The Existence of the Soul

[Gilbert_Keith]

RMcgeddon

*It is the fact of our complex brains that sets us apart from the rest of the animals on the planet.

I see that as common sense.*

I don’t know any Catholic who would disagree with that. But what has that to do with the existence of the soul as a separate entity?

You can’t see the soul as a material entity, just as you can’t see God as such. But that does not prove that God and the soul do not exist. It’s just an assertion without scientific proof for the simple reason that there can be no scientific proof on either score.

Please don’t pretend that science has explained away the soul any more than it has explained away God. It has done no such thing and never can do any such thing.

 

[R_McGeddon]

You can’t see the soul as a material entity, just as you can’t see God as such. But that does not prove that God and the soul do not exist. It’s just an assertion without scientific proof for the simple reason that there can be no scientific proof on either score.

I know this, but the opening poster said that a soul was more than a belief, it was common sense. I wouldn’t say either was common sense, they are both a matter of belief or lack thereof.

I know for certain that if I had said that of atheism, you and others would have had something to say about such a bold claim.

Please don’t pretend that science has explained away the soul any more than it has explained away God. It has done no such thing and never can do any such thing.

I don’t and neither does science, science just deals with what is testable. I wouldn’t be so quick to state what science can and can’t do, now or in the future.

 

[dessert]

I know this, but the opening poster said that a soul was more than a belief, it was common sense. I wouldn’t say either was common sense, they are both a matter of belief or lack thereof.

I know for certain that if I had said that of atheism, you and others would have had something to say about such a bold claim.
I don’t and neither does science, science just deals with what is testable. I wouldn’t be so quick to state what science can and can’t do, now or in the future.

This is one thread that leaves much to imagination! Do you see that there aren’t that many participating?
Yes we are mammals of the animal kingdom but we are not animals, present company excluded if you wish! The statement was every HUMAN being living has a soul. On another thread it was stated in Genisis that God breathed into man. Now if God says He breathed into man a soul then can we argue? Are you an atheist? Scientiffically we have different chromosones than animals, I think they are lacking a few especially the tomatos that is why there aren’t any elephants with wings ,elephant birds!
One of the basic arguements I can contribute is that there are people who are born with or aquire disabilities and they would not be able to reason their soul to heaven Don’t they have a soul too?
Or do you just put them on the Polar Express soul TRain! Sorry you aren’t smart enough next stop; get off!
Then the LOrd God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being. Genesis 2 ; 7 RSV CE
THE GRASS WITHERS, THE FLOWER FADES;
BUT THE WORD OF OUR GOD WILL STAND FOREVER;
ISAIAH 40; 8 RSV CE:thumbsup:

 

[ltravis]

there are people who are born with or aquire disabilities and they would not be able to reason their soul to heaven Don’t they have a soul too?
Or do you just put them on the Polar Express soul TRain! Sorry you aren’t smart enough next stop; get off!

Note: faith-based answer below
Wouldn’t we consider such disabled people, as well as infants and the unborn, in terms of their potentiality. I mean, we believe that all people in heaven eventually get their bodies back in a perfect state, which means all their mental capacities are perfected as well. If so, there is a reality to these “beings” that makes them still fully human and with a soul. I don’t know if this is Aquinas type thinking or anything, but it is what my “faith logic” tells me anyway.

LT

 

[dessert]

Matthew 18; 10-14 part of it states;
for I tell you that in heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven. RSV CE
(So you see we not only receive a soul but also are assigned an angel.)
So it is NOT the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

 

[FightingFat]

What about mental illness?

The physical symptoms of brain damage and how it affects the personality would imply that there is no immutable essence of the persona, or else our personality would remain unchanged regardless of Alzheimers, schizophrenia and the vast catalogue of disorders affecting the mind. Having to suffer an eternally brain damaged soul would also be quite bad news.

 

[john_doran]

What about mental illness?

The physical symptoms of brain damage and how it affects the personality would imply that there is no immutable essence of the persona, or else our personality would remain unchanged regardless of Alzheimers, schizophrenia and the vast catalogue of disorders affecting the mind. Having to suffer an eternally brain damaged soul would also be quite bad news.

perhaps i am misunderstanding your point, but i don’t think that anyone is suggesting that the soul is immutable, but only immortal - the soul is certainly capable of change.

also, the soul is not the person - a person is the conjunction of body and soul.

 

[freesoulhope]

I wouldn’t be so quick to state what science can and can’t do, now or in the future.

