What's the justification for believing in the soul?

[serp777]

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?

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?

Conscious thoughts occur in brains and are then translated into sentences by electrical impulses.

why is there not a soul?

You're shifting the burden of proof. Its not my job to demonstrate that there isn't a soul, its your job to demonstrate that there is.

 

[area28]

Prove separation first

 

[osgart]

it's also only assertion that there is no such thing as soul. there is no evidence that humans are only material bodies.

 

[Grandliseur]

Time came into existence with the big bang, so it doesn't make any sense to say that he existed before all other things.

Atheist logic at work is truly hilarious.
When a child is born, we count its age from that moment. Though we could have counted from when the sperm joined the egg, it is easier to do it our normal way. Time began for that being at that moment. Since the entity, that being, didn't exist before, time didn't exist for it either.

Time in our universe began for this universe at its inception. Before it existed, time didn't exist for it; though, if something else existed before it, it would count time differently than we know.

so it doesn't make any sense to say that he existed before all other things

It only make no sense to an atheist with limited ability to see beyond his own nose.

Since time began when the universe did,

Here your mistake is so obvious, it could even be a deliberate lie for all I know. Though, of course, you could be ignorant of what is believed by many atheists. The point about the fine tuning of our universe was so unpalatable to scientists that they had no way around this at the time; for this reason, the concept of the multiverse and panes was invented where in this universe, panes (new or old universes) may be coming to be a various intervals. If that is the claim, then clearly the multiverse existed before our universe, and, though, time began for our universe at its Bang, time clearly existed for the multiverse before then.
Babysitting once more!

I mean why does Saul get a Damascus road experience and not us?

If you knew the Bible, you would know that though God answers prayers of all the righteous, and at times says 'No!' many of us get prayers answered that are not against his will -- the thing is that from the beginning of mankind, God never dealt with the individual when he spoke. He always spoke through selected prophets. Thus Saul. Saul had an educational background and zeal for God though misdirected. God or in this case, Christ re-directed this zeal to the true road of righteousness. In certain things, Paul taught us more than all other apostles.

your assertions don't do it justice

That is perhaps my failure. Sorry.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Conscious thoughts occur in brains and are then translated into sentences by electrical impulses.

they appear to occur there yes, as conscious thoughts appear to occur on your screen, as all intuitive mechanisms like classical physics, appeared to occur by their own means... that's only intuitive-' the simplest explanation' right?

but where do they really come from? whether or not the brain is the entire origination... speculation aside, we simply don't know that, do we?

You're shifting the burden of proof. Its not my job to demonstrate that there isn't a soul, its your job to demonstrate that there is.

I'm putting it where it belongs, to be generous in fact- in neutral ground. There is no precedent, no 'default explanation' for how consciousness 'usually' works- , and so any explanation must stand on it's own merits, unless you don't think your's can?

The only verified example we have for electrical information system origins, does, by simple logical functionality, include a remote 'immortal' counterpart/ proxy/ backup/ however you prefer to put it, and you are using proof of that right now

This is not to say that it's impossible that our information processing works differently, to other known systems. It's just not something we can verify- far less assume as 'default'

 

[idav]

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.

IMO we are living souls, something in between material and immaterial but there is no separating the soul from the substance. It's what we are made of.

 

[serp777]

IMO we are living souls, something in between material and immaterial but there is no separating the soul from the substance. It's what we are made of.

What justification do we have to think that? I mean are you using the soul in a figurative sense or do you mean something like a supernatural entity/ghost that attaches to the brain?

 

[serp777]

Atheist logic at work is truly hilarious.
When a child is born, we count its age from that moment. Though we could have counted from when the sperm joined the egg, it is easier to do it our normal way. Time began for that being at that moment. Since the entity, that being, didn't exist before, time didn't exist for it either.

Time in our universe began for this universe at its inception. Before it existed, time didn't exist for it; though, if something else existed before it, it would count time differently than we know.

It only make no sense to an atheist with limited ability to see beyond his own nose.

