Do humans have souls?

[Kyuuketsuki]

What I asked Adrian was: Show me a description of the soul as a physical object

To which your answer is: "In many religions and parts of philosophy, the soul is the immaterial part of a person. It is usually thought to consist of one's thoughts and personality, and can be synonymous with the spirit, mind or self."

???

For the umpteenth time I have to ask, are you being deliberately obtuse?

If the soul is the seat of personality and emotion then it CANNOT be affected negatively or positively by changes in the body or, more specifically, the brain. The fact that changes to the brain (as a result of malfunction/damage) does affect (sometimes significantly) both personality and emotion means that the soul, if it exists, CANNOT be the seat of such things. Also, to claim that the soul is the seat of things that are very evidently affected by the biological malfunction IMPLICITLY states that the soul is physical or has a physical component. In other words your implied claim that the soul is immaterial or even real is just your usual rubbish/wishful thinking.

So, back to your question: "Can you show us anything that is pretty much universally agreed to exist for which there is no evidence?"

So taken in context, what I think you're asking is: As the soul isn't a physical object, can it exist? As I've said very many times now, spiritually perfect definitions require there to be no proof.

You have SHOWN nothing of the sort and any attempt to separate the soul (or your god) from the established rules of evidence and criticism is nothing more than SPECIAL PLEADING on your part.

I reiterate the example of the teapot in orbit between Earth & Mars ... it's there, most definitely, regardless of whether you can see it or not.

You may need proof, but I'm afraid it is a ridiculous pursuit, as I've shown. That you choose to remain obstinately narrow minded of the subject is your position. Until that position changes, a lot of the world isn't going to make sense to you.

In your eyes perhaps but then, since you routinely engage in wishful thinking and subsequent beliefs/claims that things of the imagination are real, your view is laughable.

A lot of what world? The warped one you exist in or the one that I, as most science adherents, choose to believe (with reason) is inherently explainable and governed by physical laws that make sense? Thanks but no thanks ... I think I'll continue to inhabit the world of the rational.

EDIT: And if you look at the replies below you'll see that, whilst my style is uncompromising, they all say pretty much the same thing as I am. To claim that something needs no evidence is bad enough, to claim it can't have evidence is worse but to claim that the utter lack of evidence is not onloy expected but proof of such things is, to my mind (and I suspect of others here), self evidently ludicrous.

Kyu