Prove the existence of the soul

[Peter_Plato]

I would say no, matter cannot “mirror” rationality, if I am understanding you correctly.

I don’t think you are understanding me. The rational processes of the mind must be reflected materially in the biochemical and neurological processes in order for the mind to be functionally connected to the brain. If this is true, then the genetic evolution of humanity - given common descent - must have been targeted at a final morphological form that could function correlatively with the rational aspect that God ensouls into the body.

 

[polytropos]

Oh, yes, I would agree with that. Our rational aspect (unlike that of angels) does depend on the material.

 

[DanAl]

I have for a long time wondered why so many people believe in the existence of the soul, yet cannot seem to produce objective evidence of this reality that exists, and can continue to exist, independent of the body.

Pascal said:

“The immortality of the soul is a matter which concerns us so strongly, which touches us so closely, that a man must have lost all feeling not to care to know about it.”

And so I think even atheists must take an interest in the matter, though they would likely as not assert that you would have to first prove the existence of God before you could prove the existence of an immortal soul.

Your thoughts?

In philosophy of the mind there are many defenses for the existence of a soul or immaterial aspects in humans. For example, our consciousness and ability to grasp abstract concepts cannot be explained in naturalist terms, concepts themselves are immaterial (they have no weight, size, volume, charge, etc.) which is why philosophy of the mind is a huge field right now among naturalists. They have a hard time explaining the mind.

As for life after death, I go along with people like Blessed Duns Scotus who say that it is a matter of faith and cannot be proved with certainty.

I see no reason why you must prove the existence of God beforehand, it is a different subject, many atheists have held that that reality is both mental and material such as Bertrand Russell.

 

[DanAl]

I have for a long time wondered why so many people believe in the existence of the soul, yet cannot seem to produce objective evidence of this reality that exists, and can continue to exist, independent of the body.

Pascal said:

“The immortality of the soul is a matter which concerns us so strongly, which touches us so closely, that a man must have lost all feeling not to care to know about it.”

And so I think even atheists must take an interest in the matter, though they would likely as not assert that you would have to first prove the existence of God before you could prove the existence of an immortal soul.

Your thoughts?

In philosophy of the mind there are many defenses for the existence of a soul or immaterial aspects in humans. For example, our consciousness and ability to grasp abstract concepts cannot be explained in naturalist terms, concepts themselves are immaterial (they have no weight, size, volume, charge, etc.) which is why philosophy of the mind is a huge field right now among naturalists. They have a hard time explaining the mind.

As for life after death, I go along with people like Blessed Duns Scotus who say that it is a matter of faith and cannot be proved with certainty.

I see no reason why you must prove the existence of God beforehand, it is a different subject, many atheists have held that that reality is both mental and material such as Bertrand Russell.

 

[chimo]

I have for a long time wondered why so many people believe in the existence of the soul, yet cannot seem to produce objective evidence of this reality that exists, and can continue to exist, independent of the body.

Pascal said:

“The immortality of the soul is a matter which concerns us so strongly, which touches us so closely, that a man must have lost all feeling not to care to know about it.”

And so I think even atheists must take an interest in the matter, though they would likely as not assert that you would have to first prove the existence of God before you could prove the existence of an immortal soul.

Your thoughts?

The proof for the existence of our immortality is simple. In Astronomy nothing is ever wasted. Once a star comes into existence its property is always in existence. Nothing in the Universe can ever lose its existence. Its existence can change into another property but it can never go out completely. For instance a star has its hydrogen turned into other elements within its furnaces. These new elements come into existence from other elements that were there. Even at the end of the star’s life as in a supernova or not as a supernova these other elements are always there. God uses fusion to bring nuclei together in stars and in stars systems. From this we can deduct we are material that also exists forever. Since God loves putting nuclei together in fusion we can also say we are made to receive this as well. We need though another nuclei which is of course God Himself as He can give to us the Holy Spirit. In this “fusion” we are made to be like Him when we give into this energy. However we are the only ones in the Universe that can say to accept this “fusion” with God. Interesting. If we do not accept what natural forces are trying to give to us than our immortal souls still exist but without any “fusion” that would help us to exist in the next life to be fully happy. Yet our Universe points that nothing can ever disappear but must exist on its own property into a different level of property. Nothing is ever wasted or destroyed.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dan

**I see no reason why you must prove the existence of God beforehand, it is a different subject, many atheists have held that that reality is both mental and material such as Bertrand Russell. **

If there is no God, how would you be able to explain the existence of the soul since it presumably is not made up of atoms in motion?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

chimo

Nothing is ever wasted or destroyed.