Here your mistake is so obvious, it could even be a deliberate lie for all I know. Though, of course, you could be ignorant of what is believed by many atheists. The point about the fine tuning of our universe was so unpalatable to scientists that they had no way around this at the time; for this reason, the concept of the multiverse and panes was invented where in this universe, panes (new or old universes) may be coming to be a various intervals. If that is the claim, then clearly the multiverse existed before our universe, and, though, time began for our universe at its Bang, time clearly existed for the multiverse before then.
Babysitting once more!

If you knew the Bible, you would know that though God answers prayers of all the righteous, and at times says 'No!' many of us get prayers answered that are not against his will -- the thing is that from the beginning of mankind, God never dealt with the individual when he spoke. He always spoke through selected prophets. Thus Saul. Saul had an educational background and zeal for God though misdirected. God or in this case, Christ re-directed this zeal to the true road of righteousness. In certain things, Paul taught us more than all other apostles.

That is perhaps my failure. Sorry.

When a child is born, we count its age from that moment. Though we could have counted from when the sperm joined the egg, it is easier to do it our normal way. Time began for that being at that moment. Since the entity, that being, didn't exist before, time didn't exist for it either.

You haven't given us a single reason or piece of evidence that would let us conclude that the beginning of the universe and the beginning of time could be remotely comparable to the time of a child being born. The reason why this is a false analogy is because time, according to the current laws of physics, came into existence after the big bang whereas in your analogy time existed both before and after. I don't accept your assertion that there was any kind of time before the big bang.

The point about the fine tuning of our universe was so unpalatable to scientists that they had no way around this at the time; for this reason, the concept of the multiverse and panes was invented where in this universe, panes (new or old universes) may be coming to be a various intervals. If that is the claim, then clearly the multiverse existed before our universe, and, though, time began for our universe at its Bang, time clearly existed for the multiverse before then.
Babysitting once more!

This is a strawman. I never made any argument about the multiverse nor am I one of those scientists. My position is that I don't know if there was a multiverse or anything before our universe for that matter. Also you're implying an argument from ignorance yet again-- "We can't explain fine tuning, therefore we need God".

So much for baby sitting. Spend more time on mitigating your massive logic errors.

Here your mistake is so obvious, it could even be a deliberate lie for all I know. Though, of course, you could be ignorant of what is believed by many atheists.

A truly useless red herring and ad hominem attack. Spend more time on your fallacious arguments.

Before it existed, time didn't exist for it; though, if something else existed before it, it would count time differently than we know.

How do you know this? How was time counted differently? Where's your evidence that there was time before the big bang or that it was counted differently?

If you knew the Bible, you would know that though God answers prayers of all the righteous, and at times says 'No!' many of us get prayers answered that are not against his will -- the thing is that from the beginning of mankind, God never dealt with the individual when he spoke.

Yeah and how do you distinguish a random universe with a universe containing a God who seemingly arbitrarily says no? This is just a plain assertion also and its an example of an falsifiable claim. When it works out in your favor, God says yes, and when he doesn't God says no. Its hilarious that you some how believe this is logical. It is a self sustaining proposition and is as ad hoc as you can get. I mean if I just insert any other diety into your sentence its the same sufficient, but non necessary proposition. You haven't proven that your particular deity is necessary.

He always spoke through selected prophets. Thus Saul. Saul had an educational background and zeal for God though misdirected. God or in this case, Christ re-directed this zeal to the true road of righteousness. In certain things, Paul taught us more than all other apostles.

This doesn't solve the problem of divine hiddeness. In a universe of gullibility, liars, errors, insanity, and many other problems, why does God expect me to trust the bible and trust Saul and Paul? Those aren't even their real names you know. We don't know who the authors were and many of the accounts in the bible conflict, particularly surrounding the resurrection of Jesus. The point remains though--why do I have to rely on questionable evidence while Saul got a direct revelation? if God wants to communicate with me he can beam the information to me and i'll believe. He could reveal himself and spell out his desires and morality very clearly. I wouldn't have to trust an ancient book that endorses slavery or encouraging raped women to marry their rapists. if God wants a relationship or for me to know him, then im open to it, but im not willing to accept a highly questionable book especially considering the vast numbers of religions and varying interpretations of Christianity. Differences in Adiaphora alone confirm how unclear the bible is. God is not the author confusion, so I guess he's not the author of the bible.

