What's the justification for believing in the soul?

[leibowde84]

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.

But, why would "feeling" evidence anything? Our perception as humans has repeatedly turned out to be faulty. We "felt" that the earth was flat. We "felt" that the earth was the center of the universe. We "feel" like human beings are special, but we are really just another species of primates. So, why would "feelings" evidence a soul in any real way?

 

[Nakosis]

But, why would "feeling" evidence anything? Our perception as humans has repeatedly turned out to be faulty. We "felt" that the earth was flat. We "felt" that the earth was the center of the universe. We "feel" like human beings are special, but we are really just another species of primates. So, why would "feelings" evidence a soul in any real way?

Feelings are evidence of something. That's all I'm saying. Some believe it is of the soul, I believe it provided evidence of the conscious self.

Evidence is just evidence. It doesn't decide for itself the conclusion we draw from it. It is still up to us individually to make that determination. Ideally we draw on other evidence to support that conclusion. It's still all just a "convincing" argument.

 

[leibowde84]

Feelings are evidence of something. That's all I'm saying. Some believe it is of the soul, I believe it provided evidence of the conscious self.

Evidence is just evidence. It doesn't decide for itself the conclusion we draw from it. It is still up to us individually to make that determination. Ideally we draw on other evidence to support that conclusion. It's still all just a "convincing" argument.

My point is that "feelings" are not evidence of anything but the existence of "feelings".

 

[Nakosis]

My point is that "feelings" are not evidence of anything but the existence of "feelings".

So do you think feelings just happen out of the blue? There is no cause for them?

I doubt this is what you mean but it seems to imply this. This is pretty much true of all evidence. Evidence is just evidence of itself. We are just used to accepting most conclusions which are commonly drawn.

There is always the possibility of an unknown factor which may make our conclusions false.

 

[leibowde84]

So do you think feelings just happen out of the blue? There is no cause for them?

No, they are most likely chemical reactions in the brain.

 

[Nakosis]

No, they are most likely chemical reactions in the brain.

Right, which was caused by something. Some folks see the soul as a "receiver" of messages from a divine source. My conclusion is the "receiver" is the conscious self and the "messenger" is the subconscious mind. The fact that these feelings exist is the evidence that I'm going by.

There maybe other evidence which supports or refutes my conclusion. If I'm real stubborn I can find cause to reject the evidence or even twist the conclusion others have drawn from the evidence to support my own.

Anyway the point being we make the connection between the evidence and conclusion in all cases. Feelings are no different in this.

 

[leibowde84]

Right, which was caused by something. Some folks see the soul as a "receiver" of messages from a divine source. My conclusion is the "receiver" is the conscious self and the "messenger" is the subconscious mind. The fact that these feelings exist is the evidence that I'm going by.

There maybe other evidence which supports or refutes my conclusion. If I'm real stubborn I can find cause to reject the evidence or even twist the conclusion others have drawn from the evidence to support my own.

Anyway the point being we make the connection between the evidence and conclusion in all cases. Feelings are no different in this.

I would say that the most plausible explanation is that outside stimuli create chemical reactions in our brain via our senses.

 

[Nakosis]

I would say that the most plausible explanation is that outside stimuli create chemical reactions in our brain via our senses.

Sure, I agree. I find validation of this interesting. I think if more folks looked into it they would likely change their conclusions about what the "soul" actually is.

 

[Desert Snake]

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

I believe that 'souls', our personal spirit, was created by God, YHWH elohim. The souls exist previous to any incarnation in a body, and therefore yes, are intrinsically linked to 'monotheism'.


Aside from that, I'm still not sure if your ideas match monotheism, but that label is your choice, I suppose.

 

[Jumi]

Aside from that, I'm still not sure if your ideas match monotheism, but that label is your choice, I suppose.

They match only if monotheism means having one God, not more or less. That's what I experienced.

 

[Grandliseur]

know well the many claims about the existence of the soul therein.

Perhaps you might benefit from this link: >Truth Seeker - Soul--Immortal? Animals?<

Church teaching on the soul and Bible teaching usually does not match. Take the link for a spin.
If you believe the Bible or not is up to you. It is the foundation for all I believe. Just don't take for granted that you know exactly what this means. I am also OEC,

 

[Grandliseur]

You still haven't provided any evidence for the soul, though, apart from "the Bible claims it exists"

Did you see, I indicated that the word soul in the Bible simply is used as we use person today! When the person dies, it dies. Thus, in olden times, someone might say, 'My soul is hungry' while we might say, 'I am hungy.' The word is old and has been used extensively, the problem then is what it was used to denote in Bible times.

Does a person exist? Yes, then according to my above demonstration of how soul was used in olden times, souls also exist, though not as spirit things, as things that live on after death.

 

[Grandliseur]

If God exists, he always has, and we certainly haven't found him yet. My biggest fear is settling on what could be an illusion when the truth might be attainable.
l.

"If God exists, he always has"
Which would mean that he existed before all other things, including our own universe. Being thus outside our universe, yet having access to it, all we would have to go on about God would be what he in his own pleasure reveals to us, if anything is revealed at all.

