How do we prove the soul exists?

[JapaneseKappa]

One argument for the soul is based on the difference between a corpse and a living body. In the morning a man is alive, but by the evening he may be a corpse. Now what is the difference between the two? It’s not a difference of material. There is no chemical you could add to the corpse that would make it alive again, nothing material could do that. But there is a difference. Therefore, there is a nonmaterial element without which the body is a corpse. Catholics call it the soul.

This is not true. Death is a “material” change. The fact that we haven’t been able to undo it yet is not evidence against this.

A second argument for the soul is based on justice. If there is no life after death, there is no justice. Good and evil are not balanced in this life. Good people often suffer, evil people often do well. Also, if there is no future life, there is no true morality. Rob, lie, murder – only be careful! The only way true justice can be served is if we have a soul that lives on after death, where a sentence of judgment awaits. But if there is no soul, then there is ultimately no justice and no morality either.

Your preferences don’t prove anything. Some people would prefer God to not exist, that doesn’t make it so. That you would prefer life to be just doesn’t make it so.

A third argument for the soul is based on the law of nature. Human beings naturally believe in life after death and in many cases look forward to it. Fr. Rumble’s book “Radio Replies Volume 3” uses this as an argument that the afterlife is real: “Could anyone conceive that God would form that most delicate organ of hearing, the ear, so wonderfully adapted to every kind of vibration, yet endow no objects with the power of causing sound? The whole tendency of the ear would be to hear, yet it would never do so because its complementary object would be wanting. Every natural tendency implies and has an object.” Therefore, something exists which corresponds to our natural expectation of an afterlife.

The fact that our intellect is bad at imagining the cessation of our intellect should probably not be a surprise.

 

[Ion]

This is not true. Death is a “material” change. The fact that we haven’t been able to undo it yet is not evidence against this.

Your preferences don’t prove anything. Some people would prefer God to not exist, that doesn’t make it so. That you would prefer life to be just doesn’t make it so.

The fact that our intellect is bad at imagining the cessation of our intellect should probably not be a surprise.

In theology, proof has the form of justification.
What would you consider proof for the existence of the soul while the soul is immaterial?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The fact that our intellect is bad at imagining the cessation of our intellect should probably not be a surprise.

I would rephrase this.

It’s our will that is bad at imagining the cessation of our intellect. The intellect can imagine it very easily. We just don’t want to imagine it!

Is there a good reason for that? Very possibly God also does not want us to imagine it, and so he plants in us the same want not to imagine it.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

In theology, proof has the form of justification.
What would you consider proof for the existence of the soul while the soul is immaterial?

As I see it, there are exactly two possibilities:

1. The existence of a soul has an effect on the material world.
2. The existence of a soul does not have an effect on the material world.

In the first case, proof would simply take the form of defining what the effects are and measuring whether they are present or not. No one, to my knowledge, has ever successfully done this.

In the second case, the question of a soul will necessarily be purely speculative. We can construct armchair-logic arguments for or against their existence, but it will not be possible to “prove” the existence in any sort of empirical manner.

 

[ynotzap]

The soul can have an effect on the material world through man who is material and spiritual. IHe was designed by God to be the good steward of the material world. He uses the material world to gain objective truth. As a matter of fact thats how he learns that by observing the material world he can conclude that an immaterial, spiritual God exists. One can only know of the spiritual realities by the use of his spiritual faculty, his intelligence. this is possible by observing the effects in the material world that can’t not be explained by the empirical sciences. The existence of the cosmos, the order in the cosmos, the movement in the cosmos, the existence of life in the cosmos, the dependence evident in the cosmos all pointing to the existence of a Supreme Spiritual entity, God. The soul in man gives him the faculties that make all of this possible because the faculties of intelligence and will give him power over the material world. It is possible that he can even destroy his environment with this power, or a least destroy its order, for he can not destroy matter. His stewardship should always be in co-0peration with God.

