logical proof for the existance of souls.

[Battleaxe]

Originally Posted by interestedman

The soul is 3 mm? Come on, I really hope you don't actually believe this. There is no logical argument for the soul. That is why they [Who are "they"?] call it "faith."

There`s a papal encycliical titled "Fides et Ratio": "Faith and Reason" ie we ("they") use both.
[John Paul II: Fides et Ratio 14th September 1998]

Click on the link and read down from Chapter 26: The Treatise on Man:
www.ewtn.com/library/theology/reality.htm

There`s a lot of other good stuff there, as well.
It was provided at post # 7...but ignored, it seems.

Originally Posted by Sair

I do seem to recall hearing or reading about experiments done regarding weighing human bodies before and after death....

The human soul is purely spiritual. It`s non-material, so it doesn`t have mass.
It can change in activity, but it can`t change in essence. It`s indivisible.
Man is a rational animal. That`s the difference between us and the OTHER animals. Our human soul makes all the difference. Brain volume isn`t an indication of intellect.

[dchezik]

This is very interesting! But if a soul has weight as is suggested in this study, then it must have mass and be physical and therefore subject to physical law. Having mass suggests having atoms and having atoms means they must be an element or compound. This really limits what the soul could do! It could not travel faster than the speed of light for one thing. It could not exist in space without becoming frozen. It would be subject to high energy radiation like cosmic rays that would tear it apart. And it's unclear what mechanisms it would have to perform functions that produced consciousness -- sensations, feelings, thoughts. It would undoubtedly be subject to gravity and hence captured by stars, planets, moons, etc.
The other question is "How would you recognize another soul?' There is no visual apparatus. Would you know by ESP?
Do you all know of the person who claimed to capture the souls of several people in a bottle with a stopper that had been sealed by holy water? It was sold to some casino in Vegas, I think. . I gave this to my class as an example of failure to think critically.
I'll close with a verse from Omar Khayyam's Rubaiyat: "Why, if the soul can fling the dust aside, and naked on the air of heaven ride, were't it not a shame, were't it not a shame, in this clay carcass, crippled to abide!"

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by Sair

To be honest, even if there were a logical argument in favour of a human soul, it wouldn't necessarily correspond to any actuality - such is the nature of logic. You can prove something logically that doesn't exist, simply by starting from particular premises.

Sair:

I'd love to see one of these!

God bless,
jd

[chaela_may]

Originally Posted by Sair

Well, technically and biologically speaking, we are "just" animals. And what, exactly, does it mean to be "more" than the sum of one's parts? What about being the product of one's parts? All species of animals - and plants too, for that matter - have at least slightly different parts too, so noting our differences from other animals still doesn't support the argument that we are somehow special and supernatural.

a personality can largely be chemically explained and gender can be biologically explained. intellect, at the current time, cannot be completely explained neurologically, but it might be in the future. what about morality? civilization? math? science? philosophy? culture? all these things that come with being human have to do with finding and/or glorifying God. even the most intelligent non-human animals, our fellow primates, do not have these things, or (in the case of culture) they don't have them in the way that humans have them. this is what i mean by being more than the sum of our parts. we humans are not that different, biologically, from other primates, but we sure have a lot more than they do. where did it come from? it doesn't stem from things that can be scientifically investigated. it comes from our human souls.

Originally Posted by Sair

They certainly don't disprove the existence of a soul, but they don't support it either. If there were actual scientific evidence for souls, that would support the idea that souls exist. Until such time as there is direct evidence, then believers in souls and other supernatural entities may take comfort from a lack of decisive disproof, but nothing more.

that was actually my point. you can't use science to prove or disprove the existence of a soul, so any study on the matter is kind of superfluous. intriguing, yes. useful, possibly. but, for the purposes of actually proving (or disproving) the existence of souls, no.

Originally Posted by interestedman

The soul is 3 mm? Come on, I really hope you don't actually believe this. There is no logical argument for the soul. That is why they call it "faith."

please be polite. disagree if you want, using reason and being civil, but don't attack christine85.

Originally Posted by interestedman

If God sends you to hell for not believing in him, he isn't worthy of worship. Makes God sound like a big bully to be honest.

i don't think you understand. romedii didn't say (and i'm sure didn't mean) that God actually *sends* people to hell. they go there of their own volition. i can't imagine why someone would want that, but there you go.

Originally Posted by interestedman

Exactly...very smart animals. That is what we are.

i dunno... as mentioned above, i don't think that mere intellect could account for all of the other aspects that come with being human.

Originally Posted by Sair

I do seem to recall hearing or reading about experiments done regarding weighing human bodies before and after death, to determine whether the soul has weight - and, therefore, presumably, some detectable substance. At the very least, this does represent a scientifically serious attempt to address the subject! It appears, according to Wikipedia at least, that there was a Massachusetts doctor named Duncan MacDougall who did actually carry out such experiments in the early 20th century. They don't seem to have been accorded much weight by the scholarly scientific community, although they have gained a place in popular culture - hence the idea that the soul weighs around about 21 grams.

christine85 posted the snopes article already.

Originally Posted by 504Katrin

When you look into someones' eyes you can see their soul. When someones' eyes sparkle, may it be curious eyes, or happy eyes, or surprised eyes, it's always an emotion that's beiing reflected. Reflected from what though? It's not the lacrimal fluid that makes someones' eyes sparkle, it's not the light reflecting the eyes either, and it's not the smile and face around the eyes either cause if you take that away and only look at the eyes they still sparkle. It's the soul, it's always an emotion being reflected, and it's the soul that does that.

that is perception, since different people see this sparkle differently.

