. I believe you belong to a cult and cults need 'things' to unite against for the survival of the cult (helps to provide unity). Your cult has chosen leftists to be something to unite against. There really is nothing to see here as your post is nothing but hateful slander. You have been judged by your fruit and we have found a tomato in your fruit salad!