Proof of the Soul's Existence

[liquidpele]

I hope you don’t mind me interrogating you. Its nothing personal, its just a philosophical exercise.

So, now that the court is settled, we may begin.

So… according to you, the “right” decision is dictated according to mere opinion?

What is her mind? If your talking about human beings, All i see is complex objects walking around; why should i value them as people? Its the same object whether its moving or not, correct?

So you’re okay if somebody judges your life’s worth on some arbitrary invented set of principles that suits them. I feel sorry for you if somebody decides that you shouldn’t exist because they believe as a result of some naturalistic philosophy that your life isn’t worth anything.

In the history of medicine, has that always been true? Is it not the case that they could not be a hundred percent sure that recovery is impossible, epistemologically speaking?

You just said that her mind was gone… so why are you referring to her and attributing to her the value of a person? It seems that what you are really saying is that some other peoples fallible desires and beliefs about reality is more valuable to you then the desires and beliefs of the parents that gave birth to the person in Question. How is this not a prejudice against the parents?

Is it? Is this a belief? If so, what really makes a person a person, to you, is based on what people believe, rather then what is objectively truth. And you are happy to agree with her being shut down based on no knowledge other then what appears to be true to you or what a number of people agree upon according to your belief in naturalism; correct?

So you accept that she was shut down according to peoples opinions and assumptions?

The “right” decision as stated there is my opinion… by “right” I just meant what I felt I would have done in the situation… but I would hardly actually want to make the decision in that case… it is more up to her loved ones.

I’m okay with my loved ones judging my life… my wife and I actually even discussed it and agreed we both want to pass on if put in such a situation

Complex objects indeed… but you’re talking about morality here. Should you view a person as a machine or a person? Considering we as people are making the definition, it wouldn’t make sense to classify ourselves as not a person

Correct… 100% knowing if a recovery is possible is not possible. In fact, many people in comas wake up after years and years… that’s why it’s up to the family unless there is no family to speak for them… and even then we are just working on the best information we have… doctors are people, they aren’t perfect.

I didn’t mean to imply that reality is more important that the values and beliefs of the family… but there is a balance there. In Terry’s case, the family was divided, making the decision far more troublesome. If the parents did keep her around in that state… I would have truly pitied them… but at the same time they would find happiness in it, so go figure. I suppose I don’t like the idea of people living in denial, but as they say, ignorance is bliss.

Saying what makes a person a person is based on what people believe, rather then what is objectively truth is not quite accurate… I think that there just is not a black and white border there, so I think in many situations it becomes subjective. If you get crushed by a 18 wheeler, I think everyone can agree that you are no longer a person one would want to have over for dinner.

Yes, she was shut down according to the wishes of her family that mattered according to our law (debatable if that was the correct family to make the decision), but assumptions is a strong word. The doctors made the best recommendations they could given the information they had - it was not assumption, but their professional opinion given their experience and their education. That does account for a lot, even if they can never be right all the time.

Hope that clarifies my views on the matter for you

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

I don’t have a God that I know of, and you believing in one doesn’t make you right, it just means you believe in God.

I have a wonderful wife, wonderful family, and enough love, but thank you for your concern.

Anyway, I don’t see why it was futile… you asked and I told you my position on the matter. I understand yours, I just hope that you understand mine.

I understand that you “don’t care what my private beliefs are,”…" but don’t make false or
ignorant claims" that just because I said that I believe in a Loving God, that meant that I was right. To use your reasoning(?) Yes, I believe in God, and that’s just the beginning…
I’m so glad for you and your family, and I hope you find your happiness increase, as you allow the Love that created you to reveal Himself in the depths of your hearts.
Peace to you.

 

[liquidpele]

I understand that you “don’t care what my private beliefs are,”…" but don’t make false or
ignorant claims" that just because I said that I believe in a Loving God, that meant that I was right. To use your reasoning(?) Yes, I believe in God, and that’s just the beginning…
I’m so glad for you and your family, and I hope you find your happiness increase, as you allow the Love that created you to reveal Himself in the depths of your hearts.
Peace to you.

