Proof of the Soul's Existence

  • Thread starter Thread starter TomaszA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TomaszA

Guest
Outside of Revelation and using human reason, can we demonstrate the existence of the soul?
 
I didn’t realize that the existence of the soul had been demonstrated by reason.
 
Well, I daresay there’s an indirect argument not exactly for the existence of a soul, but rather for a spiritual principle in man, a principle that is not covered by the shere mechanics of science(and also of random quantum physics). – I would like to put the question into other terms: can the existence of freedom in man be proven? I’m not talking about compatibilistic freedom – we’re just feeling as if we were free though in reality we’re not – but of free-agent causation, of an arbiter, the I, who chooses without being determined by circumstances.

Well, the existence of freedom in man cannot be proven in a straightforward manner. However, I believe it can be shown that the conclusion that man is a mere mechanistic device can be unravelled to be heavily flawed, thus being no option so that we are led back to the idea of human freedom. Consider, if the human mind really were lacking in freedom then all your thoughts would merely be predetermined electrical signals. If you say: “Man is unfree”, this act of thinking and saying so would just represent a cascade of electrical signals and so is the proposition to the contary, namely, that man is free. You have not chosen to say so; the predetermined electrical signals just made you say so. And it that’s true, why is there any use of quarreling about the veracity of an electrical signal, which simply isn’t explainable in categories of truth and falsehood, unable to contain such categories? One might adress this objection by an appeal to an evolutionary theory of cognition. Certainly it had served man always better to know what truly exists than just to go in for the pursuit of mere fancies and delusions that would ultimately threaten his chances of survival and procreation and thus greatly diminish his evolutionary stamina. The theory purports, therefore, that we truly perceive the world around us and can make valid statements about it, yeah, that we are even determined to do so. Of course, one might encounter this theory by saying that a world perceived only in a manner to guarantee survival and procreation must not be veraciously perceived since it may well be possible that we constantly miss certain great truths about the world since our brain is only triggered to present those pictures to us that are favourable to our survival – mere egocentric delusions, so to say, with no claim to unpartial truth. And if this be so, why shouldn’t it be just another fiction serving survival that we correctly perceive the world around us in order to survive? Such a thinking is always on the brink of self-destructiveness. In my idea, it just walks the line a bit too boldly.

Well, but there’s still another plea to raise. The theory of cognitive evolution claims that the electrical signals in our brain present the world correctly. But the theory of cognitive evolution is just another result of nerve-ends firing happily. These nerve-ends have fired in such a manner in some peoples’ minds that they hold on to this theory. But ultimately the theory that the firing of nerve-ends leads us to truth cannot be proven on the basis of another firing of nerve-ends!

The only way to break out of this vicious circle of self-destructive thinking seems an appeal to God as the principle of truth and to human freedom as a principle not tied to matter, and thus tied, if one likes to say so, to the substance of a soul.
 
TheWhim said:
Well, I daresay there’s an indirect argument not exactly for the existence of a soul, but rather for a spiritual principle in man, a principle that is not covered by the shere mechanics of science(and also of random quantum physics). – I would like to put the question into other terms: can the existence of freedom in man be proven? I’m not talking about compatibilistic freedom – we’re just feeling as if we were free though in reality we’re not – but of free-agent causation, of an arbiter, the I, who chooses without being determined by circumstances.

Well, the existence of freedom in man cannot be proven in a straightforward manner. However, I believe it can be shown that the conclusion that man is a mere mechanistic device can be unravelled to be heavily flawed, thus being no option so that we are led back to the idea of human freedom. Consider, if the human mind really were lacking in freedom then all your thoughts would merely be predetermined electrical signals. If you say: “Man is unfree”, this act of thinking and saying so would just represent a cascade of electrical signals and so is the proposition to the contary, namely, that man is free. You have not chosen to say so; the predetermined electrical signals just made you say so. And it that’s true, why is there any use of quarreling about the veracity of an electrical signal, which simply isn’t explainable in categories of truth and falsehood, unable to contain such categories? One might adress this objection by an appeal to an evolutionary theory of cognition. Certainly it had served man always better to know what truly exists than just to go in for the pursuit of mere fancies and delusions that would ultimately threaten his chances of survival and procreation and thus greatly diminish his evolutionary stamina. The theory purports, therefore, that we truly perceive the world around us and can make valid statements about it, yeah, that we are even determined to do so. Of course, one might encounter this theory by saying that a world perceived only in a manner to guarantee survival and procreation must not be veraciously perceived since it may well be possible that we constantly miss certain great truths about the world since our brain is only triggered to present those pictures to us that are favourable to our survival – mere egocentric delusions, so to say, with no claim to unpartial truth. And if this be so, why shouldn’t it be just another fiction serving survival that we correctly perceive the world around us in order to survive? Such a thinking is always on the brink of self-destructiveness. In my idea, it just walks the line a bit too boldly.

