What's the justification for believing in the soul?

[Epic Beard Man]

Yes and I reject dualism. Also the religious debate section gets more traffic and the soul is a very important component in theology and religious debate circles so I think its very relevant to put it in this particular section.

Well the philosophy section gets traffic as well.....you're trying to have a philosophical discussion with people that may not have the ability to produce a philosophical argument. In other words you want to seem to outwit people who may not be able to have the philosophical prose to construct an argument.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Stop being a cry baby. It must be upsetting you because you have no rational justification but you'd like to believe anyways. Of course im dismissive; why wouldn't i be dismissive of weak arguments and a lack of evidence? And this has nothing to do with God; that's a strawman. The soul could exist whether or not God exists. Also why are you on RF if you're supposed to be working? Your post is completely nonsensical and contradictory. You don't have time or patience but you have time and patience to explain that you don't have the time and patience? Give me a break.

No rational justification? Dude I was a double major and philosophy was one of them. Wrote paper on Descartes, Peter Abelard, David Hume etc and have had many debates concerning this. I'm not cry baby by no means its just you're annoying and you're trying to have a pissing contest...that is it.

 

[serp777]

No rational justification? Dude I was a double major and philosophy was one of them. Wrote paper on Descartes, Peter Abelard, David Hume etc and have had many debates concerning this. I'm not cry baby by no means its just you're annoying and you're trying to have a pissing contest...that is it.

Again, I thought you had work to do. What are you doing still crying about this alleged pissing content? I mean I thought you had no time or patience. I don't even understand why you posted on this thread if you weren't interested in debating. Its the religious DEBATE section after all. A philosophy major should be more well versed in logic to be honest.

 

[serp777]

Well the philosophy section gets traffic as well.....you're trying to have a philosophical discussion with people that may not have the ability to produce a philosophical argument. In other words you want to seem to outwit people who may not be able to have the philosophical prose to construct an argument.

But you're a philosophy major and you've visited this thread so clearly there are people versed in philosophy who come here. You just refuted yourself.

 

[syo]

So please let me know what kind of evidence or reasoning or logic exists to back up the assertion that at soul exists.

soul or spirit is what makes matter alive. without soul or spirit there is no energy and matter is ''dead''.

 

[serp777]

soul or spirit is what makes matter alive. without soul or spirit there is no energy and matter is ''dead''.

This is a bald faced assertion.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Monkey's Crows. hell Coyotes in certain cities learned how traffic lights work as to not get hit by a car and know when to cross. many animals can learn. also AI learn so not just animals

Just because my cat appears to be much smarter than some people I have come across, doesn’t mean she is. Cats have not changed. Their species does not advance over the years.
Animals don’t learn. Some have been trained to do a few tricks, but that was the result of human intervention, not something they did on their own
AI does not learn on its own. The AI was created, first of all, by a human. Once it was created, it cannot advance on its own.
Humans provide all of the input. From the electricity to the programming. The AI only responds to what humans have done.
If a human with a faulty soul pressed the wrong button and caused nuclear annihilation, all the AI’s would end up being rusting piles of rubbish. And the surviving animals would still be animals, operating solely on their survival instincts.

The soul is a living organism. It requires food. Do you feed yours any health food, or a diet of junk food? An animal cannot feed its soul, only its body, since the animal has no soul.

 

[Twilight Hue]

soul or spirit is what makes matter alive. without soul or spirit there is no energy and matter is ''dead''.

There is something called reactive matter.

Energy or stimulation in some form or another can make some very interesting effects on what we call "dead".

Biological viruses make a very interesting study regarding what life exactly is as it applies to matter and energy.

 

[Jumi]

I believe in an expanded vision of self that is not contained within the present models available. I do so simply because I have directly experienced aspects of being that defy description although after experiencing said aspects it is fairly easy to see where our species primitive ideas of god(s) came from. I simply refer to it as the inner self and am uncomfortable with the term soul due to the excessive religious baggage the term has accrued over the ages. I much prefer the term entity due to its more amorphous connotations or energy personality essence if one wants to be slightly more specific.

To use a phrase that is popular nowadays, once seen, it cannot be unseen.

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote here.

 

[Desert Snake]

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote here.

Your self description of 'monotheist' does not agree with pretty much anything he wrote. Do you just like the idea, of monotheism, or do you not understand the differences between nontheism and theism, agnosticism, etc?

