Arguments against Soul

[The Grand Nudger]

@Gae Bolga
I'll attempt and answer to your 3 questions
I agree that natural features aren't a necessity for any non-natural experiencer, I just don't see them as being mutually exclusive especially by function.

You've explicitly defined them as such, but don't genuinely hold that belief, as I mentioned at the outset.  The non natural cannot be natural, by definition.

I even expressly stated that phenomenal senses aren't necessarily present in ghosts. Should we throw up the classic platonic example of seeing yourself in a mirror with no head, or body. Your body sees and your soul can see. The problem is the "We" you define is a materialist "we", and your statement is wrong. "We", as physical selves, do need eyes to see. I'm just stating that a soul might also see in function without the same physical machinations necessary for the realist. So maybe that's the reason behind you're meaningful tag on non-natural? It might not be meaningfully non-natural, while in a state; but in an eternal state or in an eternal realm it becomes critically meaningful. Are you heading down the path of People have eyes to see, ghost's don't have eyes so they can't see, ...?

Are phenomenal senses present in ndes, when the non natural soul leaves the body?  It seems to me like you couldn't genuinely claim that you don't know or don't believe that they are.  You mentioned them being common and specific.  You hold these experiences up as evidence.  Stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

I do believe in "this because I believe in that" and it does actually "fit my beliefs about the nature of the all" as I have probed thus far. Not because it's a rationalization bigger than I believe in this because this experientially seems valid and answers more questions than idk, but I'm willing to explore other positions and pokes at your leisure.
My understanding of God is that He is of one substance.

Is there anything in the universe that isn't of god.... which is of one substance?

You've got this all sorts of wrong. I'm not arguing your assertions or poking holes in those assertions. I'm suggesting that you've created a situation where things that you -define- as non natural are, in fact, natural. That you know this. That you are not arguing in good faith. In a world where there is a soul, and where that soul is supernatural, and where it goes on NDE trips that have sensory content, there might still be things that you think are soul..which are in fact something else. Something natural, like a brain.

Wouldn't you agree? Would you like to take a look and see if those things actually fit your own description of the supernatural, soul, and ndes...? If we don't need eyes to see, then does the soul as seat of consciousness need ghost eyes to see..or is this also an example of a trick being played? Why do blind people go blind, in fact, if we don't need eyes to see? Has their soul gone blind?

---

Maybe this will help. I contend that the soul is the seat of consciousness. I contend that the soul is supernatural. I contend that feeling pressure is, thusly, a non natural phenomena. Since this phenomena is created by motor sensors in the skin and receptors in the brain..I declare fingertips supernatural. They're producing the content, and we've defined the content as supernatural.

What say you? Is my middle finger non natural but natural in a sense?