# Help:The Soul



## T.A.G. (Dec 20, 2009)

How would I respond to these two claims

1. Scientifically speaking Conscious is not possible unless the person's brain is functioning in the right way. You see this when you are hit on the head, events occur in your brain that cause you to lose consciousness, therefore when you die your brain shuts down, you have no consciousness etc.

2. The Bible does not teach one has a soul. Examples are when people die and they are shortly brought back to life, there is no evidence nor appearance that they went to heaven. etc. 


Thanks very much!


----------



## Skyler (Dec 20, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> How would I respond to these two claims
> 
> 1. Scientifically speaking Consciences is not possible unless the person's brain is functioning in the right way. You see this when you are hit on the head, events occur in your brain that cause you to lose consciousness, therefore when you die your brain shuts down, you have no consciousness etc.



So? The concept of a soul doesn't require that you must always be conscious. This is a non-sequitur. (The conclusion does not follow from the premises.)



> 2. The Bible does not teach one has a soul. Examples are when people die and they are shortly brought back to life, there is no evidence nor appearance that they went to heaven. etc.
> 
> Thanks very much!



The Bible does teach that we have a soul... I'm not sure where they get the idea that it doesn't. In many places it talks about loving the Lord with your "heart, soul, and mind". There are other examples we could point to.


----------



## Herald (Dec 20, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> How would I respond to these two claims
> 
> 1. Scientifically speaking Consciences is not possible unless the person's brain is functioning in the right way. You see this when you are hit on the head, events occur in your brain that cause you to lose consciousness, therefore when you die your brain shuts down, you have no consciousness etc.
> 
> ...



Conscience and consciousness are not the same thing. The human conscience is part of our humanity. It is has to do with out morality; our being created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26; Rom. 1:19). Losing consciousness is a physiological reaction. It has nothing to do with the moral nature of man; his conscience.

As to your second point; if a person comes back to life, well, they really never died to begin with. Death is final (Heb. 9:27). Again, there may be some physiological reaction that mimics death, but it is not clinical death. Death occurs when the heart stops completely, the brain ceases to function, and the process of decomposition begins. 

If you're having this discussion with an unbeliever, it's important to point them to the Word of God. Arguing morality and physiology, independent from the Word, will not accomplish much.


----------



## T.A.G. (Dec 20, 2009)

Skyler said:


> T.A.G. said:
> 
> 
> > How would I respond to these two claims
> ...



can you go a little bit more in to why you think it is a non-sequitur? What does it mean to have a soul? Why wouldn't someone have to be conscience etc.

ps. I agree I am just trying to develop more of an understanding so I can argue better.


----------



## Zenas (Dec 20, 2009)

Existence in a metaphysical sense is not tied to physical consciousness. Does your existence endure after you return from unconsciousness? Sure does. Existence is therefore contingent, based on observation, from the enduring existence of the brain. In this way, his argument is a non-sequitur. 

However, even then, this doesn't prove his case because he's attempting to demonstrate the lack of a supernatural concept via natural means. For one, proving a negative is an arduous task, to say the least. Second, he's committing a category error by necessarily ascribing natural properties to a supernatural concept in order to conclude the supernatural doesn't exist by the cessation of the natural. In short, the existence of the supernatural obviously doesn't depend on the existence of the natural. You're talking about apples and oranges.

As to the Bible and soul, see generally the parable regarding Father Abraham and the rich man. See also the transfiguration of Christ.


----------



## T.A.G. (Dec 20, 2009)

Obviously the Bible is our number one source for reason, but just as it is with say the laws of logic, where you can make intelligible the laws of logic showing them only the Christian Worldview can account for, can we do the same for the soul?


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 21, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > T.A.G. said:
> ...


You are confusing the word conscience with the word conscious. As explained above, they have entirely different meanings.


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 21, 2009)

> 2. The Bible does not teach one has a soul. Examples are when people die and they are shortly brought back to life, there is no evidence nor appearance that they went to heaven. etc.
> 
> 
> Thanks very much!



Matthew 10:28 says, “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” The body and soul are not identical. There is something true of the soul that is not true of the body and vice versa. There are those who can kill the body, but not the soul. 

2 Corinthians 5:8 says, “We are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.” How can a person be absent from his body if he is only a body? This verse implies that a person is more than just a body.


----------



## Confessor (Dec 21, 2009)

That the physical can affect the spiritual (e.g. that getting hit in the head can kill you) does not imply that the spirtual is identical or reducible to the physical. Therefore a "scientific" argument cannot be made against the reality of man's spirit.