 

[edwest2]

It’s been tried by scientists. In one case, a dying patient, bed and all, was placed on a sensitive scale. Apparently, a physical weight loss was expected. No weight loss occurred at the time of death.

Another attempt was made with the premise being that the soul was either located in the brain and/or was connected to certain brain-body interactions. Nothing.

Materialist science has its limits.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In the second case, the question of a soul will necessarily be purely speculative.

We do not dismiss speculative evidence. Most people base their lives on speculation, including the denizens of Wall Street.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It’s been tried by scientists. In one case, a dying patient, bed and all, was placed on a sensitive scale. Apparently, a physical weight loss was expected. No weight loss occurred at the time of death.

Another attempt was made with the premise being that the soul was either located in the brain and/or was connected to certain brain-body interactions. Nothing.

Materialist science has its limits.

Peace,
Ed

In point of fact, it’s well known that every cell in the body is replaced every several years except the neurons in the brain. These cells live all our lives. Now could it be these cells carry evidence pointing to our built-in immortal destiny?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The soul can have an effect on the material world through man who is material and spiritual. IHe was designed by God to be the good steward of the material world. He uses the material world to gain objective truth. As a matter of fact thats how he learns that by observing the material world he can conclude that an immaterial, spiritual God exists. One can only know of the spiritual realities by the use of his spiritual faculty, his intelligence. this is possible by observing the effects in the material world that can’t not be explained by the empirical sciences. The existence of the cosmos, the order in the cosmos, the movement in the cosmos, the existence of life in the cosmos, the dependence evident in the cosmos all pointing to the existence of a Supreme Spiritual entity, God. The soul in man gives him the faculties that make all of this possible because the faculties of intelligence and will give him power over the material world. It is possible that he can even destroy his environment with this power, or a least destroy its order, for he can not destroy matter. His stewardship should always be in co-0peration with God.

In the absence of any tests, you cannot conclude that immaterial-spiritual entities exist, you can only hypothesize that they exist.

Physicists observe the material world and create models of how things in the universe behave. They use those models to make predictions about phenomena that have not yet been observed. The predictions they make in this way are not conclusions, they are hypothesis which need to be tested. It could turn out that the model’s prediction is wrong, in which case physicists need to go back to the drawing board. For example, physicists did not *assert *that the higgs boson existed, their models simply led them to theorize that it did. Physicists proceeded to spend $6.4 billion and build the worlds largest supercollider to *test *that hypothesis.

In the case of immaterial-spiritual entities there is a vast framework of hypothesis, none of which have ever been experimentally verified. Why should we think that we can make definitive conclusions about these immaterial-spiritual entities when we can’t even do that for material world entities despite having vastly more data about material world entities?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In the case of immaterial-spiritual entities there is a vast framework of hypothesis, none of which have ever been experimentally verified. Why should we think that we can make definitive conclusions about these immaterial-spiritual entities when we can’t even do that for material world entities despite having vastly more data about material world entities?

Well then, of course, since by definition God is spirit, you cannot force God to appear at the end of a telescope or on a petri dish. So any speculation concerning God might well be true without having the means to prove it experimentally, just as any speculation about the material world might well be true without having the means to prove it experimentally.

But experiential proof is of a different order. Some have experienced the truth of God in such a way that they are left in no doubt that God exists, God loves them, they know it, and they are experiencing the tests of faith and the gifts God has lavished upon them.

Miracles might well constitute for some a kind of evidence that is experiential, if not experimental. That is to say, we are not expected to see a miracle in a science laboratory.

The point is that not all knowledge must be experimental in order to be worthy of our belief. There is knowledge that is deductive. There is knowledge that is faith based. There is knowledge that is experiential. There is knowledge that is intuitive. And other types of knowledge, no doubt!

 

[Bahman]

Soul is something that cannot be experienced but our experiences depend on it. In another word our subjective experiences depends on something that cannot be objectively be experienced. Why there should be such a constraint? I don’t know. Perhaps soul does not exist and we have some problem with understanding what life is.