My apologies if I came across as stern or hostile… honestly I was just being playful

That you for your wishes, I hope you have a wonderful life as well.

 

[tzmike]

So a bacterium has a soul? It’s alive.

I… wha… I don’t even… sigh. :doh2:

There are 2 kinds of souls: mortal and immortal. Only humans have immortal souls. All lower life forms have a mortal soul that dies with them. Maybe your problem is the word “soul” itself. Maybe if I changed the word to “life force” for lower life forms you’d see the truth of what I say. If something is alive one moment and can be dead in the next moment then it has a “life force”. Even bacterium. B.T.W. Only humans can go to heaven, purgatory, or hell.

So don’t try to make your inability to understand a simple fact a negative reflection of MY intellect. Just accept your own short comings without trying to disrespect someone else because of it!

 

[tzmike]

The difference between them is that certain organs are not functioning.

Just because certain organs are not functioning doesn’t mean that they’re dead. But death CAN be a reason why they’re not functioning.

The point is: What makes something alive as opposed to dead?

 

[liquidpele]

There are 2 kinds of souls: mortal and immortal. Only humans have immortal souls. All lower life forms have a mortal soul that dies with them. Maybe your problem is the word “soul” itself. Maybe if I changed the word to “life force” for lower life forms you’d see the truth of what I say. If something is alive one moment and can be dead in the next moment then it has a “life force”. Even bacterium. B.T.W. Only humans can go to heaven, purgatory, or hell.

So don’t try to make your inability to understand a simple fact a negative reflection of MY intellect. Just accept your own short comings without trying to disrespect someone else because of it!

I was not aware of the Catholic distinction in souls, thank you for the clarification. I’m curious what scripture this is derived from though?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Just because certain organs are not functioning doesn’t mean that they’re dead. But death CAN be a reason why they’re not functioning.

The point is: What makes something alive as opposed to dead?

Death is the cessation of all bodily functions.

What makes something alive is the functioning of the various parts of its body.

 

[tzmike]

I was not aware of the Catholic distinction in souls, thank you for the clarification. I’m curious what scripture this is derived from though?

If I tell you will you become a catholic?

 

[tzmike]

Death is the cessation of all bodily functions.

What makes something alive is the functioning of the various parts of its body.

You’re almost there. The question should be: What makes the various parts of the body function which makes that something alive?

 

[JDaniel]

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:

Philosophically, the Church regards the soul in the Aristotelian/Thomistic sense, while at the same time regarding it in another sense, which we might call the “mystical” sense. In the A/T sense, the definition of motion/change results in the proof of the “soul”. Change is the annihilation of the contrary of non-possession by the possession of Form at the moment Form is possessed by the substrate-matter. In this regard, we have proof of that which we call the “soul,” but, it’s not enough.

We also think of the soul as that which permits our physical-ness to participate in the metaphysical, or, the supernatural, if you will. Now, the question is, “How does it participate in the supernatural?” Secondly, “How can we know that it participates in the supernatural?”

There are honest people who have had experiences we call “mystical”. These occurrences happen more in young people than older people. Perhaps because younger people have fewer engrams that tend to block opening up the mind.

To be continued…

jd

 

[liquidpele]

If I tell you will you become a catholic?

I ask a question in earnest, and you want to play games?

 

[Shredderbeam]

You’re almost there. The question should be: What makes the various parts of the body function which makes that something alive?

I would guess cause and effect.

 

[TheWhim]

When I say that consciousness is not primary, I mean that reality is not a product of our consciousness.

But since subjectivity is our only channel to the world, since we can never examine it in an objective way, like an external subject or item - I repeat again: the moment you try to set yourself aside of subjectivity you won’t have anything to examine anymore since you are either unconscious or dead -, we, therefore, cannot prove that an external world even exists. The belief that reality is not a product of consciousness is one of the basic beliefs of mankind - if you like, it’s wishful thinking. - It’s an open field in philosophical argumentation. Kant has done a good job to establish the existence of an external world though I recently read a convincing critique showing that Kant only could prove an undifferentiated external world - that is, even he couldn’t dismiss the point that while there may be something external, it’s not the specific objects we delusionarily perceive.

