Does the soul exist?

[SteveII]

I did not claim that the list was like a soul.

Then why did you list them ?

A belief in a soul is not a result of experiments. It is a result of one's worldview--which can be arrived at through personal experience or philosophical pursuits. The soul has explanatory power. I don't care if you don't agree. This is important: I am not making an argument that it exists BECAUSE I do not believe it exists for reasons that are available to you. As I repeated twice now, I am explaining the belief.

We all know what the belief is. No one says beliefs are the result of experiment.
One could literally arrive at ANYTHING through "personal experience and philosophical pursuits". We all know how THAT can go off the rails.
Positing those as valid reasons to say something exists is false.

ex·ist
/iɡˈzist/
verb
1. have objective reality or being.

Great. Post the "objective" evidence there are gods or souls.

Your counter argument is the problem. In a nutshell, this is your argument:

1. Only things that can be demonstrated to exist, do exist.
2. A soul cannot be demonstrated to exist.
3. Therefore a soul does not exist.

Number 1 is obviously false. Did quantum particles exist in 1492? Without 1, all you have is an assertion, not an argument.

Nice try. That's NOT my argument.
YOU are claiming there are souls. I did not.

Everything you listed can be shown to exist. Your list is a "no brainer", and is not relevant to the soul topic.
No one has ever seen a soul, detected a soul, or even knows EXACTLY what you mean when you talk about one ... except you claim "something is immaterial" (yet has a boundary of some sort, as it's not someone else's soul).

Quantum particles did exist, but they could not be DEMONSTRATED until recently,
however neither did anyone go around CLAIMING they did in 1492, thus you analogy is false and fails. You falsify it yourself.  

You are asserting there are souls. You tell us you believe in them. Unsupported assertions.
That's nice. Knock yourself out.

I have come to believe through experience and study there are Pink Sparkly Unicorns,
.... and that has as much truth value as your "soul" idea.

I did not assert that souls exist. Asserting requires me to say "souls exist". I never said that, so I did not assert any such thing. The fact that I believe it is not an assertion. For the third or fourth time, I am explaining a belief.

Of much more interest to me was that you thought there exists counter arguments why there is no soul. There are none.

Regarding the "boundary" question, if a soul needs a body and brain to interact with the physical world, then that would necessitate locality because bodies and brains are physical and exist in a physical reality with laws.

[Bucky Ball]

I did not assert that souls exist. Asserting requires me to say "souls exist". I never said that, so I did not assert any such thing.

Nice try. You said

The soul is an immaterial substance that makes you you (the "I" when you refer to yourself).

That is an assertion. You said souls exist. Now you're trying to weasel out of what you did say.
You did NOT say "I believe souls exist".

The fact that I believe it is not an assertion. For the third or fourth time, I am explaining a belief.

I get that you're trying to change the subject.

Of much more interest to me was that you thought there exists counter arguments why there is no soul. There are none.

Never said that.
Of more interest to me is that you think you can read minds.
Why would there be, or need to be, any counter arguments for something you cannot demonstrate or prove or show to be true. They would have as much value as counter arguments concerning unicorns. One does not need anything to counter something that has not been shown to have any truth value.
The fact that there are no counter arguments for anything proves nothing. There are no counter arguments for dragons and zombies. I CAN show that in the Christian religious tradition, the concepts they claim as "soul" evolved and that the tradition they claim they came from, did NOT have any such part of their beliefs.

Regarding the "boundary" question, if a soul needs a body and brain to interact with the physical world, then that would necessitate locality because bodies and brains are physical and exist in a physical reality with laws.

Thanks for falling into the trap. If a soul is local, it cannot be described as "immaterial", as it DOES have a boundary. Your soul, my soul ... not the same.
Boundaries are spatial. Basically you haven't addressed the question, but you did show how idiotic the notion of "immaterial soul" is.

WAITING for you to answer the questions YOU RAISED in YOUR definition of "existence". ... "objective reality". LOL

[SteveII]

If you are trying to understand the belief of a soul, it might be helpful to imagine what God would be compose of (if he exists)--being the ultimate soul. Immaterial, consists of a mind, a free will, personhood, capacity for emotions, etc.

[Bucky Ball]

If you are trying to understand the belief of a soul, it might be helpful to imagine what God would be compose of (if he exists)--being the ultimate soul. Immaterial, consists of a mind, a free will, personhood, capacity for emotions, etc.

