Proof for the existence of a Soul

[SeebianWurm]

This is from an off-forum debate. So far this guy has been continuously defeated, but a little while ago he posted this, which is supposed to use logic to prove the existence of a soul. He didn't define soul in the first place, but the logic is throwing me through a loop. I know this guy is bullshitting, but I can't put into words exactly how. Suggestions or assistance would be gladly accepted.

I'm not sure if this is breaking the new guidelines or not, though...

Can you prove the soul exists?

Yes, actually. The scientific method cannot be used in this case; and would be foolhardy to use, since even if the soul existed, because it is immaterial, empiricism would be blind to its existence. The scientific method can neither confirm nor deny the existence of a soul; therefore, some other standard must be used.

This mechanism is logic. The logical argument for a soul is founded upon the Law of Identity, which states that if A and B are equal, then all that is true of A is necessarily true of B; and that all properties of A are the same as all properties of B.

If the soul does not exist, and we are our bodies and nothing more, then this ought to be confirmed by the Law of Identity.

There are a few arguments that show that this is not the case.

1) The body is dubitable, but the self is not.

For instance, it is possible that my body does not exist (see: The Matrix). However, by the very fact that I doubt the existence of my body, someone is doubting; and that person IS. "To doubt is to exist."


2) The body changes, the self does not

Those of you immersed in the realm of science know that every 9 years or so, the body is completely remade; not only the cells, but the molecules and atoms as well.

However, if I were to say, "I've changed a lot in the past 2 decades," that statement, in and of itself, inherently assumes a dualism of body and soul. The "change" happened to the same person, though his body completely physically changed. Something stayed the same - it is not the physical; therefore, it must be immaterial.

Those are just a couple of arguments. I can't claim that I made them up; rather, I got the premise (and the core of the arguments) from a friend. I think they serve reasonably well, though. Yes, they're underdeveloped in here, but I didn't have much time. Sorry. =)

[Joe]

Yes, actually. The scientific method cannot be used in this case; and would be foolhardy to use, since even if the soul existed, because it is immaterial, empiricism would be blind to its existence. The scientific method can neither confirm nor deny the existence of a soul; therefore, some other standard must be used.

In other words, since I can't use naturalistic science to prove my crackpot theories, I have to use alternative, less valid means.

And the scientific method can also neither confirm or deny that there are galaxies out there made of pink foam; it can, however, set forth the theory that based on known evidence, it is extremely unlikely that there are in fact galaxies out there made of pink foam. It is the same with the soul; there is no evidence to suggest that a soul exists, and therefore any theory postulating the existence of a soul cannot be borne out through rigorous scientific reasoning.

1) The body is dubitable, but the self is not.

For instance, it is possible that my body does not exist (see: The Matrix). However, by the very fact that I doubt the existence of my body, someone is doubting; and that person IS. "To doubt is to exist."

I do not understand the allusion to The Matrix. The body does in fact exist in the film, the brain is simply connected to a network that creates a false reality. However, without human brains, there could be no Matrix. So the allusion doesn't help his case.

And yes, it is indeed possible that the body does not exist. But what is the more likely theory based on empirical evidence here; that the body does in fact exist, or that we're just non-corporeal beings floating around somewhere under the impression that we have a real body? And what is so difficult to accept about the most likely theory concerning the doubt you speak of; that it is nothing more than an amalgam of complex chemical reactions occuring in the brain?

However, if I were to say, "I've changed a lot in the past 2 decades," that statement, in and of itself, inherently assumes a dualism of body and soul. The "change" happened to the same person, though his body completely physically changed. Something stayed the same - it is not the physical; therefore, it must be immaterial.

I am ever the scientific layman, but as far as I am aware the brain, which is what makes us who we are, is not remade in this way. Neurons do not regrow easily, so it seems unlikely based on my limited knowledge that the brain is completely remade.

[SeebianWurm]

Your thoughts helped me get over the hump, and realize the inherent strawman built into his argument. He also made several false assumptions. If anyone wishes, I could post my refutation here, but that's irrelevant to the debate.

Thanks.

[kojikun]

You mean there ARENT galaxies made of pink foam? But then where do the unicorns live?

Silly man, thinking you need evidence for a soul. If you have religion, have religion, don't try to back it up with science. Why can't people just shut up with the pseudoscientific bullshit.

And whats more, ones self is not made up of ones parts but ones thoughts.

[NapoleonGH]

id be interested in seeing your refutation

[Rye]

Neurones don't regrow, this is why stuff like alzheimers(sp) and cjd etc are lethal. We can't regrow the brain and people deteriorate. Stem cells may hold the answer to this, but that's currently being done research, and causes al sorts of political problems.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Again with the pink foam? AHH! *head explodes*

[Cyborg Stan]

1) The body is dubitable, but the self is not.

For instance, it is possible that my body does not exist (see: The Matrix). However, by the very fact that I doubt the existence of my body, someone is doubting; and that person IS. "To doubt is to exist."