[chaela_may]

Originally Posted by dchezik

This is very interesting! But if a soul has weight as is suggested in this study, then it must have mass and be physical and therefore subject to physical law. Having mass suggests having atoms and having atoms means they must be an element or compound. This really limits what the soul could do! It could not travel faster than the speed of light for one thing. It could not exist in space without becoming frozen. It would be subject to high energy radiation like cosmic rays that would tear it apart. And it's unclear what mechanisms it would have to perform functions that produced consciousness -- sensations, feelings, thoughts. It would undoubtedly be subject to gravity and hence captured by stars, planets, moons, etc.
The other question is "How would you recognize another soul?' There is no visual apparatus. Would you know by ESP?
Do you all know of the person who claimed to capture the souls of several people in a bottle with a stopper that had been sealed by holy water? It was sold to some casino in Vegas, I think. . I gave this to my class as an example of failure to think critically.
I'll close with a verse from Omar Khayyam's Rubaiyat: "Why, if the soul can fling the dust aside, and naked on the air of heaven ride, were't it not a shame, were't it not a shame, in this clay carcass, crippled to abide!"

you said it better than i did. ty!

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by Sair

Well, technically and biologically speaking, we are "just" animals. And what, exactly, does it mean to be "more" than the sum of one's parts? What about being the product of one's parts? All species of animals - and plants too, for that matter - have at least slightly different parts too, so noting our differences from other animals still doesn't support the argument that we are somehow special and supernatural.

Sair:

"The sum of our parts?" What does that really mean? Shall we mean that we are the sum of the things that we sense that make up our bodies? Our arms and legs? Our head and face? Our neck and thorax? All of these things added together? And what about what we don't see? What about what the scientist sees? Molecules and atoms? And what about what Physics postulates? Electrons, protons, quarks? Shall we ignore them? If we are the sum of our parts, then surely we are the sum of these parts, too.

From the perspective of quantum physics and chemistry, these parts MUST be seen for what they are. What we want them to be is what we look out at the moment we open our eyes in the morning. But, that's nothing but the illusion of reality. Dressers, mirrors, chairs, lamps, shoes, clothes, arms. legs: these are the illusions of reality. If we could actually see these things as they are, what would we see? Their quantum aspects? Perhaps then we might draw better conclusions about reality.

It's one thing to say that creatures evolve and thereby 'emerge' to become what we think they are. It's quite another thing to understand the quantum aspects of evolved things and know that those things do not evolve. Quantum particles have been the same quantum particles since they were compressed into that singularity. And, they will be the same quantum particles until all of their energy is dissapated. Dimensionless point particles compressed into that which we call the "singularity." From thence, they expanded and some repelled some quantum parts, while others attracted quantum parts. Like an Alka-seltzer in water, they spread out from their source. And, as these primordial "parts" expanded, all that they found themselves immersed in was continuous space. Not water.

From this disorganized non-liquid soup, aggregations formed by configurations of the dimensionless point particles. All that was added to make what appears to our eyes, was Space, infinite, continuous Space - made discrete from the first moment of that primordial expansion we call the Big Bang.

That is what we perceive with our senses: what appear to be separate bodies, mass, softness and hardness, surfaces that are home to the reflection of this or that photon. Amazing when one considers it all - and that it was there in the primordial universe from the beginning! Including the anthropic fine tuning constants. How strange: that it all began without rhyme or reason, where there was no time, or space-time, where there was nothing like them, or even unlike them, within that initial Now after the absolute first beginning of the expansion of the singularity.

They certainly don't disprove the existence of a soul, but they don't support it either. If there were actual scientific evidence for souls, that would support the idea that souls exist. Until such time as there is direct evidence, then believers in souls and other supernatural entities may take comfort from a lack of decisive disproof, but nothing more.

"Scientific evidence," you mean like physical things?

God bless,
jd

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by stmax

In talking with atheist friends, I encountered the problem of trying to prove to them the existence of a human soul. I was wondering if there were any logical proofs of a souls existence without presupposing that they believe in God or christianity.

The biggest problem that they try to explain intellect and free will to be functions of our brain. Meaning that the brain rather than the soul controls intellect or free will.

Stmax:

If you want a demonstrative syllogism, here is one:

(1) Among living things, whatever is not matter, energy, space, or time can be called the “soul.”
(2) But, all living things have a life principle that is neither matter, energy, space, or time.
(3) Therefore, living things have what can be called souls.

You may have to define "matter and energy," and maybe "space," and, if they're really dense, maybe even "time!" If you do, come back.

Also, this will beg a further question: So, a plant cell has a "soul?" That's when you'll have to get into the reality of "Exceptionality" and "Exceptional differences."

God bless,
jd

[ThinkingSapien]

Originally Posted by JDaniel

1. Among living things, whatever is not matter, energy, space, or time can be called the “soul.”
2. But, all living things have a life principle that is neither matter, energy, space, or time.
3. Therefore, living things have what can be called souls.

At first glance this seems to be making "soul" synonymous with "emptiness."

[Battleaxe]

Originally Posted by ThinkingSapien

At first glance this seems to be making "soul" synonymous with "emptiness."

This link seems to have been ignored; maybe not "logical proof", but a good run-down, starting at Chapter 26:
www.ewtn.com/library/theology/reality.htm

You might get something out of it.