It's not helpful. Theists here telling us what they believe. We all knw all that nonsense.

LOL. And bounded by what ? Woops.
A soul ... ah yes, all that anthropomorphized stuff. Man creates the gods.
A "personal" god is a person. Not another person ... bounded. Woops.I thought god was an infinite being ? Can't be a person and infinite.
There is NO example anywhere of a mind in the absence of a physical brain.
Why would a god be a "he" ?
Why would a god need "free will" (assuming there is such a thing ?)
Emotions come from (only) brain chemical reactions. What is god's oxytocin level ?

OMG.
The rubbish we have to put up with.

[SteveII]

BTW, she didn't ask you what your beliefs are. She asked how it made sense if it was immaterial / supernatural.
Then you replied "A soul IS ...". You didn't say "I believe (my beliefs are) a soul is". You asserted what a soul is.  
Then you tried to change what anyone can see happened here.

You go me! I asserted what a soul is. Which, incidentally, is exactly the same thing as explaining the contents of a belief.

Anyway, I tire of the whole "assertion" nonsense. In spite of me clarifying that I assert nothing, you continue to insist I am. I don't care.

[Bucky Ball]

BTW, she didn't ask you what your beliefs are. She asked how it made sense if it was immaterial / supernatural.
Then you replied "A soul IS ...". You didn't say "I believe (my beliefs are) a soul is". You asserted what a soul is.  
Then you tried to change what anyone can see happened here.

You go me! I asserted what a soul is. Which, incidentally, is exactly the same thing as explaining the contents of a belief.

Anyway, I tire of the whole "assertion" nonsense. In spite of me clarifying that I assert nothing, you continue to insist I am. I don't care.

Saying "a soul is" is absolutely NOT saying "I believe a soul is". But if you think they are, that's all nice, dear, you run out and play now.
Dishonesty is not something we are surprised at here from people who claim to be Christians.
Maybe Jebus will send us someone else who's up to the task of apologizing for his cult.

Glad you don't care. There is no reason to care about souls. There is no reason to think there is any such thing.
The idea is not Biblical. We know it's changed a lot over the centuries.
They have no impact on anyone's life anymore that the Pink Sparkly Unicorns do.

STILL WAITING for the "objective" evidence that your god exists and souls exist.

[SteveII]

Thanks for falling into the trap. If a soul is local, it cannot be described as "immaterial", as it DOES have a boundary. Your soul, my soul ... not the same.
Boundaries are spatial. Basically you haven't addressed the question, but you did show how idiotic the notion of "immaterial soul" is.

WAITING for you to answer the questions YOU RAISED in YOUR definition of "existence". ... "objective reality". LOL

The connection to the physical world has locality (necessarily). The word 'immaterial' covers the fact that the soul itself is not physically present. There is no need to worry about the substance mixing with others because there is nothing to mix.

The word 'objective' in philosophical/metaphysical terms (which the word 'exists' clearly is) just means independent from subjectivity. SO the definition I gave for 'exists' means have objective not subjective reality or being

Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence, sometimes used synonymously with neutrality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

[Cheerful Charlie]

Do animals have souls?

https://philosophynow.org/issues/108/Des...of_Animals

Long ago, this question was widely debated. Rene Descartes said no. How do we know one way or the other? How do we even begin to really investigate the existence of the soul, much less it's nature and fine details? Why should we trust anybody's mere opinion on the matter without ability to demonstrate hard evidence for anything on the subject? Since the nearly four centuries of debate on the soul, it's existence and nature, what real progress has there been?

[grympy]

Do animals have souls?

https://philosophynow.org/issues/108/Des...of_Animals

Long ago, this question was widely debated.  Rene Descartes said no.  How do we know one way or the other?    How do we even begin to really investigate the existence of the soul, much less it's nature and fine details?  Why should we trust anybody's mere opinion on the matter without ability to demonstrate hard evidence for anything on the subject?  Since the nearly four centuries of debate on the soul, it's existence and nature, what real progress has there been?

 Do animals have souls? Who knows? We can't even agree about humans . For humans AND animals;  I've seen no proof. 

At my Catholic school, were  taught that animals do not have souls because they lack the ability  to reason 
 
Hinduism is probably the world's oldest religion, going  back  4000 years. It has always insisted that that  animals, even insects do indeed have souls.  Hinduism teaches  reincarnation.  An animal could be  the reincarnation of a person .  That is a common Hindu explanation of why cows are revered; that cow could  be  a reincarnation  of  a relative or friend. 