 

[atanu]

It doesn't seem like there's any good evidence or rational justification for the existence of a soul. Most of the things i've heard are fallacious appeals to identity, .....
So please let me know what kind of evidence or reasoning or logic exists to back up the assertion that at soul exists.

Why 'fallacious'?

 

[Willamena]

Tell me. if we copied your brain. scanned it perfectly and uploaded it to a computer. and you yourself die. is that scan of your brain you? theoretically, its a copy of your brain your conscious and functions exactly the same as you. it has your memories your persona.

most have an issue with uploading one's consciousness for the reason of "is it really you? how do you know its you?
that's not evidence of a soul but it does pose an interesting question on how we see ourselves.
it is better discussed in this interesting video

It's no less you than the present version, especially if it can imagine.

 

[syo]

There is something called reactive matter.

Energy or stimulation in some form or another can make some very interesting effects on what we call "dead".

Biological viruses make a very interesting study regarding what life exactly is as it applies to matter and energy.

i see. i just think that everything in the universe has its own soul/spirit, like humans, trees, rocks, etc. a tree or a rock has its own soul that makes them ''alive''. human, tree and rock are different with each other but these three have the same characteristic of being ''alive'' because of soul/spirit.

 

[Jumi]

Your self description of 'monotheist' does not agree with pretty much anything he wrote.

Obviously I disagree. Explain.

Do you just like the idea, of monotheism, or do you not understand the differences between nontheism and theism, agnosticism, etc?

How do you understand monotheism? I understand it as having one God. You must have some other idea?

 

[atanu]

It doesn't seem like there's any good evidence or rational justification for the existence of a soul. Most of the things i've heard are fallacious appeals to identity, and appeals to consequences like if we don't have a soul, then we can't have free will. I've also seen no demonstration that free will and consciousness is impossible within a purely physical environment.

The unitive sense of existence through different conscious states is self evident and requires no external validation. This goes by the name of soul. Theories of awareness that it is a product of materials etc., on the other hand, are speculations born out of the self evident awareness. These speculations have no evidence.

.... Otherwise the working, non absolute hypothesis should be that consciousness and free will is at least possible within a materialistic worldview given the facts that there are sentient humans, the only world we know is a physical world,

The physical world is only known through sentience. The inert materials do not claim that they see the physical world.

and that physical material seems capable of producing a wide variety of advanced and complicated phenomena and synergistic effects.

Except the unitive self awareness.

 

[Hawkins]

It doesn't seem like there's any good evidence or rational justification for the existence of a soul.

Your rationality here means "it's not known by humans yet". Unless you have to assume that humans know everything, there are always vast of unknown to humans for you to call them "irrational". Evidence is provided that humans can physically go to a place to gather evidence. What limits humans to do so is that we are creatures only inside our own space and time. We can't gather evidence outside of our realm while religion claims are about what could possibly lying outside our own space and time. Even science is in support of the possibility of space and time outside the one we are living in. Science also reckons that it's out of our reach to examine into another time-space by our current technology.

 

[Desert Snake]

I believe in an expanded vision of self that is not contained within the present models available. I do so simply because I have directly experienced aspects of being that defy description although after experiencing said aspects it is fairly easy to see where our species primitive ideas of god(s) came from.

This infers that god ideas, the 'known god ideas', are incorrect.
If you agree with this, you can't have a known god concept, it would seem.

I simply refer to it as the inner self

This infers that the inner self is the focus of something, we're not sure if he means divinity, or not.
If you agree with this, you are inferring that your 'god' is not outside the self. Or that you consider yourself god, /vague, or something to that affect.
So far, he has not mentioned anything regarding personal theism.

and am uncomfortable with the term soul due to the excessive religious baggage the term has accrued over the ages. I much prefer the term entity due to its more amorphous connotations or energy personality essence if one wants to be slightly more specific.

...

To use a phrase that is popular nowadays, once seen, it cannot be unseen.

Again relating to the self. No mention of gods except a comment that implies that 'god concepts', presumably covering what would be categorized as monotheism,// god outside the self, are not correct.
Monotheism implies god outside the self, and other labels cover other god ideas, like pantheism, polytheism, henotheism, etc.
I do not believe that what was written is in any way indicative of a monotheism concept, in fact I would think it implies otherwise.