"My biggest fear is settling on what could be an illusion when the truth might be attainable"
Isn't this where the archaeology of the Bible, the prophecies of the Bible, the miracles witnesses by so many in the Bible, our answered prayers of so many righteous people - come together to show us that God has revealed who, what he wants, etc. from us!

The question that remains then is: what is preventing you from accepting this? Your own desires that perhaps conflict with the message, the commands given?! Or, is it, your social circle? Or, even the fact that churches fail, which they do?

 

[serp777]

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.

People feel they have an existence which is not connected to the physical body.

What people feel is irrelevant to the way reality operates.

Also what's your argument? It sure seems like : "We can't explain how feelings could exist in a purely material universe, and therefore a soul must exist". That's whats known as the argument from ignorance. We don't just assume a soul because something can't be explained. That's fallascious reasoning.

 

[area28]

The soul is a continuation of ones
real identity as it relates back to the Creator
...a part of ones self that never dies.
So if you don't believe in a creator then
the idea of a soul is useless

 

[serp777]

"If God exists, he always has"
Which would mean that he existed before all other things, including our own universe. Being thus outside our universe, yet having access to it, all we would have to go on about God would be what he in his own pleasure reveals to us, if anything is revealed at all.

"My biggest fear is settling on what could be an illusion when the truth might be attainable"
Isn't this where the archaeology of the Bible, the prophecies of the Bible, the miracles witnesses by so many in the Bible, our answered prayers of so many righteous people - come together to show us that God has revealed who, what he wants, etc. from us!

The question that remains then is: what is preventing you from accepting this? Your own desires that perhaps conflict with the message, the commands given?! Or, is it, your social circle? Or, even the fact that churches fail, which they do?

I thought you were tired of baby sitting atheist? Yet you're still here arguing with alleged atheists.

Which would mean that he existed before all other things, including our own universe.

Time came into existence with the big bang, so it doesn't make any sense to say that he existed before all other things. Since time began when the universe did, God and the universe were existing for the same amount of time. They had both existed for 0 seconds at that point.

Isn't this where the archaeology of the Bible, the prophecies of the Bible, the miracles witnesses by so many in the Bible, our answered prayers of so many righteous people - come together to show us that God has revealed who, what he wants, etc. from us!

No, because many religions can claim the same thing. And because many doubt the voracity of the bible. And because there's no evidence for answered prayer. And because if God was actually concerned with us knowing who he is and what he wants from us, he would beam that information into our heads so we wouldn't have to do guess work from a questionable, ancient book or rely on the reliability of incredibly fallacious humans. I mean why does Saul get a Damascus road experience and not us? Why is God playing favorites? Why do we have to learn dead languages, learn archaeology, and become veritable experts to have any chance of understanding. The problem of divine hiddenness is huge and your assertions don't do it justice.

 

[serp777]

The soul is a continuation of ones
real identity as it relates back to the Creator
...a part of ones self that never dies.
So if you don't believe in a creator then
the idea of a soul is useless

I don't accept your assertion and what evidence do you have that there could only be a soul if a creator exists?

 

[area28]

I don't accept your assertion and what evidence do you have that there could only be a soul if a creator exists?

I would view it along the lines of ACIM
Is there an ACIM section here ? ( im new )

Example : What Is the Soul? - Circle of Atonement

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

You are looking at a large array of conscious thoughts here on your screen- is that where they exist? or deeper? in the silicon chip in your device? represented by electrical impulses like our brains

Or in an ephemeral cloud that cannot be seen but can relay this information among millions of people instantly and simultaneously..., where all the information lives on, long beyond the life of the device that makes it physically present.


We don't have to know how it works, it's simply a logical way to handle creative info-preserve it separately from it's superficial display. That's why it exists

i.e. I'd say it's a tougher question to answer; why would all our information be stored where it cannot be preserved, why is there not a soul?

 

[serp777]

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?

t 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.

This is the definition from argument verbatim lol!!! We don't understand how the human brain produces sentience and personality and other aspects, so there fore a soul must exist! Just because you don't have a material explanation doesn't mean you're justified in asserting the existence of a soul as an ad hoc explanation.

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").

So does water having wetness also have an immaterial component? I mean after all, no single molecule of water is wet. Wetness is an emergent property that arises from the interaction of many molecules. Would you also say that computers have an immaterial video game playing soul because no single transistor could play video games? I mean its preposterous.

It's existence does not require proof (it's self-evident by definition: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal).

I mean do you think you should win the nobel prize by asserting that there is an immaterial part of a human being? I see no reason to accept that. What is the definition of a soul anyways? What exactly is immaterial? Does it have any effect on us? if it does have an effect on us then its measurable and subject to science.

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.

Nobody is suggesting that the number one can be put in a beaker. Also what do you mean by exist? If by exist you mean it has properties, then actually that is demonstrable. Picking up one orange demonstrates the property of oneness. So the idea of oneness is grounded in reality. You can't do anything remotely similar with the soul.