 As far as I can tell, western societies are based on versions of  later  Greek ideals ,followed by versions of  later Judaeo-Christian concepts . . We often overlook the ancient and sophisticated societies of say India and Imperial China -and indeed Ancient Egypt . 

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

As far as I can tell, a belief in reincarnation was common with the ancient Greeks as well as within  some forms of Judaism even today.

 The gospels report that John The Baptist was the prophet Elijah reborn ,according to Jesus himself:  

 Matthew 11:7–14 declares, “Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: ‘What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings’ palaces. Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.” I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.’” Here Jesus quotes from Malachi 3:1, where the messenger appears to be a prophetic figure who is going to appear. According to Malachi 4:5, this messenger is “the prophet Elijah,” whom Jesus identifies as John the Baptist. Does this mean that John the Baptist was Elijah reincarnated? Not at all.

According to Bart Ehrman , reincarnation was taught as  part of  early Christianity. (from Bart's blog)


"In my previous post I talked about how Origen’s view that souls existed before being born as humans related to his view that in the end, all things — including the most wicked beings in the universe — will convert and return to God: salvation for all!   Also connected to this idea was Origen’s notion that after death people would be reborn to, in a sense, “give it another go.”  Origen is our most famous Christian proponent of the idea of reincarnation.
The idea of reincarnation had been floated for centuries before Origen.   In ancient Greece the great philosopher Pythagoras was widely believed to have been the first to perpetrate, or at least to popularize, the idea.    Later it was allegedly held by such figures as Parmenides and Empedocles, the latter of whom had allegedly said “Before now I was a boy, and a maid, a bush and a bird, and a dumb fish leaping out of the sea.”


https://ehrmanblog.org/did-early-christi...carnation/

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

"The belief in reincarnation dates back as far as the ancient Egyptians. The concept can also be found in the philosophies of ancient Greek, the Buddhist and Hindu religions, Jainism, and Taoism. Belief in reincarnation requires as a prerequisite the belief in an immortal soul, for it is the soul that returns again and again to life on earth in one form or another. The form the reincarnated soul inhabits is based on the soul's karma, a philosophy that can be summed up by the saying "you reap what you sow." In other words, people that have led a good life will reincarnate into a better form than ones who have led an evil life. This can include reincarnation as an animal, or animal reincarnation.

There are various belief systems about animal reincarnation or transmigration as it is sometimes called. Over 500 million people of the Hindu religion believe that one can be reincarnated as either a human or an animal. However, their doctrine is unclear as to whether this is the result of karma or the natural progression of the soul. One particular doctrine believes that the soul or jiva begins life in an extremely simple form inhabiting a concurrently very simple body. As the jiva grows and reincarnates from one life to the next the body it becomes increasingly complex, and when the soul has finally grown into a human body the concept of karma comes into play."

https://www.allaboutspirituality.org/ani...on-faq.htm

[Minimalist]

[Thumpalumpacus]

The soul is an immaterial substance [...]

How can a substance be immaterial? Be specific.

'Existence' certainly does not mean the same thing as 'material.'  

Looks like you've got a proof to spell out, rather than a bald claim to make. Evidence would be nice.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Given that the soul is immaterial, it survives independent of this universe because it does not depend on this universe for its existence. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to it.

[citation needed]

[Thumpalumpacus]

Is the number 4 a "thing"?
Is a math equation a "thing"?
Is a moral system a "thing"?
Is an idea  a "thing"?
Is a character in a fictional novel a "thing"?
Is the concept 'a then b, a therefore b' a "thing"?
Is a symphony a "thing"?
Is the concept of causation a "thing"?

..of course they are. These things exist in a different way then an apple exists. A soul exists in a different way than an apple exists.

The issue here is that all the other abstract things you've listed have manifestations in the real world that allow us to infer their existence -- or, in the case of morals or fictional characters, actuate them.

Souls, on the other hand, have neither manifestations (like math equations for instance), only our own actuation, like morals or fictional characters. And like both of those, they aren't actually real, precisely because they rely upon human actuation to have any grounding at all.

An inverse-square relationship in math, for instance, exists whether or not there is a human observer. It is objective. Morality, not so much.

Souls, even less so. The only reason souls exist, like fictional characters, is because humans invented them.