This makes no sense. Is he just restating the old "I think, therefor I am."? How does this show that there's an immaterial soul? All it does is show that your own mind exists, which having a fleshy body already explains very nicely.

2) The body changes, the self does not

Those of you immersed in the realm of science know that every 9 years or so, the body is completely remade; not only the cells, but the molecules and atoms as well.

However, if I were to say, "I've changed a lot in the past 2 decades," that statement, in and of itself, inherently assumes a dualism of body and soul. The "change" happened to the same person, though his body completely physically changed. Something stayed the same - it is not the physical; therefore, it must be immaterial.

If you take a computer, and slowly replace it's parts with an exact duplicate atom by atom, would the end result be the same computer?

Who cares? More importantly, the computer in question wouldn't notice a thing. Given that thoughts are a consequence of the physical brain..........

[SeebianWurm]

Since Napoleon asked, here's my refutation. I quoted Durran Korr where his wordage seemed best, which basically consists of the first point. I hope you don't mind.

Can you prove the soul exists?

Yes, actually. The scientific method cannot be used in this case; and would be foolhardy to use, since even if the soul existed, because it is immaterial, empiricism would be blind to its existence. The scientific method can neither confirm nor deny the existence of a soul; therefore, some other standard must be used.

In other words, since I can't use naturalistic science to prove my crackpot theories, I have to use alternative, less valid means.

And the scientific method can also neither confirm or deny that there are galaxies out there made of pink foam; it can, however, set forth the theory that based on known evidence, it is extremely unlikely that there are in fact galaxies out there made of pink foam. It is the same with the soul; there is no evidence to suggest that a soul exists, and therefore any theory postulating the existence of a soul cannot be borne out through rigorous scientific reasoning.

Thought after the fact: Durran's explanation seemed absolutely perfect. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If the soul does not exist, and we are our bodies and nothing more, then this ought to be confirmed by the Law of Identity.

Strawman. We are the nondiscontinous process of thinking, which is an array of complex chemical reactions in the brain. If you stop thinking even for an instant, you are dead and no longer exist. Even if the body was restarted, it would be another person. You would be dead, as your thought process had been discontinued.

2) The body changes, the self does not

Those of you immersed in the realm of science know that every 9 years or so, the body is completely remade; not only the cells, but the molecules and atoms as well.

As far as I know, the neurons in the brain are never ever regrown, and definitely not on such a large scale as to replace the entire brain.

However, if I were to say, "I've changed a lot in the past 2 decades," that statement, in and of itself, inherently assumes a dualism of body and soul. The "change" happened to the same person, though his body completely physically changed.

You're assuming that your personality is an object, something that tangibly exists. It is not. It is a process. And it's the process of uninterrupted thoughts that recognize the change.

Something stayed the same - it is not the physical; therefore, it must be immaterial.

A bad starting point. It is the physical that remained; the physical topography of the mental state. Matter makes consciousness.

[jegs2]

A soul is part of the spiritual realm, which is separate from the physical realm, which is made up of physical matter. The scientific method is used to test things in the physical universe. As the spirit is not made up of physical matter, science can neither prove nor disprove spiritual beings. One can surmise that spiritual beings have power of manipulation over the physical universe, but since one cannot prove or disprove spirits, one cannot prove or disprove that supposition. Trust in things and/or beings that are spiritual in nature is based on faith and on faith only.

[SeebianWurm]

Trust in things and/or beings that are spiritual in nature is based on faith and on faith only.

That's the part that Tanus refuses to understand.

[Joe]

What angers me is when people attempt to use logical reasoning to support the non-materialistic view of the universe. I have no real problem with people who do not accept materialism, as long as they acknowledge the irrationality of such a conviction.

[Axis Kast]

This mechanism is logic. The logical argument for a soul is founded upon the Law of Identity, which states that if A and B are equal, then all that is true of A is necessarily true of B; and that all properties of A are the same as all properties of B.

He’s first of all beginning with a mathematical theorem correct only when one deals in quantities. A pound of bricks and a pound of feathers are equal in weight alone. It is too much – in fact, it is outright wrong – to then suggest that anything else about either grouping must then be similar. Because a “soul” is evidently not a quantity in this case – he’s attempting to prove existence, not compare two items in numerological terms -, the logical conclusion falls flat on its face.

For instance, it is possible that my body does not exist (see: The Matrix). However, by the very fact that I doubt the existence of my body, someone is doubting; and that person IS. "To doubt is to exist."

Now he’s attempting to argue that human thought is not linked to human physiology – essentially, that his conscious mind represents a “soul” separate from his physical body. This is incorrect. Consider that psychologists have for years been able to observe electrical activity in the brains of their patients – and that those with abnormal behavior – and presumably, abnormal thought process – can at times exhibit highly unusual patterns of that same activity.