Since we are both Catholics, this is something we both believe to be true. A materialist, however, would not allow that soul is anything other than highly developed and complex matter in motion that dies when the body dies. You say nothing is ever wasted or destroyed. The materialist might agree with you, but he would say the body and the soul together are transformed into other kinds of matter or energy as time passes.

Try pitching to him the idea that the soul exists and that what appears to be a soul does not disintegrate and lose its identity along with the body. How would you do that?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Dan

**I see no reason why you must prove the existence of God beforehand, it is a different subject, many atheists have held that that reality is both mental and material such as Bertrand Russell. **

If there is no God, how would you be able to explain the existence of the soul since it presumably is not made up of atoms in motion?

In actual fact, both mental and material existents require explanation since neither of them explain their own existence.

It is not a question of needing to explain or prove the existence of God, as DanAl suggests, but of needing to explain - as per the principle of sufficient reason - the existence of both matter and mind by appeal to what can suffice as an explanation for their existing, which as Aquinas points out, is quite inexplicable without ipsum esse subsistens.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I have for a long time wondered why so many people believe in the existence of the soul, yet cannot seem to produce objective evidence of this reality that exists, and can continue to exist, independent of the body.

Pascal said:

“The immortality of the soul is a matter which concerns us so strongly, which touches us so closely, that a man must have lost all feeling not to care to know about it.”

And so I think even atheists must take an interest in the matter, though they would likely as not assert that you would have to first prove the existence of God before you could prove the existence of an immortal soul.

Your thoughts?

What says we have the ability to prove that the soul exists? Some things can not be proved (including this sentence). That’s where faith comes in.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I have for a long time wondered why so many people believe in the existence of the soul, yet cannot seem to produce objective evidence of this reality that exists, and can continue to exist, independent of the body.

Pascal said:

“The immortality of the soul is a matter which concerns us so strongly, which touches us so closely, that a man must have lost all feeling not to care to know about it.”

And so I think even atheists must take an interest in the matter, though they would likely as not assert that you would have to first prove the existence of God before you could prove the existence of an immortal soul.

Your thoughts?

I don’t have any doubt about the existence of the soul, as I had the peculiar experience of my own father turning up in my bedroom the night he died (as it turned out his body wasn’t found for another four days, so I had four days pre-notice of his death so to speak). And I’ve had other “spiritual” experiences as well.

I’ve related this story before. But proving it is another thing. My personal experience is non transferable, unless I write about it, and even then the reader’s perception will depend on what they already believe about the existence of a soul.

I think we’ll find the “proof” when we start learning how to teleport larger objects. The link below gives a bit of a (slightly sarcastic) summary of some late developments in quantum teleporting, which we’re already doing.

huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/22/quantum-teleportation-research_n_3780296.html

Personally I think God intends to drive us off the planet and out into the universe which He has made. If so, then He will have set up the physics of the universe so it is possible for this to happen. Rocketry is out of the question - it’s far too slow, whereas teleportatin is instantaneous. At the moment however, as I understand it, proof of the teleported items identity still has to be transmitted by conventional means eg. a computerised breakdown sent by digital radio transmission, so we’re still limited to the speed of light. I mean, how do you know the quanta of light that appeared at location B is the same quanta light that you sent from location A? I mean, without being racist, most quanta look pretty much the same to the unaided human eye…

With massive objects though this identification issue shouldn’t be necessary. For example, if Jack Smith transmits a golf ball with Jack Smith written on the side, and a golf ball turns up in the previously empty teleportation receiver with Jack Smith written on the side, I think the receiver could be pretty sure it was the original golf ball, without needing to check the contents atom by atom, since the original in situ is destroyed. Which I think is a bit of a pointer to God’s safety net so we can’t clone ourselves into the bargain. So there would not be the necessity to double check by sending details by conventional transmission means.

