How to prove immortality of soul?

[Bahman]

God.is Eternal, which is distinct from immortal.

One thing is eternal once is immortal.

Human beings have a beginning, and their soul is immortal from their creation.

It is logically impossible to create an immortal being. Please read post # 19.

God is outside of time, He was always there and had no beginning, neither does He have an end. HE simply.Is. As His name is “I Am who I Am.”

I Am who I Am. What does that ever means?

An Eternal Being created our Souls as immortal, just as he created the angels as immortal. They too had a beginning when He created them.

Angels were create in Heaven which is eternal/timeless state hence they cannot possibly have a beginning so we are facing with a paradox here.

But God alone is Eternal, All Powerful, Infinite, Omnipresent,

I don’t know what you are addressing with this set of claims!

Human beings are finite, limited, even in Heaven we will not be infinite, but still limited, His gift of immortality is sharing some of His Divine Life with us in the sense that He wants us to enjoy Him and love Him forever.

Immortality by the definition is the state of being without any limit! So I don’t quite understand what you are talking about since your statements is full of contradictions.

 

[Bahman]

I don’t know what your definition of consciousness is, I use the dictionary definition:

(From Merriam-Webster online).

Clearly a cerebral operation.

ICXC NIKA

I clearly provide a definition for consciousness.

 

[Lucretius]

That is acceptable. However there is a problem with the immortality of the soul if you accept the traditional definition of soul which is something created by God! Immortal cannot possibly create immortal.

How are you defining “immortal”? The literal definition is “not mortal.” You seem to think, IMHO, that either the definition of immortal includes noncreated or that noncreated follows from the definition of immortal.

The Catholic understanding of immortal means that the soul is indestructible, because being destroyable is on the order of material things, and the soul is not entirely material.

By your definition of “immortal,” only God is immortal, in Catholic understanding.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Sparkythedog]

Hello! Could someone, please, advise me on the arguments in favor of immortality of soul for non-believers?

Arguments from philosophy and natural theology, of course.

What’s a soul?

 

[Bahman]

How are you defining “immortal”?

Something which inherently irreducible.

The literal definition is “not mortal.”

That is not the correct one because you have to understand what mortal means.

You seem to think, IMHO, that either the definition of immortal includes noncreated or that noncreated follows from the definition of immortal.

I stick to my definition. Please read the first comment.

The Catholic understanding of immortal means that the soul is indestructible, because being destroyable is on the order of material things, and the soul is not entirely material.

The bold is correct. The problem with your system of belief is that you believe that soul is created by God which is logically impossible because of very fact that an immortal being is inherently irreducible hence it is unknowable inherently so no one can possibly create it.

By your definition of “immortal,” only God is immortal, in Catholic understanding.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Well I think you have accepted that soul is immortal too.

 

[Lucretius]

Something which inherently irreducible.

That is not the correct one because you have to understand what mortal means.

I stick to my definition. Please read the first comment.

The bold is correct. The problem with your system of belief is that you believe that soul is created by God which is logically impossible because of very fact that an immortal being is inherently irreducible hence it is unknowable inherently so no one can possibly create it.

Well I think you have accepted that soul is immortal too.

This sounds like Plato’s arguments: that the soul is immortal because it is simple.

A Thomist like me would probably argue that the soul is still composite: its essence is distinguishable from its existence: the soul doesn’t exist necessarily.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Bahman]

This sounds like Plato’s arguments: that the soul is immortal because it is simple.

Irreducibility is different from being simple.

A Thomist like me would probably argue that the soul is still composite: its essence is distinguishable from its existence: the soul doesn’t exist necessarily.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

That is incorrect. His error arises from the fact that he couldn’t understand what existence means. Existence by definition is the fundamental mode of experience.

 

[Lucretius]

That is incorrect. His error arises from the fact that he couldn’t understand what existence means. Existence by definition is the fundamental mode of experience.

I’m not sure what you exactly mean. What do you mean by “fundamental mode?”

(I’m going to bed, so I can respond until tomorrow )

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Bahman]

I’m not sure what you exactly mean. What do you mean by “fundamental mode?”

(I’m going to bed, so I can respond until tomorrow )

Christi pax,

Lucretius

By this I mean that we believe things exist firstly. We then categorize them into different things depending on subject of experience.

 

[ChosenOne7]

There is no soul but consciousness: Essence of any being with the ability to experience and create. Consciousness is immortal since it is simple in another word you cannot break it into peaces hence it cannot be created. You have been here and you will be. The absence of experience as you have now before your birth doesn’t mean that you didn’t existed, you have been always experiencing, they were just simple and you didn’t have any memory you have now.

HI can you please explain your understanding of this verse at Ecclesiastes 9:5 which says - "The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all.”
Another Bible says - “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward; but the memory of them is lost.”

How do you understand that verse?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, of course, in philosophy there are always arguments to the contrary.

But who are those philosophers, and did they propose better theories?

Have you checked the link?

 

[ChosenOne7]

Hello! Could someone, please, advise me on the arguments in favor of immortality of soul for non-believers?