[skyking]

Given that the soul is immaterial, it survives independent of this universe because it does not depend on this universe for its existence. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to it.

[citation needed]

I tried comparing it to phlogiston earlier, it seems like a good fit. Maybe it's like Aether?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Given that the soul is immaterial, it survives independent of this universe because it does not depend on this universe for its existence. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to it.

[citation needed]

I tried comparing it to phlogiston earlier, it seems like a good fit. Maybe it's like Aether?

PIDOOMA, you mean?

[Bucky Ball]

The soul is an immaterial substance [...]

How can a substance be immaterial? Be specific.

'Existence' certainly does not mean the same thing as 'material.'  

Looks like you've got a proof to spell out, rather than a bald claim to make. Evidence would be nice.

He said HIS definition of existence is "objective reality". 
That would include gods and souls if he believes gods and souls exist. 
Seems pretty simple. 
"Objective reality"

"The objective reality is the collection of things that we are sure exist independently of us. Every person is able, in principle, to verify every aspect of the objective reality. Anything that cannot be verified in this way is not part of the objective reality."

Oh well. 

[Bucky Ball]

'Existence' certainly does not mean the same thing as 'material.'  

But according to you, it does mean "objective reality" 
That should be be easy to deal with.

[Thumpalumpacus]

He said HIS definition of existence is "objective reality".

Sure. And if it's an objective reality it should have evidence that can be parsed by other subjects, is my point.

[Bucky Ball]

Do animals have souls?

https://philosophynow.org/issues/108/Des...of_Animals

Long ago, this question was widely debated.  Rene Descartes said no.  How do we know one way or the other?    How do we even begin to really investigate the existence of the soul, much less it's nature and fine details?  Why should we trust anybody's mere opinion on the matter without ability to demonstrate hard evidence for anything on the subject?  Since the nearly four centuries of debate on the soul, it's existence and nature, what real progress has there been?

Religionists claim that humans have souls. That dude from Biola even claimed that animals have versions of souls. 
I would like to know, based on the percentage of shared DNA, do Bonobo apes have "almost souls" ? Do other primates have souls ? Did Neanderthals have souls ? Did the children of homo sapiens and Neanderthals have bastard souls ? Did apes fall from grace with Adam, and need an ape-savior to save their ape souls ? Is there original ape sin ? Goodness. we have an entire new field of theology being born right here. We can send out flyers : "Get your ape souls saved here".

[Thumpalumpacus]

Do animals have souls?

https://philosophynow.org/issues/108/Des...of_Animals

Long ago, this question was widely debated.  Rene Descartes said no.  How do we know one way or the other?    How do we even begin to really investigate the existence of the soul, much less it's nature and fine details?  Why should we trust anybody's mere opinion on the matter without ability to demonstrate hard evidence for anything on the subject?  Since the nearly four centuries of debate on the soul, it's existence and nature, what real progress has there been?

Religionists claim that humans have souls. That dude from Biola even claimed that animals have versions of souls. 
I would like to know, based on the percentage of shared DNA, do Bonobo apes have "almost souls" ? Do other primates have souls ? Did Neanderthals have souls ? Did the children of homo sapiens and Neanderthals have bastard souls ? Did apes fall from grace with Adam, and need an ape-savior to save their ape souls ? Is there original ape sin ? Goodness. we have an entire new field of theology being born right here. We can send out flyers : "Get your ape souls saved here".

I think we've got souls, dogs and bonobos and dolphins, and other animals, have souls, and those souls die when the brains giving rise to them die. Nothing metaphysical, just emergent properties of complex brains that ought to be respected just as we would wish to be as well.

I think of, and use, "soul" as personality or spirit arising from native intelligence. The simpler the intelligence, the less soulful an animal seems, to us humans.

An interesting question would be "how many theists believe their dogs have souls and will they meet them over the Rainbow Bridge" etc etc. And why not whales or elephants? They too are very intelligent and exhibit personality, individuality. Yet theists seem in broad prospect fine with hunting them down for tusks or blubber or what-have-you.

[brunumb]

Regarding the "boundary" question, if a soul needs a body and brain to interact with the physical world, then that would necessitate locality because bodies and brains are physical and exist in a physical reality with laws.

I came into existence when an egg cell got fertilised by a sperm cell and began to replicate.  When and how did my personal soul come into existence?

Also, any time information is stored, something is required as a medium for that storage.  How does something that is immaterial store information and by what means does it transmit or exchange that information, particularly with things that are material and obviously quite different?

