Can proving the immortality of the soul also prove the existence of God?

[greylorn]

No! He doesn’t view the soul as a separate entity from the body during a lifetime like the “ghost in the machine”. Only at death does God separate the spiritual part of our being from the material. (I know it sounds like two separate entities as Descartes thought). Only God can take the essence of the soul – intellect with its memory and imagination and ability to reason and the will. Since these are immaterial, only the material body (corpse) is left.

4H,
Did you read Descartes? If so, your understanding of his ideas may be fresher than mine. Whatever, they are different. If you’ve not read him, consider my interpretation, which was not difficult to come by since he was not a cryptic writer.

The Cartesian soul/mind is indeed a separate entity, and different kind of entity, from the body. It is integrated with the brain during life via the pineal gland. It can control the brain, but the brain can also control or override soul. Here is a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes#Dualism

He said that the soul would separate from the body at death (no extra effort from God is needed for this to happen) to meet its fate at the pearly gates. Soul necessarily embodied the properties we associate with mind. Etc.

Although I disagree w/Descartes at the level of details, I’ve adopted several of his general concepts, or one might say, his general idea. The differences are that I identify the property of soul necessary for it to operate as a cause of action in the universe, explain the hypothetical event which brought it into distinct existence, and explain why ours currently inhabit bodies.

You do realize that your statements above as to what God does are entirely aftermarket doctrines, never proposed by Christ? They were invented by guys like me who made them up because they seemed like a good idea at the time. The only difference is that the Church put the stamp of dogma on that stuff, transforming it from hopeless, unverified, impractical philosophical speculation into God’s divinely inspired truth.

God did not do that— men did, then declared their handiwork to be God’s.

Looks like we can agree on something.

Boring, isn’t it?

Then you consider the soul to be uncreated (as you mentioned before) and hanging out in the universe before it attached to a body. Yet, you hope that the soul has an ending in non-existence. Am I right?

You are right, insofar as I’ve explained it previously. Here are more details, which may help. I actually regard the soul as having had multiple phases of existence:

1. 
   
   *]An unformed (and unconscious) state in which it was part of a larger substance—
   
   *]A moment of separation, in which the substance split into myriad individual pieces—
   
   *]A long interval of non-conscious existence.as one of those pieces—
   
   *]Incorporation within a body, as often as needed to acquire consciousness, or until it might be determined that it either cannot embrace or does not deserve consciousness—
   
   *]A period of conscious, independent existence independently of any body.
   
   There are many possibilities for this state of being. I am hoping that one of them includes a permanent return to Phase 3, but have no idea how that could be accomplished. After all, when translated into English, the First Law of Thermodynamics reads, You cannot get out of the game.
   

   You don’t exactly explain what makes the soul, in your definition, operate and, also, violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (I know we’ve gone around on this before, but your theory is complex. Grab a Catechism of the Catholic Church and a cup of coffee. Of course it doesn’t go into Physics, but it explains doctrine very well).

   My book explains that, and other interesting implications in more detail.
   
   Last time you suggested a drink, you proposed beer. Am I losing favor with you that drastically? When reviewing the Catechism, vodka seems to put me in a more tolerant mindset than coffee. I’m interested in real, logical, understanding of how soul, body, and universe are connected. The Catechism does not provide the logic I look for, and the fact that it does not engage physics makes it of no value to me in my attempts to understand the universe.
   
   I regard a theory of everything as essential to my goals. The kind of T.O.E.s proposed by scientists exclude the soul. The Catechism excludes the physical universe. A correct Theory of Everything must include and integrate both elements.
   

   The best food is in God’s garden in which He tends souls and add a virtue to deserving saplings. (Like an old song says we’ve got to get back to the Garden – meaning Eden).

   I am expecting something other than the realization of aftermarket doctrine. Being tended would become annoying after a time, even if by a large number of lovely ladies.