Arguments from philosophy and natural theology, of course.

I don’t think the Bible ever teaches that the soul is immortal atleast you won’t find a scripture that says so, that is why no one on this thread is answering you with scripture… but there are many scriptures which shows that the soul isn’t immortal. I’ll just share 1 with you, at Ezekiel 18:4 the Bible states: “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.”
The Bible is quite clear what happens to the soul. Since we are all born sinners, we all die… If the soul was immortal then this verse would be a contradiction, unless you understand that verse otherwise?

How would philosophy and theology argue against that verse or on what would they base there arguments on?

 

[Lucretius]

By this I mean that we believe things exist firstly. We then categorize them into different things depending on subject of experience.

If I’m interpreting you correctly, St. Thomas actually agrees with you. He, unlike Descrates and modern philosophers, starts with things, and then contemplates how we know about them.

What do you mean by “subject of existence?”

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[JurisPrudens]

What’s a soul?

In a few words - something that makes a human being out of a matter he consists of.

 

[Sparkythedog]

In a few words - something that makes a human being out of a matter he consists of.

I think there needs to be a few more words. If you’re really interested in convincing a non-believer of the immortality of a soul, you’ll need to first define specifically what a soul is and then have a way to demonstrate it’s existence.

 

[Sparkythedog]

St John Bosco saw his dead mother.
Surely that is evidence her soul is immortal.

Many of the saints saw those in Purgatory or heaven. The evidence out there is staggering.

Surely if a living person sees a deceased soul, that.is evidence that a soul is immortal?

I still am not sure what a soul is suppost to be but when I was a kid, I saw our family’s dog walking around in our yard after he died (and was cremated). Does this prove that dogs have immortal souls?

 

[spiderweb]

I don’t think the Bible ever teaches that the soul is immortal atleast you won’t find a scripture that says so, that is why no one on this thread is answering you with scripture… but there are many scriptures which shows that the soul isn’t immortal. I’ll just share 1 with you, at Ezekiel 18:4 the Bible states: “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.”
The Bible is quite clear what happens to the soul. Since we are all born sinners, we all die… If the soul was immortal then this verse would be a contradiction, unless you understand that verse otherwise?

How would philosophy and theology argue against that verse or on what would they base there arguments on?

The word “soul” in the Bible can mean different things especially the Hebrew word “nephesh” which is the word used in Ezekiel 18:4. blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5315&t=KJV Soul can definitely refer to our physical bodies which certainly do die.

It is also true that soul many times refers to a person or group of people (Acts 3:23, 1 Pet 3:20, and many others).

It can also mean something which is separate from the body and yet still “alive”. In Rev 6:9 it states that he saw “under the altar the souls of those that were slain…” which of course means that these souls are dead, and yet in verse 10 it states that these dead souls “cried out with a loud voice” which implies there is something more to them that is alive beyond their physical bodies.

Another example: “Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (hades), neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption” (Acts 2:27) Was Jesus body in hades? No, it was in the tomb. Yet it is clear that it says “will not leave…” which implies that his soul was in hades while his body was in the tomb.

One last example is 3 John 1:2 “Beloved, I wish above all things that you may prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospers.” Replacing the word “soul” from this quote either with “body” or “life” doesn’t make any sense because it would then become a redundant statement. Rather the way it is used implies something more than their physical bodies.

This, however has nothing to do with the OP’s question which pertained to philosophy and natural theology and not scripture so I leave it at that in this thread.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The only compelling “secular” arguments for the immortality of the soul that I am familiar with are Socrates’ arguments in Phaedo, Phaedrus, and The Republic. The implications of these arguments are that souls have always existed and thus cannot be destroyed (are immortal). This argument could be compatible with pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, maybe Mormonism, atheism, agnosticism, reincarnation, and possibly Buddhism. This argument is decidedly NOT compatible with traditional Judaism, Islam, or Christianity.

Read Phaedo, it is very interesting, and well worth your time. I think Socrates gives us a serious reason to doubt (without appeal to religion or miracles) that we have no souls or no eternal souls.

 

[Bahman]

If I’m interpreting you correctly, St. Thomas actually agrees with you. He, unlike Descrates and modern philosophers, starts with things, and then contemplates how we know about them.

What do you mean by “subject of existence?”

Christi pax,

Lucretius

No, I am thinking differently from St. Thomas. Experience have different modes. You can look at a flower and feel happy. You moreover know that the flower does exist. So we have three mode of experiences here, namely flower itself (the context, shape, color etc), your feeling, the experience of existence of flower. From these the existence is the fundamental mode of experience.

 

[Lucretius]

No, I am thinking differently from St. Thomas. Experience have different modes. You can look at a flower and feel happy. You moreover know that the flower does exist. So we have three mode of experiences here, namely flower itself (the context, shape, color etc), your feeling, the experience of existence of flower. From these the existence is the fundamental mode of experience.

Why are you separating the flower itself and the flower’s existence?

Christi pax,

Lucretius