Obviously I disagree. Explain.

If you want to interpret those comments in some manner that is esoteric, to intent of meaning, that is your prerogative.

How do you understand monotheism? I understand it as having one God. You must have some other idea?

It means one god outside the self. That is why self deity satanists etc aren't monotheists.
If you want to explain your reasoning for agreement with the comments, go ahead.

 

[Jumi]

This infers that god ideas, the 'known god ideas', are incorrect.
If you agree with this, you can't have a known god concept, it would seem.

I believe most "god ideas" as you put it are just intellectual concepts that come from interpretation of natural events, natural laws or from more common spiritual experiences that tell nothing of God. For me it's enough to have experienced God and to know God exists. I'd rather not try to add on anything extra to that from any other intellectual ponderings and diminish God that way.

This infers that the inner self is the focus of something, we're not sure if he means divinity, or not.
If you agree with this, you are inferring that your 'god' is not outside the self. Or that you consider yourself god, /vague, or something to that affect.
So far, he has not mentioned anything regarding personal theism.

In your quote he's talking about how souls are seen, not god.

Again relating to the self. No mention of gods except a comment that implies that 'god concepts', presumably covering what would be categorized as monotheism,// god outside the self, are not correct.
Monotheism implies god outside the self, and other labels cover other god ideas, like pantheism, polytheism, henotheism, etc.
I do not believe that what was written is in any way indicative of a monotheism concept, in fact I would think it implies otherwise.

He's still talking about the soul, where you think he's still talking about gods. I happen to agree with his views as far as I can understand them. I wouldn't talk about an energetic soul though.

If you want to interpret those comments in some manner that is esoteric, to intent of meaning, that is your prerogative.

It's merely that his and my experiences agree here.

It means one god outside the self. That is why self deity satanists etc aren't monotheists.

So you thought he was talking about some kind of an esoteric inner god somewhere. I fail to see that in the post.

If you want to explain your reasoning for agreement with the comments, go ahead.

If you believe the soul must be something that exists only outside of human beings as a part of monotheism, that's your choice.

 

[Koldo]

When a person who is on the operating table and being 'dead' sees herself on the roof of that building where she never has been, sees objects she has never seen which she can describe and can be verified - denying this kind of falsification is only possible by brain-dead atheists -- who hold on to their paradigms no matter what. I have seen one or two such videos where the person describes things not possible under the circumstances.

That much of it may be brushed away is neither here nor there. There is enough evidence to show that something beyond the materialistic universe is going on. Atheistic mumbo jumbo can only be endured so much so start paying attention to what is going on out there.

I need to point out that even accepting those accounts doesn't require rejecting materialism. The fact we might not have an explanation for them right now doesn't mean they can't be explained through materialist lens.

 

[Ponder This]

It doesn't seem like there's any good evidence or rational justification for the existence of a soul. Most of the things i've heard are fallacious appeals to identity, and appeals to consequences like if we don't have a soul, then we can't have free will. I've also seen no demonstration that free will and consciousness is impossible within a purely physical environment. It seems to me that you'd have to show that a physical basis for free will and a soul is impossible in order to make the case that a metaphysical soul is a necessary claim. I think you'd also have the make the case that free will actually exists as well because there's no demonstration of that either. Otherwise the working, non absolute hypothesis should be that consciousness and free will is at least possible within a materialistic worldview given the facts that there are sentient humans, the only world we know is a physical world, and that physical material seems capable of producing a wide variety of advanced and complicated phenomena and synergistic effects.

So please let me know what kind of evidence or reasoning or logic exists to back up the assertion that at soul exists.

The fundamental dilemma is the question of who or what you are.
If you cut off your arm, then is the arm you or is the rest of your body you?
If we remove a piece of your brain and you still function, then is it still you?
The problem of not being able to clearly define who or what a person is gives rise to the dilemma of a non-physical self. Although we have made great breakthroughs in neuroscience, this fundamental question hasn't been satisfied. If every cell in your body gets replaced every seven years, then are you the same you?

Believe in the soul or not as you wish, but the existence of an identity not tied to any particular physical piece of the body is what creates the dilemma for which the simplest solution is the existence of a soul. If you don't believe in the soul, then it just means you don't understand what the soul is.

"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" - Aristotle