souls

[Doubting Thomas]

One of the things I never could grasp as a young Christian was why do we humans have souls but animals do not? Anyone who's ever owned a pet dog or cat knows that they have very similar traits to humans. They have personalities, they have dreams, they have emotions, etc. Yet only humans get blessed with a soul and eternal life.

To be honest I half-expected this thread to start with the "the body loses weight at the moment of death" claim.

[Zarith]

No, I don't believe there is some part of me that will continue to have experiences after I die.

[bladevalant546]

With current observational evidence being lacking in a soul that renders the question "AS FAR AS WE KNOW" there is not one. However with various states of matter behaving in strange ways as seen in Quantum Mechanics, we also have very little idea on the origins of sentience and the nature of it and how it interacts with the world around. So with that said, this is a question to be answered in the future. Our methods of detection and knowledge of the brain is expanding however, it is to early to rule anything.

I believe however in the idea of the soul, not a spirit but the self. In this definition we all have souls rather or not something is after death is unknown.

[Pandas United]

No.

As with every supernatural claim, there is no evidence to back up the assertion that a 'soul exists' aside anecdote and 'faith' in one.

As such, the claim that it exists can be rejected.

Actually, there are many good arguments for Cartesian dualism as well as several arguments against the materialistic approach to the mind.

[Minimalist]

Actually, there are many good arguments

Arguments are not evidence.

[Pandas United]

Actually, there are many good arguments

Arguments are not evidence.

I am bewildered by that last statement.

[Whateverist]

Arguments are not evidence.

I am bewildered by that last statement.

No, arguments can always be made on both sides of any question. Arguments as such are definitely not evidence. Sound arguments based on real evidence are another matter.

[rexbeccarox]

Arguments aren't evidence. What is bewildering about that? Also, if you have evidence, this is the thread to cite it. So... go for it.

[Pandas United]

Well yes, of course. Arguments are based off of evidence and research. These aren't just senseless arguments based off of nothing. A positive and sound argument is indeed evidence for whatever you are arguing for (in this case, dualism).

Along with the couple highlighted in the wiki page there is the argument from introspection, argument from parapsychological phenomena, and the argument from disembodied existence. There are also arguments that go directly against materialism, but I think this is a healthy start. The wiki page gives a fair analysis of both sides of the coin. I also recommend Edward Feser's Philosophy of Mind. It is a great introduction to the different arguments from both sides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(p...or_Dualism

[Whateverist]

Well yes, of course. Arguments are based off of evidence and research. These aren't just senseless arguments based off of nothing. A positive and sound argument is indeed evidence for whatever you are arguing for (in this case, dualism).

Along with the couple highlighted in the wiki page there is the argument from introspection, argument from parapsychological phenomena, and the argument from disembodied existence. There are also arguments that go directly against materialism, but I think this is a healthy start. The wiki page gives a fair analysis of both sides of the coin. I also recommend Edward Feser's Philosophy of Mind. It is a great introduction to the different arguments from both sides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(p...or_Dualism

Seriously? Introspection, parapsychological phenomena and disembodied existence as sources of hard evidence? If those are your strongest suggestions I shudder to think who is on the second team.

But what I find cited most often by apologists are the logical implications of certain category words such as "the infinite". Take the cosmological argument. What really do we think we are in a position to assume about that which led up to (or could lead up to) a singularity. Nobody knows that and reasoning about the meaning of words people have made up seems like a poor way of determining the nature of reality. Words are tools not evidence.