 

[serp777]

they appear to occur there yes, as conscious thoughts appear to occur on your screen, as all intuitive mechanisms like classical physics, appeared to occur by their own means... that's only intuitive-' the simplest explanation' right?

but where do they really come from? whether or not the brain is the entire origination... speculation aside, we simply don't know that, do we?



I'm putting it where it belongs, to be generous in fact- in neutral ground. There is no precedent, no 'default explanation' for how consciousness 'usually' works- , and so any explanation must stand on it's own merits, unless you don't think your's can?

The only verified example we have for electrical information system origins, does, by simple logical functionality, include a remote 'immortal' counterpart/ proxy/ backup/ however you prefer to put it, and you are using proof of that right now

This is not to say that it's impossible that our information processing works differently, to other known systems. It's just not something we can verify- far less assume as 'default'

we simply don't know that, do we?

I'm fine with saying I don't know. I never claimed to be able to disprove the soul. I'm just saying I don't have a reasonable justification to believe that the soul exists.

I'm putting it where it belongs, to be generous in fact- in neutral ground. There is no precedent, no 'default explanation' for how consciousness 'usually' works- , and so any explanation must stand on it's own merits, unless you don't think your's can?

I don't have an explanation, but the soul isn't an explanation of anything regardless. What does it explain exactly? How does it help me understand more? Because an explanation is supposed to convey additional information and the soul is basically what amounts to trying to explain a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery. Also, this is yet the argument from ignorance again. Well im going to go with my ad hoc explanation because you don't have a good enough explanation. I can make up some nonsensical, but sufficient explanation, but that doesn't mean its correct. its just the argument from ignorance.

Also, we don't establish the truth by putting things into the "neutral ground." Its not like Thor, Vodoo, and Zeus are all on neutral ground until they're disporved. These things are summarily rejected because there's no evidence. Therefore the burden of proof always goes on the person making the claim, and I'm not claiming that the soul doesn't exist, just that I don't have good reasons to believe ti does exist.

 

[serp777]

it's also only assertion that there is no such thing as soul. there is no evidence that humans are only material bodies.

Except i'm not arguing that the soul doesn't exist. I'm just saying there's no rational justification to believe a soul does exist. You're trying to shift the burden of proof by creating a strawman of my position.

 

[Grandliseur]

lso you're implying an argument from ignorance yet again

Wasn't me that said this. It was one of the scientists who was among those inventing this multiverse since they felt that otherwise God's existence could not be denied.

The irony in this is that the Bible already teaches that God resides in the original universe and that ours is a creation so that God's time clearly was tic-toc-ing before this universe was created.
----------
As to the rest of your post, you have the right to your beliefs. It is neither here not there to me what others believe.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Wasn't me that said this. It was one of the scientists who was among those inventing this multiverse since they felt that otherwise God's existence could not be denied.

Science is not a conspiracy against theism and no scientific theory has ever been posited to deny the existence of God.

 

[serp777]

Wasn't me that said this. It was one of the scientists who was among those inventing this multiverse since they felt that otherwise God's existence could not be denied.

The irony in this is that the Bible already teaches that God resides in the original universe and that ours is a creation so that God's time clearly was tic-toc-ing before this universe was created.
----------
As to the rest of your post, you have the right to your beliefs. It is neither here not there to me what others believe.

Ok then why did you raise that at all? I never made one of those claims about the multiverse nor am I one of those scientists. And then you presented things like you had a slam dunk argument. The only thing I could imagine you doing was using that as a segway to bring up the fine tuning argument. So what on earth was the point of that if you weren't trying to bring up? Was it a strawman and you trying to tie me to the position you wanted?

The irony in this is that the Bible already teaches that God resides in the original universe and that ours is a creation so that God's time clearly was tic-toc-ing before this universe was created.

