What's the justification for believing in the soul?

[Grandliseur]

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.

That's the problem with not knowing.

It does put a question mark on death and death experiences.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

But, isn't that merely an argument from ignorance (a logical fallacy)? You are saying that, because we cannot explain NDEs naturally, there is evidence for the soul. The absence of a natural explanation does not create evidence for the supernatural. The only thing it evidences is that we simply don't know yet.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Simply stated, if you are looking for evidence, or for some scientifically validated theory -- there is none.

And as a rational humanist, that's enough for me -- the notion of a "soul" that is somehow a separate thing from the physical being that I am does not stand up, and is therefore false.

 

[serp777]

Simply stated, if you are looking for evidence, or for some scientifically validated theory -- there is none.

And as a rational humanist, that's enough for me -- the notion of a "soul" that is somehow a separate thing from the physical being that I am does not stand up, and is therefore false.

I'm looking for anything, including logically necessary arguments, that would warrant the claim of a soul being a rational thing to believe. Also the notion that a supernatural soul is somehow intertwined with the physical entity is equally unsupported.

 

[serp777]

But, isn't that merely an argument from ignorance (a logical fallacy)? You are saying that, because we cannot explain NDEs naturally, there is evidence for the soul. The absence of a natural explanation does not create evidence for the supernatural. The only thing it evidences is that we simply don't know yet.

Excellent point, although this guy doesn't respond well to such an argument. He'll usually tell you that he's tired of baby sitting atheists and that you just don't appreciate his youtube video evidence.

 

[serp777]

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.



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



Except the unitive self awareness.

The unitive sense of existence through different conscious states is self evident and requires no external validation.

That's just an assertion and in no way means we should accept a soul prima facie. Why should different conscious states imply a soul? I can imagine, or at least entertain the possibility of an artificial intelligence with conscious states that is purely material. Where's your demonstration that different conscious states are impossible in a material universe.

These speculations have no evidence.

The soul is speculation and has no evidence. The reasonable position is "we don't know", not: "I don't understand how conscious states are possible in a material universe, therefore a soul exists". Its a combination of an argument from ignorance and an argument from personal incredulity.

 

[serp777]

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.

How is this relevant to the soul? Are you saying we can't get evidence for it? Then there's no reason to believe it.

 

[serp777]

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

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.

This is the argument from ignorance. We can't clearly define what a person is or explain it by material means, therefore there must be a non physical self.

Although we have made great breakthroughs in neuroscience, this fundamental question hasn't been satisfied.

Another argument from ignorance back to back. The question hasn't been satisfied, therefore a soul is reasonable to believe. No, that's simply no the case.

If every cell in your body gets replaced every seven years, then are you the same you?

I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

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.

Irrelevant. The existence of wetness is not tied to any particular molecule of water. Its a synergestic effect and an emergent property, just like how video games are an emergent feature of computers even though no particular chip is a video game playing chip.

If you don't believe in the soul, then it just means you don't understand what the soul is.

I reject this

 

[Grandliseur]

But, isn't that merely an argument from ignorance (a logical fallacy)? You are saying that, because we cannot explain NDEs naturally, there is evidence for the soul. The absence of a natural explanation does not create evidence for the supernatural. The only thing it evidences is that we simply don't know yet.

As a Christian, my understanding is founded in the revelations therein. We are told that the soul dies when the individual does, be it animal or human.
We are also told that the spirit returns to God. Jesus and Stephen both said when they died something that may be understood as, "receive my spirit:"

Stephen: Acts 7:59 . . .receive my spirit. . .
Jesus: John 19:30 . . .he delivered up [his] spirit.
Luke 23:46 . . .“Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit.. . .
Matthew 27:50 50 Again Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and yielded up [his] spirit.​

While I have an idea of what the spirit is based on scripture, it seems that there might be more to it than I understand at present.