The article in the link above pointed out the size of the memory required in current day hard drives to analyse all the components of a person, prior to teleportation. By today’s standards, it’s obviously not possible.

However this doesn’t take into account the development of quantum teleporting, or the possibility of quantum memory devices. When these are developed, the scope will increase by a phenomenal amount.

My point though is that we won’t be able to quantise the soul, and this I think is when we’ll find out ALL living creatures have a soul. The proverbial lab rat will turn up at the other end of the teleportation process, still an identifiable lab rat, but dead as a dormouse caught in a mouse trap. And this will happen with every living thing we try to teleport, from the simplest to the most complex.

Eventually though we’ll learn to get around that as well, but not until it’s been made well and truly clear we have a soul.

That’s my thought on the matter since you asked.

I also think that the error factor will inhibit teleportation being used too often, so we may not be able to move around and sell our inter-galactic houses every five years like we do now.

We may even find that after a person has been teleported, they may need some fairly constant medical care and monitoring to ensure they survive any damage to their tissues and organs, due to transmission “errors”.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peter

In actual fact, both mental and material existents require explanation since neither of them explain their own existence.

If you mean where does matter come from, that would be true. But matter self evidently exists, and the materialist does not have to explain anything beyond that. Whereas mental existents the materialist takes to be actually material existents dependent upon the material functions of the brain and nothing more. It’s the belief that mental existents exist separately from physical existents that the materialist says needs explaining.

 

[Latin_rite_Cath]

What says we have the ability to prove that the soul exists? Some things can not be proved (including this sentence). That’s where faith comes in.

The existence of the spiritual soul has been believed widely throughout pre-Christian history and was believed by most of the Greek philosophers, so it seems that the existence of the spiritual soul is a truth which may be known from natural reason.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter

In actual fact, both mental and material existents require explanation since neither of them explain their own existence.

If you mean where does matter come from, that would be true. But matter self evidently exists, and the materialist does not have to explain anything beyond that. Whereas mental existents the materialist takes to be actually material existents dependent upon the material functions of the brain and nothing more. It’s the belief that mental existents exist separately from physical existents that the materialist says needs explaining.

A claim that matter self-evidently exists can be turned around on the materialist because it is by reason of the mind or reason that the materialist can even make that claim. From an internal perspective (the only one we have) the self-evident existence of a self or mind is and must be prior to the ”self-evident” claim that matter exists. That matter is “self-evident” depends on the mind that makes that claim. My own existence is the most self-evident “fact” that I can possibly encounter. That matter exists is a derivative inference from the experiences I have.

I think this was Descartes’ point, that the only completely “self”-evident fact is the existence of “self.” Unfortunately, he made the mistake of trying to prove what is self-evident by using a less than self-evident proof…

Existence does not depend on thought, but rather thought depends upon mental existence. The problem is that thought cannot take in its own source, as the sight enabled by the eye cannot see the eye that enables it, except obliquely. The mind cannot be captured in the thoughts it emanates, since the thoughts are not the mind but arise from it.

I am is “self”-evident and requires no proof. “I think, therefore I am,” is an unnecessary attempt to prove that which is self-evident.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

From an internal perspective (the only one we have) the self-evident existence of a self or mind is and must be prior to the ”self-evident” claim that matter exists.

The question the materialist asks is not whether the mental self exists. That is self evident. What he asks is how do we know that this mental self is not made up of the same stuff (atoms more or less) that the rest of the universe is made of.

I think the way to get at the materialist is not through proof of a spiritual self (soul) but evidence that a Creator exists who is not matter. If that seed can be planted, it can grow into a recognition that the soul might indeed be made of something other than matter, something closer to the “image and likeness” of God.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Well, I wouldn’t recommend
buying into this, but it’s still
interesting to think about:

Dr. Duncan MacDougall in the early 20th Century experimented with dying people and
determined that upon death the patients lost a certain “average” amount of weight, de-
terming that the soul weighs about 21 grams. It is also worth noting that MacDougall
experimented with animals too, found that they did not lose weight, determining thus
that the human being has something that an animal did not: A Soul.

