This thread is to divert the hijacking of the “Christianity and Evolution” topic further.
The concept of “soul”, as it is generally used, is contentless.
I disagree, souls exist.
As the one making the extraordinary claim, it’s to me to show that a soul exists.
Unfortunately, the evidence I have, while personally convincing, is not subject to review by anyone else.
So I have to say that while I am convinced of the existence of souls, I cannot adequately and rigorously defend that view.
- Rick
Close, but not quite.
If souls can’t be affected by bodies, then they can’t be changed by any experiences that affect our bodies. Therefore they cannot preserve any of our memories or experiences.
If souls can’t affect bodies, they can’t control or direct them. More importantly, they cannot have any effect on our world, which means that they don’t exist relative to us.
If you cannot adequately and rigourously defend the position that souls exist, why do you hold it? Why are you convinced?
That’s a logical fallacy, in that it assumes that the laws of physics would affect something that is not regarded as a physical object. If the soul is truly a metaphysical entity, then one has to consider the possibility that the laws of physics do not apply to it.
I personally believe in a soul of some sort, but like Bricker, anything I might offer as “proof” is anecdotal at best, and not conclusive beyond my own perceptions.
However, I will say that TVAA’s argument above does not adequately disprove the existence of souls.
Re-read the OP.
“The concept of “soul”, as it is generally used, is contentless.”
does not =
“Souls don’t exist”
Well, DeForest Kelley carried my soul around for a few days, but he kept complaining about the weight, so I took it back just to shut him up.
It doesn’t matter if souls aren’t affected by the standard rules of physics.
There must still be a law defining their interaction with the physical world.
It is not a logical fallacy.
Did TVAA’s statement reference physical interaction?
Anyway, as previously stated, if the laws of physics don’t apply to souls, we should be able to catch 'em breaking them. Either that or the second of TVAA’s statements should be true, i.e. souls do not affect bodies.
I’m personally convinced because I’m concious. I have never seen any physical explanation of what conciousness is or what purpose it serves in a living being. In the absence of such an explanation, the phenomenon of my conciousness suggests that some aspect of “me” extends beyond that which we can physically measure. That aspect can reasonably be called a “soul”.
I can’t rigorously or adequately defend that position because the phenomenon of my conciousness is not observable by anyone to whom I might put up a defense.
You stating this does not make it a fact. I’m interested as to why, if you accept that the soul is a metaphysical entity, then you state that there must be a law that governs its interaction with the physical world. First, how would that law be determined, and second, how would we, as physical beings, understand that law?
I guess my question boils down to this: How do you know that there isn’t such a law, but that it exceeds the knowledge base of our current understanding of physics? How can physics embrace the idea of the metaphysical?
Until you provide more detail to back up your assertion, it remains logically fallacious in my book.
IMHO as an atheist/humanist, I’ve always believed that souls were created from the ego. The need to feel important enough that one’s essence would survive death. It’d be good if the OP had a working definition for this debate though, the generic assumption of its definition could be too open (at least for me).
That seems to me to be a false assumption. Going back to the quoted passage by begbert:
What if the effect of the soul takes place in the brain at a level below that which we can measure? We already know, thanks to quantum physics, that we can’t simply measure everything that we want to measure. What if we track the causes of the given action all the way back to the brain but then run into the Uncertaintly Principle? Then we’d have no reason to conclude that some soul hadn’t affected the brain in some way which the Uncertainty Principle hides from us.
If there’s no law governing the interaction between the metaphysical and physical worlds (example given: souls interacting with bodies) then there’s no meaningful way in which they can be said to be interacting.
Without such a law, the outcome of any soul-body interact is essentially random: even if an interaction were repeated with precisely the same initial conditions, the end states wouldn’t necessarily be the same. In such a case, souls could not be said to direct or geniunely influence bodies, and vice versa.
Again, why do you assume that there isn’t one? Because you don’t (or can’t) understand it?
As Orbifold correctly points out modern physical science already concedes that it cannot (yet) measure all things. If you’re asserting that there “is no law” governing the interaction of body and soul, then please point out the instruments of measurement that have led you to that conclusion. Since there are (to my knowledge) no instruments which currently purport to reliably measure metaphysical activity on the physical plane (though some do try), it should be an interesting challenge for you.
I also agree with stpauler, and encourage you to post your working definition of a “soul,” as it might help the discussion along a bit.
If soles don’t exist, then what am I walking on, eh?
The first part I’ll grant, but the second? Imagine a permanently unconscious human, then tell me how long you think it would live.
Logically invalid. The absence of a known physical mechanism for consciousness does not imply there is no such mechanism. Without specific evidence indicating that consciousness cannot be explained through physical mechanisms, your conclusion is unjustified.
An observer can’t tell you’re conscious? How are you managing to post? 
Orbifield, how do you know that you are conscious? To know something, you must not only think that it is true, but you must have a valid reason for thinking that it is true. If you know that you are conscious, then how is the information that you are conscious conveyed to some part of your mind that can cause you to claim that you are conscious?
If souls exist but do not affect the physical world, then either the soul does not receive the information that it is conscious, or the reception of this information does not penetrate the thoughts of the person who possesses the soul insomuch as thoughts affect physical things like words and actions. If I have thoughts that can never affect my words or actions, then I can never be aware of them, and thus they hardly qualify as “thoughts” at all.
If souls exist and affect the physical world, then we fall into begbert’s dilemma: either souls obey physical law, or they violate it. If they obey physical law then they can potentially be detected and studied by science, and if they violate physical law then these violations can potentially be detected and studied by science. Either way, souls could then potentially be described in a mechanical sense in terms of how they affect behavior, including the behavior of stating that we think that we are “conscious.” Thus the existence of the soul would not imply the existence of “consciousness” at all.
I conclude that though we think that we know that we are conscious, we don’t really know this because there is no possible mechanism by which we could validly gain this knowledge. “Consciousness,” in the subjective, phenomenological sense, is thus an unnecessary hypothesis.
No, I’m considering the possibility that there is no such law and discarding it through proof-by-contradiction.
If there are laws describing the interaction of souls and bodies, then both belong to the physical world.