Well you've given no reason to explain why we should accept assertions like those from the bible.

As to the rest of your post, you have the right to your beliefs. It is neither here not there to me what others believe.

In other words you have no rebuttal or rational response so you're brushing off the rest of the argument and acting like you somehow had the upper hand.

 

[Grandliseur]

Science is not a conspiracy against theism and no scientific theory has ever been posited to deny the existence of God.

Please look at the following video by Professor Leonard Susskind .
Pay especially heed to the points at: 2:00 min, 2:31, 3:00, 3:20, 4:10 and even what follows. Let me know if after you see this very interesting video, if you still in all honesty can say what you did in your quote here:

 

[Grandliseur]

Ok then why did you raise that at all? I never made one of those claims about the multiverse nor am I one of those scientists. And then you presented things like you had a slam dunk argument. The only thing I could imagine you doing was using that as a segway to bring up the fine tuning argument. So what on earth was the point of that if you weren't trying to bring up? Was it a strawman and you trying to tie me to the position you wanted?

Well you've given no reason to explain why we should accept assertions like those from the bible.

In other words you have no rebuttal or rational response so you're brushing off the rest of the argument and acting like you somehow had the upper hand.

That you pick and choose what you believe according to science doesn't surprise me a whole lot. I merely showed you that your claim about time beginning at the Big Bang is your claim and surely not that of many scientists. That you brush off this so as to serve your needs, is fine. Just don't think that others will accept your personal assertions.

There is no reason to continue this.

 

[Faithofchristian]

What's the justification for believing in the soul?
Knowing what happens to a person after they die.
A person body is what house's a person soul,spirit.
That after a person dies, their body decays to become dust, that returns back to the earth.
But the soul,spirit which is in a person body, returns back to God who gave it.

To be judge on according to what they did in their life time.

Some people will claim that after a person dies, there's nothing more. But where's the proof of this.
Not even the world of scientist have no proof, Whether there is life or whether there's not life after death.
Is there anyone who has been dead for a long period of time 1,2,3,4
Ect-------------- years and came back ?

 

[area28]

What justification do we have to think that? I mean are you using the soul in a figurative sense or do you mean something like a supernatural entity/ghost that attaches to the brain?

The argument from desire fits well here :

Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, has written that C.S. Lewis’s “argument from desire” is, apart from Anselm’s “ontological argument,” “the single most intriguing argument in the history of human thought” (p 249). This is an argument for the existence of God (and heaven). St. Augustine and Goethe also used this argument.

So what is this argument that so many have claimed is actually the best one for God’s existence? Kreeft provides a concise description: “The major premise of the argument is that every natural or innate desire in us bespeaks a corresponding real object that can satisfy the desire. The minor premise is that there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature, can satisfy. The conclusion is that there exists something outside of time, earth, and creatures which can satisfy this desire” (p 250).

A Short on the Argument from Desire (Goethe, Lewis, Kreeft)

 

[idav]

What justification do we have to think that? I mean are you using the soul in a figurative sense or do you mean something like a supernatural entity/ghost that attaches to the brain?

As far as I can tell, science is showing us that everythting is really one at the micro scale. Now any basic knowledge of physics tells us this. I state the implications that there would be sort of like "one spirit". A soul would be spirit that's confused and thinks it's an individual.

 

[idav]

Please look at the following video by Professor Leonard Susskind .
Pay especially heed to the points at: 2:00 min, 2:31, 3:00, 3:20, 4:10 and even what follows. Let me know if after you see this very interesting video, if you still in all honesty can say what you did in your quote here:

I don't agree with the premise of the video, so I closed it, it's impossible for there to have been a "sterile universe".

 

[Grandliseur]

I don't agree with the premise of the video, so I closed it, it's impossible for there to have been a "sterile universe".

Closed it - though the speakers all are professors telling us how and why the multiverse came to be. Truly open-minded I see. The fact that someone made use of this information to demonstrate that what you claimed in the previous quote is quite false should not affect what the professors state about the subject.