If consciousness is a product of physical processes in the brain, and we understand exactly how those processes work to produce consciousness, then it might be possible to experience another’s subjective experiences.

I adressed this fanciful assertion below, relying on the illustrativeness of chocolate again. ‘Another’s subjective experiences’ is a contradiction in itself, just for the record.

Research into consciousness is ongoing, and not quite fruitless. At some point, an explanation as to just how the various parts of the brain produce one unified experience will probably be produced.
Also, argument from ignorance.

First of all, this is an argument from wishful-thinking. You want to believe that science will prove what you believe in right now, and thus you claim that this will be done so some time in the future. Karl R. Popper called this the ‘blank cheque’-method. It’s a very cheap sort of argument, by the way, especially when the purported later discoveries of science cannot be discovered by definition. Thus one sets up a logical fallacy as the truth of the prophetical future.

Well, let me explain again: I’m not talking about consciousness like one talks about the consciousness of someone else. In fact, if we leave behind all our dearly held presuppositions, there is no such thing as the consciousness of someone else. This is just another one of the basic beliefs of mankind: that one is not the only subjective mind in the universe. But I thought you were an enlightened man of science and you wanted to do away with such silly childish fairy-tales made up for our own consolation, like religion teaches them. – Think of Blade Runner. They seemed perfectly human yet they were perfectly soulless, unconscious. Now imagine that all the people around you are just biological machines. Extremely sophisticated, but void of anything approaching subjectivity. If you hurt someone else and he cries he’s just reacting like a machine when you push a button, he doesn’t feel anything, because he, as a psychic entity, is not. – This could well be so. The reverse cannot be proven. – Indeed, you are still trapped in the fallacy of thinking of subjectivity as of an objective item. But it’s called subjective exactly for the reason that it is not objective.

You cannot catch subjectivity as a phenomenon of objective investigation. One morning, you are drinking a cup of awesome hot-chocolate. You immediately do a perfect, meticulously accurate brain-scan and copy it without the slightest aberration into another person’s brain. You now infer: well, since I, with the same brain-patterns, subjectively felt chocolate, he will now also subjectively feel the taste.

Well, go on ‘inferring’, go on guessing, go on hoping, go on wishing; but prove will fail. It’s the very definiton of subjectivity that you can only be sure of your own subjectivity. - Quite disturbing, isn’t it? The soul is even closer to you than your brain.

 

[JDaniel]

TomaszA:

Philosophically, the Church regards the soul in the Aristotelian/Thomistic sense, while at the same time regarding it in another sense, which we might call the “mystical” sense. In the A/T sense, the definition of motion/change results in the proof of the “soul”. Change is the annihilation of the contrary of non-possession by the possession of Form at the moment Form is possessed by the substrate-matter. In this regard, we have proof of that which we call the “soul,” but, it’s not enough.

We also think of the soul as that which permits our physical-ness to participate in the metaphysical, or, the supernatural, if you will. Now, the question is, “How does it participate in the supernatural?” Secondly, “How can we know that it participates in the supernatural?”

There are honest people who have had experiences we call “mystical”. These occurrences happen more in young people than older people. Perhaps because younger people have fewer engrams that tend to block opening up the mind.

To be continued…

jd

(Sorry, I had a split second to take care of some business. Back to the puzzle of the soul.)

Mystical experiences do not, of course, prove the soul to those unmoved by another’s veracity. And, if they are moved by another’s veracity, then they posit an apparition of some sort, thus, an imperfection of the mind of the honest person. That’s too bad, as here is a way to replicate experiences in and of the supernatural realm in a way that is similar to a laboratory experiment. Unfortunately, people lie. And this has us all think the worst of even the most honest persons discovering similar results. I choose to think that honest people don’t select out stepping into and out of the ethereal-type experiences to lie about, when they are consistent truth-tellers, otherwise.