[Shrykull]

I am ever the scientific layman, but as far as I am aware the brain, which is what makes us who we are, is not remade in this way. Neurons do not regrow easily, so it seems unlikely based on my limited knowledge that the brain is completely remade.

Actually, I don't believe neurons regrow at all, well, if what you mean is reproduce, we have them all our lives, it's only the axon that grows, unless by regrow you mean when one of them gets cut- it's usually the axon or nerve ending rather than the cell body. They form from Neuroblasts when your a fetus.

[Robert Treder]

One can surmise that spiritual beings have power of manipulation over the physical universe, but since one cannot prove or disprove spirits, one cannot prove or disprove that supposition.

How can a spiritual being have power of manipulation over the physical universe if it is entirely detached from said physical universe? If it altered the universe in any way, it would be detectable and measurable, and therefore not entirely immaterial.

Way I see it, either the soul physically exists (which we know is not a tenable position), or it doesn't. There isn't much point to saying "It exists, but you can't possibly perceive it," because if you can't possibly perceive it, then who fucking cares whether or not it exists? It would, after all, only exist just as much as my guardian dragon who farts pixie dust.

[jegs2]

As I said, it is a matter of faith. As one who is a Christian, I have a special knowledge of the presence of the Holy Spirit, because I have exercised the faith mentioned in the following passage:

John 3: 16 - 18
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
(NIV)

Prior to accepting Christ as Lord and Savior, no such knowledge existed within me, nor indeed did I feel the presence of anything spiritual. Faith is the key to revelation of the spiritual realm. Therefore, without the vital component of faith, I do not believe it possible for one to detect spiritual presence, and so one is relegated to detection only of that which is in the physical realm.

Indeed, since God created the entire physical universe and time itself, He exists outside of both but is able to affect that which he created at will. As he exists apart from time (it being His creation), he is not subject to the laws of time, and he is able to see and affect all points within time. The same can be said of the physical universe. As we are bound by both the physical universe and time, we are no more capable of comprehending existance apart from them than would an aomeba be capable of writing a book on nuclear physics. Thus we see that when we are told that God had no beginning and no end, it cannot make sense to us -- until we have exercised the key component of faith and have been made aware. Paul writes the following in 1 Cor 1:18-20:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

Paul points out that those who do not exercise the faith found in John 3:16 - 18 ("those who are perishing") perceive the message of Christ as foolishness. Moreover, even the entire concept of the spiritual realm can be perceived as foolishness by those who have not exercised that faith. Again, I believe they are incapable of understanding without that faith -- as though a door to detection of the spirit remains slammed shut.

So, in the end we come right back to what I said before -- it is a matter of faith and nothing more.

[Robert Treder]

Very well, it most certainly is a matter of faith. But what one has faith in must be the fact that the spirit exists exclusively independent of the physical realm, and cannot possibly interact with the physical realm.
Believing that this spirit exists is an act of faith, believing that this spirit interacts with our universe is an act of folly.

[NapoleonGH]

Neurons DO regrow, certain types of them do regrow after they die or are damaged, but they regrow with the same connections as their predicessors


If we stopped thinking and our brain was restarted we would still be the exact same person btw, becasue what makes us who we are is quite simply, the connections between neurons, how they interconnect, where the connections are, what type of transmitters are used to transmit messages across specific synapses ect.

[jinx]

The soul does have one interaction with the physical realm, albeit inderect. by ones belief in their soul one is inclined to react diferently to situations acordingly. Thus, through no physical connection, the soul is able to interact with the physical realm. Of course this also means that the soul has the same interaction even if it doesn't exist.

The thing about trying to prove religion is that, not only is it unnessesary, but, also impossible & makes my brain feel twisty. Its meant to be believed in, not proven. That's what makes it a religion. Duh.

[h0rus]

Prior to accepting Christ as Lord and Savior, no such knowledge existed within me, nor indeed did I feel the presence of anything spiritual. Faith is the key to revelation of the spiritual realm. Therefore, without the vital component of faith, I do not believe it possible for one to detect spiritual presence, and so one is relegated to detection only of that which is in the physical realm.

That's painfully funny to read. I'm about to die here. Somebody save me!

[Zoink]

Doesn't Occam's Razor say that if there isn't a reason to seperate mind and body, we shouldn't assume that seperation exists?

As far as I know, my mind and body are one unit, parts of which I suppose could be illusions, or change over time (including memories, instincts, etc.... extreme example is the movie "Dark City")... but in any case, there is no evidence that mind can exist seperate from the body.

[Joe]

Prior to accepting Christ as Lord and Savior, no such knowledge existed within me, nor indeed did I feel the presence of anything spiritual. Faith is the key to revelation of the spiritual realm. Therefore, without the vital component of faith, I do not believe it possible for one to detect spiritual presence, and so one is relegated to detection only of that which is in the physical realm.

That's painfully funny to read. I'm about to die here. Somebody save me!

How about you abstain from insulting jegs?