Well, but there’s still another plea to raise. The theory of cognitive evolution claims that the electrical signals in our brain present the world correctly. But the theory of cognitive evolution is just another result of nerve-ends firing happily. These nerve-ends have fired in such a manner in some peoples’ minds that they hold on to this theory. But ultimately the theory that the firing of nerve-ends leads us to truth cannot be proven on the basis of another firing of nerve-ends!

The only way to break out of this vicious circle of self-destructive thinking seems an appeal to God as the principle of truth and to human freedom as a principle not tied to matter, and thus tied, if one likes to say so, to the substance of a soul.
Click to expand...
But this does not actually prove that there is a soul, only that believing in a soul is more comforting.
 
The “soul” is the animating principle of any living thing, so it distinguishes the living from non living. So a materialist can perfectly say that man has a soul, but it would only be material. Not sure what it would take to demonstrate that it is immaterial, since according to Christian faith (and many others), the soul is a spirit, and therefore immaterial.
 
TomaszA said:
The “soul” is the animating principle of any living thing, so it distinguishes the living from non living. So a materialist can perfectly say that man has a soul, but it would only be material. Not sure what it would take to demonstrate that it is immaterial, since according to Christian faith (and many others), the soul is a spirit, and therefore immaterial.
Click to expand...
Is there any evidence of a soul?
 
The soul as animating principle cannot be conceived of as being material and thus subject to the determinism of physics. To hold such an opinion is highly susceptible of leading into self-destructive thinking: to hold on to this opinion means that no opinions can be held by anyone. - It’s the purity of logic. There’s no wishful thinking involved here when the suggestion of an immaterial principle is made.
 
TomaszA said:
Outside of Revelation and using human reason, can we demonstrate the existence of the soul?
Click to expand...
Anthony Rizzi does a nice job of proving the existence of the soul (and God) in his book, “The Science before Science”.
 
TheWhim said:
The soul as animating principle cannot be conceived of as being material and thus subject to the determinism of physics. To hold such an opinion is highly susceptible of leading into self-destructive thinking: to hold on to this opinion means that no opinions can be held by anyone. - It’s the purity of logic. There’s no wishful thinking involved here when the suggestion of an immaterial principle is made.
Click to expand...
How, then, can we know of it?
 
MindOverMatter said:
I would say the soul makes more sense out of our experience as persons.
Click to expand...
I am naturally wary of drawing grand conclusions because of something that seems to make sense, given reality’s occasional curve balls (quantum physics, DNA, life in extreme conditions, etc.).
 
Shredderbeam said:
I am naturally wary of drawing grand conclusions because of something that seems to make sense, given reality’s occasional curve balls (quantum physics, DNA, life in extreme conditions, etc.).
Click to expand...
Quantum physical theories makes sense out of Quantum events.
Evolution theory is an the organizing principle of biological nature.
The soul makes sense out of my having a personal nature.
 
TheWhim said:
Well, I daresay there’s an indirect argument not exactly for the existence of a soul, but rather for a spiritual principle in man, a principle that is not covered by the shere mechanics of science(and also of random quantum physics). – I would like to put the question into other terms: can the existence of freedom in man be proven? I’m not talking about compatibilistic freedom – we’re just feeling as if we were free though in reality we’re not – but of free-agent causation, of an arbiter, the I, who chooses without being determined by circumstances.

Well, the existence of freedom in man cannot be proven in a straightforward manner. However, I believe it can be shown that the conclusion that man is a mere mechanistic device can be unravelled to be heavily flawed, thus being no option so that we are led back to the idea of human freedom. Consider, if the human mind really were lacking in freedom then all your thoughts would merely be predetermined electrical signals. If you say: “Man is unfree”, this act of thinking and saying so would just represent a cascade of electrical signals and so is the proposition to the contary, namely, that man is free. You have not chosen to say so; the predetermined electrical signals just made you say so. And it that’s true, why is there any use of quarreling about the veracity of an electrical signal, which simply isn’t explainable in categories of truth and falsehood, unable to contain such categories? One might adress this objection by an appeal to an evolutionary theory of cognition. Certainly it had served man always better to know what truly exists than just to go in for the pursuit of mere fancies and delusions that would ultimately threaten his chances of survival and procreation and thus greatly diminish his evolutionary stamina. The theory purports, therefore, that we truly perceive the world around us and can make valid statements about it, yeah, that we are even determined to do so. Of course, one might encounter this theory by saying that a world perceived only in a manner to guarantee survival and procreation must not be veraciously perceived since it may well be possible that we constantly miss certain great truths about the world since our brain is only triggered to present those pictures to us that are favourable to our survival – mere egocentric delusions, so to say, with no claim to unpartial truth. And if this be so, why shouldn’t it be just another fiction serving survival that we correctly perceive the world around us in order to survive? Such a thinking is always on the brink of self-destructiveness. In my idea, it just walks the line a bit too boldly.