Now, for me, a Catholic, I am further able to luxuriate in the exquisite showers of revelation directly from God Himself. I think God is a truth-sayer, not a liar. I think God has told us of the soul throughout Scripture. Furthermore, I think God is the fundamental rationality. I think that if this was all just some scheme, there would be no sense, in our universe, just nonsense. I think reality is real. I don’t know about you guys, but, I know I am not living in some illusion!

jd

 

[Shredderbeam]

But since subjectivity is our only channel to the world, since we can never examine it in an objective way, like an external subject or item - I repeat again: the moment you try to set yourself aside of subjectivity you won’t have anything to examine anymore since you are either unconscious or dead -, we, therefore, cannot prove that an external world even exists. The belief that reality is not a product of consciousness is one of the basic beliefs of mankind - if you like, it’s wishful thinking. - It’s an open field in philosophical argumentation. Kant has done a good job to establish the existence of an external world though I recently read a convincing critique showing that Kant only could prove an undifferentiated external world - that is, even he couldn’t dismiss the point that while there may be something external, it’s not the specific objects we delusionarily perceive.

Oh, I see what you’re saying. You’re referring to the impossibility of viewing the “noumenal world”, yes?

TheWhim:

First of all, this is an argument from wishful-thinking. You want to believe that science will prove what you believe in right now, and thus you claim that this will be done so some time in the future. Karl R. Popper called this the ‘blank cheque’-method. It’s a very cheap sort of argument, by the way, especially when the purported later discoveries of science cannot be discovered by definition. Thus one sets up a logical fallacy as the truth of the prophetical future.

Well, let me explain again: I’m not talking about consciousness like one talks about the consciousness of someone else. In fact, if we leave behind all our dearly held presuppositions, there is no such thing as the consciousness of someone else. This is just another one of the basic beliefs of mankind: that one is not the only subjective mind in the universe. But I thought you were an enlightened man of science and you wanted to do away with such silly childish fairy-tales made up for our own consolation, like religion teaches them. – Think of Blade Runner. They seemed perfectly human yet they were perfectly soulless, unconscious. Now imagine that all the people around you are just biological machines. Extremely sophisticated, but void of anything approaching subjectivity. If you hurt someone else and he cries he’s just reacting like a machine when you push a button, he doesn’t feel anything, because he, as a psychic entity, is not. – This could well be so. The reverse cannot be proven. – Indeed, you are still trapped in the fallacy of thinking of subjectivity as of an objective item. But it’s called subjective exactly for the reason that it is not objective.

You cannot catch subjectivity as a phenomenon of objective investigation. One morning, you are drinking a cup of awesome hot-chocolate. You immediately do a perfect, meticulously accurate brain-scan and copy it without the slightest aberration into another person’s brain. You now infer: well, since I, with the same brain-patterns, subjectively felt chocolate, he will now also subjectively feel the taste.

Well, go on ‘inferring’, go on guessing, go on hoping, go on wishing; but prove will fail. It’s the very definiton of subjectivity that you can only be sure of your own subjectivity. - Quite disturbing, isn’t it? The soul is even closer to you than your brain.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying at first. No objections here.

 

[tzmike]

I ask a question in earnest, and you want to play games?

You don’t come across as someone who is sincere in wanting to understand or believe, but rather someone who’s trying to belittle those who do believe. Your signature, your discription of your religious beliefs, and your answers to other peoples posts lead me to that conclusion. You seem to try to put believers on the defensive. So even if I did show you references in scriptures to show the distinction between souls it would not be enough for you. Because ultimately you have to make a leap of faith in your choice to believe.

Now I’m not trying to insult you, but I think you’re trying to show how smart you are with your questions and retorts rather than sincerely trying to learn because some of the people who have posted here offered up some excellent explanations.

