Maybe it would be helpful to the discussion, Othello1, if you could tell us what evidence would convince you we don’t have souls.
If it was possible to destroy an individual’s frontal lobe but not affect their ability to make good decisions, I might be tempted to agree with you. But it’s pretty much guaranteed that people injured in this way will have impaired executive functioning. Doesn’t this mean “free will” is a matter of, well, matter rather than “spirits”?
No, we would not have to explain when we acquired them. There are other evolutionary steps that we can’t exactly pinpoint, like the beginnings of life itself, or consciousness, or intelligence. Sure, we can say we have X quality, but it didn’t exist one hundred million years ago. But how close can we say a particular event came to be?
Be that as it may, there’s no evidence for souls . . . unless the OP means something like personality or exercise of free will.
Plus, if another criteria for human-only souls is incomplete predictability based on brain chemistry, you can refute that by pointing out the cat 
OK, witnessing. Enjoy. This is the right forum for it.
Well, to be fair, the OP was an argument that such a thing exists, because it would have to, on the premise that a “material” mind couldn’t have free will. That is, to the OP, the evidence needed.
The description isn’t necessary. Othello1 (or another believer) can say, “I don’t know what it is, but it has to exist, because inert matter cannot make choices.”
For me, the flaw in the argument is in point #6, where it is claimed that the only thing that can influence matter in this way is “spirit.” Most of us are perfectly fine with matter and energy influencing each other, in patterns we call information.
Like Laplace, we have no need of the hypothesis (of spirit as a cause for human decision-making.)
Okay, okay, okay, stop.
Let’s unpack that language.
What does that even mean? No, seriously, what even is a “nonmaterial entity”? What even is a “nonmaterial” anything? How can one assert the existence of something that has no material or energetic (mass is, after all, just energy) content? What would define such an entity?
The term seems incoherent, in the same way that “square circle” would be. We define entities by their qualities, and the qualities of entities are exclusively dependent on either their material form or our perception of said material form - or things we define into existence with ad-hoc logic, such as the qualities of mathematical formulas. I’m assuming that these “spirits” are not the latter.
Gonna have to stop you again. What is this link, how is it established, how can we determine that there is such a link between something with no material qualities and something material?
Again, how? How does an entity with no material presence exert any influence over physical matter?
There’s a long-standing human tradition of alien abduction. In fact, you can go talk to people who are convinced they were abducted by aliens today. Personally, I don’t consider that convincing. I also don’t consider the tribal myths of various human cultures that have never been independently or scientifically verified to any degree convincing. Looking through mythology, one can find all manner of insane things proposed by “traditional” religions.
Care to provide a single case of that which was well-documented and examined by scientists? Because looking into it, I’m finding a lot of your typical miraculous claims, and very little reason to take any of them seriously. Very little serious examination, and what little I could find seemed to indicate that it was not supernatural, but rather a matter of burial conditions. Indeed, one such “incorruptable” saint has a wax mask for a face, because, and I quote, “it was decided that the “blackish color” of her face might be off-putting to pilgrims”. Yep, that’s pretty incorruptible, all right. Indeed, you can find many such examples here. Reminds me of the ol’ eucharist stories.
Oh christ. Here we go. :rolleyes:
A miracle that happened over a thousand years ago without solid corroborating evidence beyond “this is a piece of human flesh”. What, are we supposed to assume that the bread turned into that piece of flesh, and that that flesh was of Jesus Christ? Yeah, sorry, I’m not that gullible.
Look, let me put it to you this way. If there was a single miracle as well-documented and well-supported as you seem to want to imply, we wouldn’t be having this theoretical conversation. Just about everyone would agree - your religion is real.
Why use the term, then? When you say “soul”, the immediate connotation is “life after death”. Almost regardless of religious doctrine. Your “soul” offers no such information. It is at best tangentially related to any real definition of the term, and calling it a “soul” does nothing but confuse.
Just to further illustrate my point, you could construct an equivalent argument like this:
“I’ll prove to you that pixies exist. 1. Given that fairies exist…”
If everyone has souls, what happens to them when we’re intoxicated? Or when we’re hypnotized? Or when we’re asleep? Or when we have a psychotic break?
Does the soul conveniently shut off during these times? Or is it always there, silently watching the body it’s attached to behave like a buffoon? If the first is true, the soul and matter are inextricably linked…which (I would think) would render their separation rather pointless. If the second is true, then the soul isn’t the one steering the ship. It’s just there, not doing anything, not controlling our bodies, not making any decisions. What kind of useless spirit is that?
O’Douls’s?
And if the soul animates the ‘matter’ of our bodies, why is it that if I lose an arm it doesn’t impair my ability to think, but if I lose part of my brain it does? Curious that it’s the brain that affects, quite obviously, ones ability to think and reason if the soul is completely disembodied (in the way a supposed ‘poltergeist’, um, is I guess). Why would that be, exactly? Why would the ‘soul’ depend so completely on the brain to be intact in order to word correctly?? And if it does rely on the brain, which seems evident, then why do we need a ‘soul’ at all to explain human behavior and choice and all of the rest of the nonsense in the OP??
So do inanimate objects, for that matter. We certainly can’t predict where every droplet of water in a waterfall will go; does that mean a waterfall has a soul?
Yes and also what is “life”?
Some people dance sober, I need spirits to have soul.
Here, Russian scientist lower a microphone into a 9 mile deep hole hear the screams of the damned in hell.
http://www.oddee.com/item_98822.aspx
I’m not arguing in support if it, mostly because I heard hell froze over already. But then, it’s all up to your imagination.
Claiming to have a soul is like claiming to have an identity, which of course you don’t. Lacking identity, who is it that has free will?
Timespace is really a single, unchanging object, but it doesn’t seem that way to our brains. If ‘you’ have a soul, it is that single thing, not an individual at all. The linguists, pundits and parsers, matriculators, ruminators and sleuths may take a lot of shots at the word ‘soul’ if you’re really married to it.
Okay, but could you please take a minute to answer the question below (in light of your definition of soul)?
Personally, I believe, not that people have souls, but that people are souls. But I don’t find the arguments given in the OP to be all that convincing.
The way I think of it, my brain is the part of my body I use to think with, just as my arm is the part of my body I use to manipulate objects with.
And if my brain isn’t working properly, either temporarily (e.g. intoxication) or permanently (e.g. brain damage, senility), it’s not that i, my fundamental self, am different, but that my ability to think, to control my body, etc. is impaired.
Good question. I can only answer that I believe (unlike people like Budget Player Cade) that not everything that is real is material nor scientifically demonstrable. I realize that’s a non-answer, but it would take time, thought, and perhaps research for me to come up with anything better right now.
I realize you’re probably not too excited to answer this follow-up questions, but if you would, I’d find that quite helpful. What epistemology other than scientific empiricism do you use to determine the existence of these things that are real but not scientifically demonstrable?
Being materialistic does not mean being predictable. We can easily see how a particular sperm fertilized an egg, but we can’t predict a priori which sperm will. Even if we could take the vast number of measurements of internal and external states and stimuli we’d need to do a prediction, we’d never be able to compute it in real time.
Thus, whether free will exists or not is undecidable.
All the other rebuttals made in this thread work for me also.