It is pretty ironic since what is subjective to us in principle could be communicated hence it becomes objective upon communication which either means that the subjective world does not exist or it cannot be experienced since everything that we experience is objective to us whether it is an object, our bodies, or a single thought. An object or our bodies by definition exist in external world since everybody have common sense of them. Our thoughts does not exist in external world but they can be communicated so they in principle belong to objective world, we experience them in simple word. The very important question is where thoughts are come from? We cannot influence our thoughts but they can influence our internal and external world, namely objective reality, hence thoughts are either a simple reflection of objective reality within or they are constructed within. What is within? Something that you cannot touch or perceive it, very deep “I”.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Well then, of course, since by definition God is spirit, you cannot force God to appear at the end of a telescope or on a petri dish. So any speculation concerning God might well be true without having the means to prove it experimentally, just as any speculation about the material world might well be true without having the means to prove it experimentally.

Yes, hypothesis can be true or false. We can develop expectations about how likely a hypothesis is to be true. However, we cannot assert that it is true in the absence of a test.

But experiential proof is of a different order. Some have experienced the truth of God in such a way that they are left in no doubt that God exists, God loves them, they know it, and they are experiencing the tests of faith and the gifts God has lavished upon them.

These experiences are not unique to Christianity, or even monotheistic religions. Therefore I can only conclude that it is either evidence for *all *gods, or that it is evidence that there are natural conditions which people perceive as spiritual.

Miracles might well constitute for some a kind of evidence that is experiential, if not experimental. That is to say, we are not expected to see a miracle in a science laboratory.

If you define a miracle as something which could only be caused a supernatural phenomenon, then observing one would absolutely be evidence of the supernatural. However, we have to be very careful about what sorts of things we label as miracles. If we are overzealous, then we run into the why doesn’t God heal amputees problem.

The point is that not all knowledge must be experimental in order to be worthy of our belief. There is knowledge that is deductive. There is knowledge that is faith based. There is knowledge that is experiential. There is knowledge that is intuitive. And other types of knowledge, no doubt!

Quite right, to expect everyone to test everything is too high a bar to be practical. However, much (if not all) of religion is predicated on the existence of God and souls. To claim we don’t need to test those claims strains credulity. It would be like physicists refusing to test the conservation of energy (yes, there actually are tests for the conservation of energy.)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes, hypothesis can be true or false. We can develop expectations about how likely a hypothesis is to be true. However, we cannot assert that it is true in the absence of a test.

You can assert it is true without a test. People do it all the time.

What you mean is that you cannot prove it is true without a test?

Again, not true. Tests are not required for believing all things to be true.

In science that may be so.

But in much of philosophy and other disciplines it is not so.

The Big Bang is asserted to be true even though we cannot test to find out if the BB happened.

What we can do is deduce from available evidence and the apparent history of the universe that it did happen.

Likewise, we can deduce (without requiring God to appear at the end of a telescope) and assert that God exists. It’s true we cannot deduce much about God, but we can reasonably deduce that the universe was created and that it was created with intelligent design. That is the kind of God Einsntein could deduce and assert without an experiment requiring his God to appear in person. (Indeed, he did not believe in a personal God.)

Science laboratory proof aside, it is possible to deduce and assert the existence of the spirit in man.

Again, the evidence may not impress a victim of scientism, but it may be sufficient (and often is) for the millions who experience it.

 

[ynotzap]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Yes, hypothesis can be true or false. We can develop expectations about how likely a hypothesis is to be true. However, we cannot assert that it is true in the absence of a test.[SIGN][/SIGN]

These experiences are not unique to Christianity, or even monotheistic religions. Therefore I can only conclude that it is either evidence for *all *gods, or that it is evidence that there are natural conditions which people perceive as spiritual.

If you define a miracle as something which could only be caused a supernatural phenomenon, then observing one would absolutely be evidence of the supernatural. However, we have to be very careful about what sorts of things we label as miracles. If we are overzealous, then we run into the why doesn’t God heal amputees problem.