Here then we have you use the word 'soul' which I cannot since scripture clearly tells us it dies. I can, however, use the word 'spirit' about man's spirit that God shapes and receives back upon death of that individual.

​

 

[Grandliseur]

You are saying that, because we cannot explain NDEs naturally, there is evidence for the soul.

Answering once more perhaps.
If you looked at my original post, you would see that I clearly state the on death, the soul dies, and that the soul is the entire being, not some vaporous immaterial thing that can be separated from the body or the person..
The spirit is what returns to God, here there is what may be unknown to me.

 

[atanu]

That's just an assertion and in no way means we should accept a soul prima facie. Why should different conscious states imply a soul? I can imagine, or at least entertain the possibility of an artificial intelligence with conscious states that is purely material. Where's your demonstration that different conscious states are impossible in a material universe.


The soul is speculation and has no evidence. The reasonable position is "we don't know", not: "I don't understand how conscious states are possible in a material universe, therefore a soul exists". Its a combination of an argument from ignorance and an argument from personal incredulity.

Whether you accept or not is of no consequence towards the fact that you exist as an unitive consciousness.

 

[Looncall]

To me, the soul is what makes us think and reason and learn.
You obviously think and reason, because you asked a very interesting question.
My cat cannot do that.
No other animal life in existence can do that.
There are millions of animal species. No others can do that.
Only humans.
Scientists have shown us that millions of animal species have inhabited the earth for hundreds of millions of years.
Yet, all those millions of life forms, existing for all those millions of years, none of them ever invented a wheel, let alone a car, or a microscope, or a telescope, or anything. None. Never.
Yet, look what humans have done in such a brief period of time.
Humans learn, no other animal can. That’s the soul.

Balderdash. My labrador retriever dog clear!y thinks, reasons and learns. Even if your account were accurate, you have not shown that those attributes cannot be due to brain function.

The notion of soul is clearly an ancient error thinking, akin to asking where fire goes when fuel runs out.

 

[1137]

I think the soul is the individual Platonic Form. Since Platonism must logically be true in my understanding, it simply being true forces the existence of this soul.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I'll give you the link. If you are incapable of finding this when given the direct wording it contains in its name. I looked at video #2:

Since I now have provided you with two links with the exact name included which were given, perhaps you might shut the hell up with your insults.
Can you see that these videos contain this same phrase, "NEAR-DEATH EXPERIENCE #" !

Wonder why this was hard for you?! Wonder why you have to succumb to insults?! Is this a mental deficiency in all atheists?
Since when do we have a dictionary-police force here? That I use the word data loosely to refer to a key phrase of a collection of words you should search for - seems to have greatly offended you. What a sin I committed! I repent, I repent, I repent, I repent! Do I need to write this a hundred times to be forgiven.

All right, all right. I'll stop victimizing you. . . though you did slip into the victim role with great ease. Not sure why you'd voluntarily give me that kind of power over you.

If you don't like how I characterized you, report my posts. I'm cool with it.

I see you picked "Foolish" from my trilemma. I'll reply a bit later with my takedown of your "evidence" when I have time. . . 'Till then, hugs and kisses from the atheist wing of Oppresion, Inc.

 

[Grandliseur]

All right, all right. I'll stop victimizing you. . . though you did slip into the victim role with great ease. Not sure why you'd voluntarily give me that kind of power over you.

If you don't like how I characterized you, report my posts. I'm cool with it.

I see you picked "Foolish" from my trilemma. I'll reply a bit later with my takedown of your "evidence" when I have time. . . 'Till then, hugs and kisses from the atheist wing of Oppresion, Inc.

Atheists tend not to believe anything that doesn't affect their bank accounts. The mantra is, 'don't let anything negative affect my paradigm.' If it affects their bank accounts, they are very rational, even normal.

You guys don't give a sheet about what is going on in the real world. You believe whatever you want, just wipe your feet on the doormat before you cross my doorstep again; you seem to have stepped in a lot of stinky crap.