Moreover, the fact that one's mind endures through a succession of physical changes (I am the same "self" who was composed of different atoms before) shows that the spiritual and the physical are not coterminous, in which case there is no reason that one's consciousness cannot continue after death; in fact, that might constitute positive evidence that it could.


----------



## T.A.G. (Dec 21, 2009)

Brad said:


> T.A.G. said:
> 
> 
> > Skyler said:
> ...



It is a mistake, I meant to type conscious

-----Added 12/21/2009 at 07:55:29 EST-----



cih1355 said:


> > 2. The Bible does not teach one has a soul. Examples are when people die and they are shortly brought back to life, there is no evidence nor appearance that they went to heaven. etc.
> >
> >
> > Thanks very much!
> ...



So in the Bible when people would die for a short period of time say like Lazarus, was he with the Lord for that short time?


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 21, 2009)

One difficulty we have is that "soul" and "spirit" are often used interchangeably.

We have a body, mind, will and emotions and a spirit.

If I understand Scripturally, the body will be glorified (in the state of glory only).

When one dies now, at least since Christ's resurrection, one goes directly into the presence of the Lord. The body, however, awaits resurrection, and glorification.

Before Christ's resurrection (e.g. in the case of Lazarus), I would have to study that.

When Christ died on the cross, His atonement was accomplished for all the elect- past, present and future, including the Old Testament saints who lived in faith of His coming.

My understanding is that the mind, will and emotions also somehow go with the spirit, directly into the presence of the Lord, awaiting resurrection of a glorified body at judgment day. We are "conscious" of being in His presence.



> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter XXXII
> Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead
> ...


----------



## Skyler (Dec 21, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> > > 2. The Bible does not teach one has a soul. Examples are when people die and they are shortly brought back to life, there is no evidence nor appearance that they went to heaven. etc.
> ...



I don't think he was in heaven/Abraham's bosom, no.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Dec 21, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> Scientifically speaking Consciences is not possible unless the person's brain is functioning in the right way. You see this when you are hit on the head, events occur in your brain that cause you to lose consciousness, therefore when you die your brain shuts down, you have no consciousness etc.



As a faculty psychologist -- one who is willing to defend the Aristotelian-Thomistic 'monist' faculty psychology -- I would say that _cognitive_ consciousness is tied to the physical (the brain), and so when the brain is injured or when one dies one loses this consciousness. However, there is a higher power of the human soul -- the 'spiritual' faculty -- which is not tied to the physical (is subsistent): _intellection_. No amount of injury to the brain can affect this power (the physical cannot affect the immaterial/spiritual) and although the agent loses cognitive consciousness upon brain injury _and_ upon death, the separable, higher intellective consciousness continues.


----------



## Herald (Dec 21, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> So in the Bible when people would die for a short period of time say like Lazarus, was he with the Lord for that short time?



The scripture is silent regarding that question in those instances. Tabitha, Lazarus, the young man who fell out of the window while Paul was speaking; their being brought back to life was not normative. They were examples in order to display the power of God and the authority of the messenger. I personally do not believe they were in heaven while dead, or even in the direct presence of the Lord. But that, too, is an argument from silence.


----------



## T.A.G. (Dec 21, 2009)

Confessor said:


> That the physical can affect the spiritual (e.g. that getting hit in the head can kill you) does not imply that the spirtual is identical or reducible to the physical. Therefore a "scientific" argument cannot be made against the reality of man's spirit.
> 
> Moreover, the fact that one's mind endures through a succession of physical changes (I am the same "self" who was composed of different atoms before) shows that the spiritual and the physical are not coterminous, in which case there is no reason that one's consciousness cannot continue after death; in fact, that might constitute positive evidence that it could.



To play devils advocate 
neurons in the brain do not change (at least as a majority)
so the person has the same brain that he has from 60 years ago.


----------



## T.A.G. (Dec 21, 2009)

cih1355 said:


> > 2. The Bible does not teach one has a soul. Examples are when people die and they are shortly brought back to life, there is no evidence nor appearance that they went to heaven. etc.
> >
> >
> > Thanks very much!
> ...



This brings up something, in the transfiguration how do they realize its Moses and Elijah if there bodies are not resurrected? I mean, is a soul a replica of the body, that doesnt seem right?


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 21, 2009)

_This brings up something, in the transfiguration how do they realize its Moses and Elijah if there bodies are not resurrected? I mean, is a soul a replica of the body, that doesnt seem right? _

These are somewhat deep and mysterious Qs. 

Re Moses and Elijah, Elijah was one of the few like Enoch, that didn't die but went bodily into Heaven. We have evidence in Deuteronomy and Jude that Moses' body was re-united with his soul after death.