Quite right, to expect everyone to test everything is too high a bar to be practical. However, much (if not all) of religion is predicated on the existence of God and souls. To claim we don’t need to test those claims strains credulity. It would be like physicists refusing to test the conservation of energy (yes, there actually are tests for the conservation of energy.)

Experiential proof based on the scientific principle of cause and effect, for every action there is a reaction, for every effect there is a cause. Scientists use this principle all the time in their experiments.
Applying this same principle to our existence: We were brought into existence by our parents, and they were brought into existence by their parents, etc,etc, etc, until we come to the first parents. We call them first parents because if we didn,t that would mean that we could never reach the beginning of our existence through and infinite series of causes and effect, for there would be no beginning and no end. We know we had a beginning, we even know or can closely calculate the date of our conception, and we know our birth date.(human experience the criterion of all our knowledge)

We necessarily come to the first parents. Now they always existed, or were given existence by the first cause. If they always existed then they had no beginning, and no end which is contrary to human experience (experiential knowledge)

If they were given existence then the power or entity must have existence for its nature and always existed, for it couldn’t give what it didn’t have, we call the power or entity the uncause cause or God. I used knowledge gotten from science and metaphysical knowledge gotten from the third degree of abstraction, and its all spiritual because concepts of knowledge are spiritual in nature due the nature of the soul with its spiritual faculties of intelligence, and volition. This is one test.

 

[edwest2]

In point of fact, it’s well known that every cell in the body is replaced every several years except the neurons in the brain. These cells live all our lives. Now could it be these cells carry evidence pointing to our built-in immortal destiny?

I don’t know.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Experiential proof based on the scientific principle of cause and effect, for every action there is a reaction, for every effect there is a cause. Scientists use this principle all the time in their experiments.

This is not actually true. There are scientific theories that do not assume determinism, e.g. stochastic systems.

 

[ynotzap]

Then they are based on opinions and not objective reality which proves nothing , theories as you say. I didn’t give you theory but human experience the criterion of our knowledge. There is subjective reasoning, and there is objective reasoning. In subjective reasoning there is always the possibility a thing may be true, or not, it is no reliable source for certainty

 

[atheistgirl]

Human beings naturally believe in life after death and in many cases look forward to it.

Not in all cases

I’ve never believed, even as a very young child, there was a life after death.

I watched life through the eyes of a child and could see it was a precious and finite thing.

That it would end.

Sometimes abruptly.

It’s what convinced me as I matured to live a life as full and happy as possible, doing as much good as I could along the way, because I knew one day, life will end for me and that will be that

And I’m so perfectly, wonderfully happy with this knowledge, I can’t even tell you

For many of us, it is completely unnatural to believe in life after death.

Sarah x

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Then they are based on opinions and not objective reality which proves nothing , theories as you say. I didn’t give you theory but human experience the criterion of our knowledge. There is subjective reasoning, and there is objective reasoning. In subjective reasoning there is always the possibility a thing may be true, or not, it is no reliable source for certainty

Just because things are non-deterministic doesn’t mean science is reduced to mere opinion. There are good reasons for using stochastic approaches even in deterministic systems, and it may turn out that some processes are fundamentally stochastic in nature.

Your human experience certainly isn’t my human experience.

 

[grannymh]

Not in all cases

I’ve never believed, even as a very young child, there was a life after death.

I watched life through the eyes of a child and could see it was a precious and finite thing.

That it would end.

Sometimes abruptly.

It’s what convinced me as I matured to live a life as full and happy as possible, doing as much good as I could along the way, because I knew one day, life will end for me and that will be that

And I’m so perfectly, wonderfully happy with this knowledge, I can’t even tell you

For many of us, it is completely unnatural to believe in life after death.

Sarah x

I knew for certain that there is eternal life when I said good-by to my Mother in her coffin.