 

[leibowde84]

As a Christian, my understanding is founded in the revelations therein. We are told that the soul dies when the individual does, be it animal or human.
We are also told that the spirit returns to God. Jesus and Stephen both said when they died something that may be understood as, "receive my spirit:"

Stephen: Acts 7:59 . . .receive my spirit. . .
Jesus: John 19:30 . . .he delivered up [his] spirit.
Luke 23:46 . . .“Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit.. . .
Matthew 27:50 50 Again Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and yielded up [his] spirit.​

While I have an idea of what the spirit is based on scripture, it seems that there might be more to it than I understand at present.

Here then we have you use the word 'soul' which I cannot since scripture clearly tells us it dies. I can, however, use the word 'spirit' about man's spirit that God shapes and receives back upon death of that individual.

​

You know, you could have just said "because the Bible says so." I've read it many times and know well the many claims about the existence of the soul therein. But, they are just that, claims. It presents no actual evidence of anything.

 

[leibowde84]

Answering once more perhaps.
If you looked at my original post, you would see that I clearly state the on death, the soul dies, and that the soul is the entire being, not some vaporous immaterial thing that can be separated from the body or the person..
The spirit is what returns to God, here there is what may be unknown to me.

You still haven't provided any evidence for the soul, though, apart from "the Bible claims it exists". Do you have an argument that isn't logically fallacious, e.g. an argument from ignorance.

Remember, our lack of a natural explanation does not evidence the supernatural.

 

[Quintessence]

I haven't read through the entire thread, but did the OP define which conception of "soul" they are referring to? I have to surmise they aren't referencing my understanding of the concept, because mine is pretty self-evident and not really something "believed in" as much as "identified as being a thing and acknowledged."

 

[Ponder This]

This is the argument from ignorance. We can't clearly define what a person is or explain it by material means, therefore there must be a non physical self.



Another argument from ignorance back to back. The question hasn't been satisfied, therefore a soul is reasonable to believe. No, that's simply no the case.



I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.



Irrelevant. The existence of wetness is not tied to any particular molecule of water. Its a synergestic effect and an emergent property, just like how video games are an emergent feature of computers even though no particular chip is a video game playing chip.



I reject this

The soul isn't a material thing. The only question is what defines the soul not whether or not it exists. It isn't an argument from ignorance because it has been established that no particular (material) piece of the human body is responsible in and of itself as the quintessential expression of who a person is. It follows that a person has an immaterial component ("the whole is greater than the sum of its parts") and this is by definition the soul ("the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal").

It's existence does not require proof (it's self-evident by definition: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal). There isn't any "lack of evidence" for the soul. It's the fact that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts that allows us to define the soul.

The soul is a metaphysical concept, like the number one. It doesn't make sense for to go around demanding evidence for the existence of the number one. Scientists aren't going to capture the number one in a jar! There could be one apple or one orange, but neither an apple nor an orange is the number one. We can't call it Argument from Ignorance. It doesn't make sense. The number one is "one" by definition and not because we lack evidence for it.

The existence of wetness is not tied to any particular molecule of water. So it's entirely relevant.
If you disagree, then maybe you should say exactly what the problem is. Are you denying the existence of emergent properties? If so, why?

 

[Nakosis]

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

Feelings.


People feel they have an existence which is not connected to the physical body. I think this is in a way true as the subconscious mind isolates the conscious self from much of the rest of the physical body. This is in a way necessary because the physical body has constant input from all its senses. The conscious self is isolated from this input and instead receives a multitude of feelings to shift through. Fear, pain, love, hate.

The conscious self then decides on which feelings has the most importance and can focus on dealing with whatever is the cause of that specific feeling. That focus isolates the conscious self from whatever else is going on with the body.

So the soul is really the conscious self. Since it feels this isolation/separation from the rest of the physical self, it assume this to be the true case.