Well, but there’s still another plea to raise. The theory of cognitive evolution claims that the electrical signals in our brain present the world correctly. But the theory of cognitive evolution is just another result of nerve-ends firing happily. These nerve-ends have fired in such a manner in some peoples’ minds that they hold on to this theory. But ultimately the theory that the firing of nerve-ends leads us to truth cannot be proven on the basis of another firing of nerve-ends!

The only way to break out of this vicious circle of self-destructive thinking seems an appeal to God as the principle of truth and to human freedom as a principle not tied to matter, and thus tied, if one likes to say so, to the substance of a soul.
Click to expand...
A really well worded answer…😉 Thank you…

I would say the post above is the philosophical answer that contains “current” scientific knowledge…

Opening post, the human condition requires that we observe our being from all angles in order to live fully…

We’re only going to get one shot…lol…

Say the “subject” was an Elephant just for example. The Scientist is at the trunk, the philosopher is at the belly and the Priest or man of faith is at the foot…! All are blindfolded, and each will “explain” the shape, texture and meaning in their own way…Without “ALL” thinking accepted with humility, we are limited to just one dimension…one “explanation” of LIFE, or GOD…or SOUL…any big question really…

Science explains the material…and by it’s nature “must” only rely on the material…to explain the workings of the universe…right down to the workings of the human being. For most humans Science is fabulously interesting and extremely enlightening on so many levels…When we think of areas like medicine etc. it’s fantastic…even for those of faith believe it or not!! lol…However, on a personal note, having explored the various scholars…not one of them really truely “define” the human condition to me…on so many levels…Free Will etc. If we are to only explain our existence, and the, I would say “natural” urge we have to look outside ourselves, then science falls short!

Reason: The soul is immaterial…

So having given a long answer…

I would say that “MindOverMatters” very short answer…says it all!

Plus: And without a shadow of a doubt, the coming of “Jesus”…his “Words” well they make “most” people who have heard those words…“SOUL” tingle with “This IS RIGHT!”…This guy is the “Real Deal…”

The rest is just up to each person as an individual to find him…The path is there…It’s a leap of faith, that completes us with our “human condition”…and answers our deepest questions…even if we can’t find the words sometimes…with “truth…”…

You “feel” it, your soul…It’s not one of your five senses…It’s the sixth I would say personally.

Philosophy asks the big questions…

and Faith…is our answer.
 
MindOverMatter said:
Quantum physical theories makes sense out of Quantum events.
Evolution theory is an the organizing principle of biological nature.
Click to expand...
There is a big difference. Those theories are supported by lots of evidence, they make strong, verified predictions, and they are falsifiable. In short, they are scientific theories. Is your idea of the soul a scientific theory?
 
40.png
Shredderbeam:
There is a big difference. Those theories are supported by lots of evidence, they make strong, verified predictions, and they are falsifiable. In short, they are scientific theories. Is your idea of the soul a scientific theory?

First of all there is no epistemologically basis for empirical science. All knowledge begins with sense impressions; my experience of those impressions. But We have no way of knowing that our experiences are actually objective. We only know that the mind is real. So it seems to me that science begins with “reasonable belief”, not empiricism. My arguments are reasonable beliefs based on, not physical phenomena, but my “experience” of physical phenomena. I see a strong and distinct difference between the nature of the physical and the nature of the self, simply because there is an explicit categorical difference between the nature of the object experienced and the nature that is “experience”; the self.

Natural science is the study and measurement of physical processes.
But not all things can be understood in terms of physical processes, because somethings do not have the inert characteristics of physical processes, although they may evidently have a relationship to them. Science is justified and has authority when studying that which is evidently physical because it is measurable. Those phenomenon that transcend scientific measurement are not the legitimate object of science. “Subjective experience” and “freewill” are, by necessity of their nature, two phenomenon that do not fall into the category of empirical measurement. They evidently reveal a different aspect to reality that cannot be quantified or measured. On the other hand, there will always be philosophical theories about the nature of the personal, no doubt; and there are sure to be much revelation about the physical processes involved in the workings of the human brain, but there will never be a legitimate scientific theory of subjective phenomenon; that which is the personal.