The only problem with this is that MacDougall was looking for certain results, which is
not the scientific method, so the study and conclusions are HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, I wouldn’t recommend
buying into this, but it’s still
interesting to think about:

Dr. Duncan MacDougall in the early 20th Century experimented with dying people and
determined that upon death the patients lost a certain “average” amount of weight, de-
terming that the soul weighs about 21 grams. It is also worth noting that MacDougall
experimented with animals too, found that they did not lose weight, determining thus
that the human being has something that an animal did not: A Soul.

The only problem with this is that MacDougall was looking for certain results, which is
not the scientific method, so the study and conclusions are HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE.

Except that would indicate the soul is a material or partly material construct since it has weight. The Catholic view is that the soul is immaterial.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Duncan MacDougall’s experiments were subsequently proved to have false results. Since his time much more sophisticated measurement of human weight upon death have failed to prove a loss of “soul” weight.

The materialist can claim there is no loss of "soul weight because there is no soul. The Christian can claim the same; of course there is no loss of soul weight because the soul is spirit, not matter.

 

[DanAl]

Dan

**I see no reason why you must prove the existence of God beforehand, it is a different subject, many atheists have held that that reality is both mental and material such as Bertrand Russell. **

If there is no God, how would you be able to explain the existence of the soul since it presumably is not made up of atoms in motion?

An atheist could say the “soul” or immaterial aspect of our minds is just an unexplained brute fact of reality. Not that I believe this, of course, I am catholic.

 

[chimo]

chimo

Nothing is ever wasted or destroyed.

Since we are both Catholics, this is something we both believe to be true. A materialist, however, would not allow that soul is anything other than highly developed and complex matter in motion that dies when the body dies. You say nothing is ever wasted or destroyed. The materialist might agree with you, but he would say the body and the soul together are transformed into other kinds of matter or energy as time passes.

Try pitching to him the idea that the soul exists and that what appears to be a soul does not disintegrate and lose its identity along with the body. How would you do that?

By looking at the Sun. Its brilliance overshadows everything else we know of. Yet the Sun is a created thing. The Sun is the one object in the sky that shows forth the Glory of the Son of God. We read in Matthew’s account of the Transfiguration that the face of Jesus was so transfigured that it shined like the Sun. Our souls also radiate this light. If we could see pass this body into our souls we would see brilliance and light. However this may be the other light which is God is an uncreated light where our is created. For our light to continue on forever we need the other Light who is God and uncreated to enter us. If we see that this true than we can understand why God put that great light which is the Sun to give us a share of that light for it points to our soul’s need to have God if we are to live.

One way to see this is looking at the moon. The moon shines brilliantly because it perfectly reflects the glory of the Sun. In this teaching we can see why God has placed the Sun as the means to point to our purpose in also reflecting the glory of God. Because God uses the fusion theory to bring nuclei together this same theory also reflects His Holy Spirit coming into our lives by bringing Him and us together. That is why I say nothing of God is ever wasted meaning it will exist forever but depending on its use it will exist forever as the Sun reflecting on a moon perfectly or exist forever not like a full moon at all but a dark moon.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

You guys, it doesn’t take four (or was it five? I can’t remember.) pages of debate to prove the existence of the soul. If you’re looking for proof of the soul, you’re looking in all the wrong places. “Nothing is ever wasted or destroyed”, “people lose weight when they die” and such are irrelevant. If you want to prove something about the nature of the human person, work from what we know about the human person. One such thing that we know is free will. If the human mind/soul/spirit is to be explained in material terms, then material things must have the power of independent action. This, as we can observe, is not the case. No physical thing has this power. Physical things only act (not that this really counts as action) when something influences them. They don’t move unless something moves them. Even neurons don’t freely choose to fire. No physical system does. Thus, no physical system has free will. The human mind/soul/spirit must therefore be immaterial.