You have to know what the soul is and what the soul isnt before, you can ever begin to disprove that there is one. I dont blame you for not believing in the soul, but its a fallacy to say that science has proven that there isnt one. Science can only prove and disprove things that are bound, measurable and are explainable by physical law. The soul is not physical.

 

[Kepha15]

All of these are good points, including those brought up by RMcGeddon (even though I know he is wrong). But most people are still missing the overall point.

Mr. McGeddon, you are arguing based on what science can and can’t tell us about the physical processes of the brain, but I’m arguing on something totally different. You say that a person has no perspective until they have experiences…and I agree with you, 100%. But that still doesn’t explain why those experiences are “yours” in the first place. This still does not adequately answer the question of what it means to be an individual and where subjectivity comes from. Let me give you an example.

I know from empiracal observation that other people also experience things just the same as I do. Yet, I cannot verify this subjectively, because I am not them. There is a fundamental difference between me and every other being in the universe from my perspective, and this is an important fact to consider. This difference, even though it is only available to me, is a fundamental difference nonetheless, because it brings up a very important question. Why does it exist? If there is no fundamental difference between me and another person (because we are both made of material things only), there is no logical reason that I would have the “perspective” of one or the other. In fact, there’s no reason this unique, individual “perspective” should exist at all, given the fact that you claim that we are all fundamentally the same. In fact, if your theory is correct, there is no inherent difference between life and non-life, and therefore we are fundamentally the same as everything else in the universe, even down to the most non-living molecules.

You can argue that since everyone’s DNA is different, this accounts for differences is perspective, but this also does not adequately answer the dilemma of why our “perspective” is experienced through one being and not the other. If your theory is correct, there is no “imaginary boundary” between life and non-life. “Life” is just a collection of atoms connected and behaving in complex ways. If this is so, it makes no sense to suggest that after a certain point, subjectivity appears. To say this would suggest that the whole (the person with the perspective) is greater than the sum of its parts (the collection of atoms)…something that cannot be if we assume your hypothesis is correct.

The mere fact that we are all aware of our own perspectives and the fundamental difference that distinguishes “me” from “you” is proof enough that there must be something more to us than merely a collection of atoms. All other arguments must be based off this premise at the very least.

Again, if you see a flaw in my reasoning, please point it out, but I don’t think you will find one. Please don’t tell me that this is just merely my belief, for I find that very insulting when I just laid out my reasoning very carefully.

The soul does indeed exist, and it’s not merely a belief, as I said before, it’s common sense.

 

[FightingFat]

perhaps i am misunderstanding your point, but i don’t think that anyone is suggesting that the soul is immutable, but only immortal - the soul is certainly capable of change.

also, the soul is not the person - a person is the conjunction of body and soul.

So if someone has a mental illness, their soul changes in nature?

 

[ElCid]

I’m not a philosopher so I woudn’t dare philosophize. Nor am I a biblical scholar nor a scientist so I wouldn’t try to be one either. Even this thread is too much for me to read. All I know is that the soul is an essence or something spiritual. It makes us who we are - it is the seat of our being: our will and our intellect. It is what makes us who we are long after our dust have mingled with the ground. Would anyone dare deny our own will? Moreso, our intellect? For to deny the existence of the soul is to deny both and to deny our humanity. You need only go to a morgue and see what happens when a soul leaves a body. Perhaps the difference between us and those bodies lying in the morgue is the SOUL - the principle that animates the body. I guess no one needs to be a scientist nor a theologian to spot the difference.

Warm greetings.

 

[ltravis]

The more I think about this, the more I see it comes down to the question of “why”. As an posit of faith, the “soul” cannot be proven by science, so if science can eventually give a physical cause for every human thought, emotion, and motive. If you accept this, and accept a timeless universe, you can provide a logical answer to “how” everything exists.

However, that leaves the question of “why” everything exists, and indeed why is there even “existence” itself. Simply, what is the “purpose”; why is this condition desirable, thereby giving impetus to reality? If you posit that there doesn’t need to be a reason (i.e. stuff just “is”), then it begs the question of where the very concept of “why” comes from. If you accept the concept of “purpose”, you likely accept its existence as evidenced by the reasons behind our own actions. Therefore, if purpose is not in creation overall, but yet is part of our lives, where in between the two does it get created? Beyond that, if you reject the very idea that there is purpose in our decisions (i.e. “all physiological”), then where does the very concept of “purpose” come from? How can we invent and understand a concept that is not and never has been part of reality?

LT