Science has nothing to say.
 
MindOverMatter said:
First of all there is no epistemologically basis for empirical science. All knowledge begins with sense impressions; my experience of those impressions. But We have no way of knowing that our experiences are actually objective. We only know that the mind is real. So it seems to me that science begins with “reasonable belief”, not empiricism. My arguments are reasonable beliefs based on, not physical phenomena, but my “experience” of physical phenomena. I see a strong and distinct difference between the nature of the physical and the nature of the self, simply because there is an explicit categorical difference between the nature of the object experienced and the nature that is “experience”; the self.
Click to expand...
Experience in reality tells us that our thoughts do not dictate reality, or that consciousness is not primary. Through a little trial-and-error, you can easily deduce that reality follows its own rules, and that we must abide by them in order to succeed. What’s the best way to abide by the rules of reality? First we must know these rules, and direct observation seems to be the best way to do this. Empirical science is an extension of this - it’s a methodical, careful method of observing reality and its rules.

So, certainly, sense impressions are fine for beginners with no knowledge of reality, but as others begin to discover objective truths about how reality works, these impressions must be discarded if they conflict with what has been discovered. For example, “mind-body dualism” might seem to be valid if we just go by sense impressions, but science tells us that the mind and body are not wholly separate, independent entities, but that they interconnect in multiple ways.
40.png
MindOverMatter:
Natural science is the study and measurement of physical processes.
But not all things can be understood in terms of physical processes, because somethings do not have the inert characteristics of physical processes, although they may evidently have a relationship to them. Science is justified and has authority when studying that which is evidently physical because it is measurable. Those phenomenon that transcend scientific measurement are not the legitimate object of science. “Subjective experience” and “freewill” are, by necessity of their nature, two phenomenon that do not fall into the category of empirical measurement. They evidently reveal a different aspect to reality that cannot be quantified or measured. On the other hand, there will always be philosophical theories about the nature of the personal, no doubt; and there are sure to be much revelation about the physical processes involved in the workings of the human brain, but there will never be a legitimate scientific theory of subjective phenomenon; that which is the personal.

Science has nothing to say.
Click to expand...
Consciousness definitely has some sort of basis in the human brain, as the destruction of certain parts of the brain produces a permanent loss of consciousness in an individual. Whether it’s a byproduct of brain activity, or the result of a soul directly sitting in between the neurons, I don’t know, but it’s certainly a candidate for empirical investigation, as a soul that can interact with neurons must be somehow capable of interacting with matter
 
Shredderbeam said:
Consciousness definitely has some sort of basis in the human brain, as the destruction of certain parts of the brain produces a permanent loss of consciousness in an individual. Whether it’s a byproduct of brain activity, or the result of a soul directly sitting in between the neurons, I don’t know, but it’s certainly a candidate for empirical investigation, as a soul that can interact with neurons must be somehow capable of interacting with matter

I have never denied that there is a relationship between the mind and the brain.
I said that science cannot measure subjective phenomena. I said that there are aspects of us, those aspects which make us personal beings, rather then mere complex objects that suggest to me that we are more then just inert physical entities. We are more then the sum of our parts. In being personal, having experience and having the nature of self, and having freewill, we are more then physics. It seems evident to me that we have a transcendent nature, which cannot be wholly explained by chemical interactions or molecular patterns. Science can certainly study that which is objective; that part of us which is “physical processing”, but it cannot penetrate in to that which is the self.
Click to expand...
 
Shredderbeam said:
So, certainly, sense impressions are fine for beginners with no knowledge of reality, but as others begin to discover objective truths about how reality works, these impressions must be discarded if they conflict with what has been discovered. For example, “mind-body dualism” might seem to be valid if we just go by sense impressions, but science tells us that the mind and body are not wholly separate, independent entities, but that they interconnect in multiple ways.

I never said that the mind and the body are wholly separate entities. I said that there is a part of us that transcends the reality of mere physics. In any case, mind body dualism is not refuted on the basis that the mind is dependent on the body in order to function in physical reality. I believe that to be a complete person, one needs both soul and body, but it is the soul that makes the body personal. Thats a slightly different view to your accusation of mind body dualism.

Thats nice fighting talk by the way, but it amounts to nothing in the way of providing evidence for your assertions. You are merely trying to convince me that i am immature for believing in the soul by pretending to be superior in knowledge. I assure you have nothing to tell me that will justify your position or contradict anything i have said so far. And you know it.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top