Then again it could be because there are no voice inflections in the written word, so you can’t tell with %100 accuracy if someone is being sarcastic or not.

 

[tzmike]

I would guess cause and effect.

Since you’re an atheist, do you have a hard time accepting the concept of a soul because then you’d have to accept that there’s a god?

The idea of cause and effect ultimately leads to the conclusion that God is real because you need a cause that has no cause itself.

I’m reminded of the story of a famous astronomer who was being visited by a scientist friend who claimed to be an atheist. This scientist was admiring a working model of the solar system that stood upon a table; by turning the handle the planets could be made to revolve in their respective orbits around the sun.
“Pretty ingenious”, he remarked. “Who made it?”
“Nobody made it, It just happened- it made itself.”
The scientist realized he was being taught a lesson and was annoyed, so the astronomer said “You can’t believe that this little model made itself, and yet you can believe that the real sun and moon and earth, planets and stars, and everything else in the vast universe just came into existance without a Maker!”

 

[liquidpele]

You don’t come across as someone who is sincere in wanting to understand or believe, but rather someone who’s trying to belittle those who do believe. Your signature, your description of your religious beliefs, and your answers to other peoples posts lead me to that conclusion. You seem to try to put believers on the defensive. So even if I did show you references in scriptures to show the distinction between souls it would not be enough for you. Because ultimately you have to make a leap of faith in your choice to believe.

Now I’m not trying to insult you, but I think you’re trying to show how smart you are with your questions and retorts rather than sincerely trying to learn because some of the people who have posted here offered up some excellent explanations.

Then again it could be because there are no voice inflections in the written word, so you can’t tell with %100 accuracy if someone is being sarcastic or not.

You misunderstand me, and still didn’t answer my question.

I am always willing to learn… in this case I’m interesting to know why Catholics would believe an animal soul is different from a human soul. I likely won’t suddenly believe in souls from your answer, but I’m interested, is that not enough? Regardless, this is the last time I’ll ask, otherwise I’ll assume you were just repeating what you’ve been taught but have not actual knowledge of why.

My signature is a request to not make statements to me that are contradicting, proven scientifically false, having fallacies in them, etc. It is not a condemnation of any belief, but myself asking those I speak with to keep the conversation honest and enlightening. It applies to atheists and Catholics alike, and if I were to break my own request I would hope others would call me out on it.

 

[toddvetter]

thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/Gospel%20of%20perfect%20life%20-%20Holy%2012.pdf

You can key word search the document at this link. It’s a gospel found in a monestery that still has much of what was tossed away in the 3rd and 4th century councils.

You will find it pretty amazing since it contains a great deal of information that is not in the cannonized 4 gospels.

 

[tzmike]

You misunderstand me, and still didn’t answer my question.

I am always willing to learn… in this case I’m interesting to know why Catholics would believe an animal soul is different from a human soul. I likely won’t suddenly believe in souls from your answer, but I’m interested, is that not enough? Regardless, this is the last time I’ll ask, otherwise I’ll assume you were just repeating what you’ve been taught but have not actual knowledge of why.

My signature is a request to not make statements to me that are contradicting, proven scientifically false, having fallacies in them, etc. It is not a condemnation of any belief, but myself asking those I speak with to keep the conversation honest and enlightening. It applies to atheists and Catholics alike, and if I were to break my own request I would hope others would call me out on it.

The old and new testaments are filled with references to the soul, but I’ll give you one reference that shows the distinction between God’s creations. In the book of Genisis it describes how God made everything and said it was good, but only with man does he make a distinction: “Let us make a man - someone like ourselves… So God made man like his Maker. Like God did God make man.” (Gen.1:27) God didn’t say this about any of his other creations. Since God is eternal than man must also be so (soul NOT body, although the body will be resurected and reunited with the soul on judgement day and then it too will be eternal.)
Now you’ve got a scriptural reference you demanded. Did it put a dent in your disbeliefe? I didn’t think so. Because God also gave us free will to choose not to believe in him and I believe you’ll be exercising your choice to not believe.