[Cavebear]

Do animals have souls?

https://philosophynow.org/issues/108/Des...of_Animals

Long ago, this question was widely debated.  Rene Descartes said no.  How do we know one way or the other?    How do we even begin to really investigate the existence of the soul, much less it's nature and fine details?  Why should we trust anybody's mere opinion on the matter without ability to demonstrate hard evidence for anything on the subject?  Since the nearly four centuries of debate on the soul, it's existence and nature, what real progress has there been?

Religionists claim that humans have souls. That dude from Biola even claimed that animals have versions of souls. 
I would like to know, based on the percentage of shared DNA, do Bonobo apes have "almost souls" ? Do other primates have souls ? Did Neanderthals have souls ? Did the children of homo sapiens and Neanderthals have bastard souls ? Did apes fall from grace with Adam, and need an ape-savior to save their ape souls ? Is there original ape sin ? Goodness. we have an entire new field of theology being born right here. We can send out flyers : "Get your ape souls saved here".

I think we've got souls, dogs and bonobos and dolphins, and other animals, have souls, and those souls die when the brains giving rise to them die. Nothing metaphysical, just emergent properties of complex brains that ought to be respected just as we would wish to be as well.

I think of, and use, "soul" as personality or spirit arising from native intelligence. The simpler the intelligence, the less soulful an animal seems, to us humans.

An interesting question would be "how many theists believe their dogs have souls and will they meet them over the Rainbow Bridge" etc etc. And why not whales or elephants? They too are very intelligent and exhibit personality, individuality. Yet theists seem in broad prospect fine with hunting them down for tusks or blubber or what-have-you.

Why bother to refer to "souls" when you seem to mean them as minds? That seems, to me, as just confusing theisms with reality.

[Cheerful Charlie]

If you are trying to understand the belief of a soul, it might be helpful to imagine what God would be compose of (if he exists)--being the ultimate soul. Immaterial, consists of a mind, a free will, personhood, capacity for emotions, etc.

Imagining.  The key concept here.  I can imagine fairies and magic fairy dust.  What we need is something like hard evidence.  And now we face the question.  Why does God hide?  And why does this Universe more resemble a Universe without a Biblically all powerful, merciful, compassionate, fair and just God?

What does the actual state of the observable Universe tell us about God?

[Cavebear]

If you are trying to understand the belief of a soul, it might be helpful to imagine what God would be compose of (if he exists)--being the ultimate soul. Immaterial, consists of a mind, a free will, personhood, capacity for emotions, etc.

Imagining.  The key concept here.  I can imagine fairies and magic fairy dust.  What we need is something like hard evidence.  and now we face the question.  Why does God hide?  And why does this Universe more resemble a Universe without a Biblically all powerful, merciful, compassionate, fair and just God?

What does the actual state of the observable Universe tell us about God?

Nothing. You assume there is a god. I don't. From my point of view (since you provide no evidence of such a being), you are are pretty much wandering around in fiction that you think it is reality.

[Cheerful Charlie]

If you are trying to understand the belief of a soul, it might be helpful to imagine what God would be compose of (if he exists)--being the ultimate soul. Immaterial, consists of a mind, a free will, personhood, capacity for emotions, etc.

Imagining.  The key concept here.  I can imagine fairies and magic fairy dust.  What we need is something like hard evidence.  and now we face the question.  Why does God hide?  And why does this Universe more resemble a Universe without a Biblically all powerful, merciful, compassionate, fair and just God?

What does the actual state of the observable Universe tell us about God?

Nothing.  You assume there is a god.  I don't.  From my point of view (since you provide no evidence of such a being), you are are pretty much wandering around in fiction that you think it is reality.

I am not assuming there is a God.  Nor that there is not.  What I am assuming is that the evidence does not support the idea of the Bible God of theology.  The Universe does not seem to support an all powerful, merciful, compassionate God.  We see instead, from theology, lots of special pleading.  This is a clue, as we call it in science.

The only way to deal with this by theology is to either abandon all logic and reason, or abandon, step by step, theological claims.
Process theology for example has abandoned the idea that God is omniscient or omnipotent.  Much to the displeasure of Biblical or Islamic theologians.  Deism abandons the idea God involves himself in the dealings of mankind in this material Universe.

Watching the theologians dance their merry dances to try to make any of this seem reasonable can be rather amusing.