Since angels don't have bodies and yet can appear, we don't know what provision God will make for "the souls of just men made perfect" (Hebrews) before the Resurrection and Eschaton.

Both Moses and Elijah were recognisable. Jesus was recognisable after His resurrection and in His glorification (Revelation 1)

If the Lord thought up this world with a "blank piece of paper in front of Him", He can do greater wonders. 

Robert Morey has a section on experiments that indicate the soul in this book:-

The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom: Amazon.co.uk: Robert A. Morey: Books

and David Cook has good material against materialism here:-

Blind Alley Beliefs: Post-modernism, Existentialism, Humanism, Marxism, Scientific Materialism, Anarchism: Amazon.co.uk: David Cook: Books

I have neither book available to explain or expatiate on their arguments.


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 22, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> > > 2. The Bible does not teach one has a soul. Examples are when people die and they are shortly brought back to life, there is no evidence nor appearance that they went to heaven. etc.
> ...



Since their bodies were not resurrected, they were probably made to look like their bodies on that occasion.

-----Added 12/21/2009 at 11:55:28 EST-----

There are philosophical arguments in defense of dualism. One argument is called "The Knowledge Argument" which was developed by Frank Jackson. Here is the argument: 

Suppose there is a scientist who spends her entire life in a black and white room and she never sees color. She learns everything there is to know about how people perceive color. She learns about all of the brain states that are related with perceiving color. The physicalist would say that she knows everything there is to know about seeing color. If she were to step out of the room and observe colorful things such as a rainbow, a multi-colored jacket, and so on would she learn something new? The dualist would answer, “yes”, to this question. The dualist would argue that having a firsthand experience of seeing color is not identical with knowing the physiology of seeing color. One’s subjective experience of what color looks like does not have the same properties as one’s knowledge of the physiology of seeing color. If they had the same properties, then the scientist would not learn anything new upon leaving the room and seeing different colors.

Another argument in defense of dualism claims that what is true of physical entities is not true of mental phenomena. Here is the argument:

There are things that are true of mental phenomena, which are not true of physical entities like neurons. Physical entities like neurons are spatially located, but one’s beliefs, thoughts, and desires are not. Physical entities have physical properties such as electrical charge, mass, volume, and so on, but mental phenomena do not have those properties. It makes no sense to say that my thought of San Francisco is two millimeters long or that it is located one millimeter away from my right ear or that it has a certain weight and smell.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 22, 2009)

> Since their bodies were not resurrected, they were probably made to look like their bodies on that occasion


E.g. Elijah's body didn't need to be resurrected, since he never died! (II Kings 2:11)


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 22, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> > That the physical can affect the spiritual (e.g. that getting hit in the head can kill you) does not imply that the spirtual is identical or reducible to the physical. Therefore a "scientific" argument cannot be made against the reality of man's spirit.
> ...



All cells in the body age, slough off, die and are replaced. Blood cells also have a limited life span and must be renewed. We essentially then become a new person every couple years since none of us have all the same hardware as we had to begin with. This change in biology, however, does not change our essential identity or consciousness.

Therefore, our consciousness is not contained by the physical structures that enable it to be expressed, and even when the brain is destroyed and biological life ceases, this cannot be proved to be the end of consciousness.

-----Added 12/22/2009 at 10:58:50 EST-----



Richard Tallach said:


> > Since their bodies were not resurrected, they were probably made to look like their bodies on that occasion
> 
> 
> E.g. Elijah's body didn't need to be resurrected, since he never died! (II Kings 2:11)



How about Moses on the mount of Transfiguration?


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 23, 2009)

*Pergy*
_How about Moses on the mount of Transfiguration? _

As I said above, there are indications in Deuteronomy and Jude that he's already been resurrected.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 23, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> *Pergy*
> _How about Moses on the mount of Transfiguration? _
> 
> As I said above, there are indications in Deuteronomy and Jude that he's already been resurrected.



So, the extra-canonical book, "The Assumption of Moses" (which might be alluded to, in addition to Enoch, in Jude) might be right about the resurrection of the body of Moses?


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 23, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > *Pergy*
> ...



I've never read "The Assumption of Moses", but if Jude is an inspired, infallible and inerrant part of Scripture, as it is, are we not to take what he says as true? I'm not saying that we need to take the rest of "The Assumption of Moses" as true.

The Holy Spirit thought it significant enough to record in Deuteronomy that no-one could find Moses' grave.

Or was he using the case of Michael and Moses' body and Satan as an illustration?

To be honest, I've not looked at this closely. You could start another thread.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 23, 2009)

That would be an awesome thread to start.


----------



## T.A.G. (Dec 26, 2009)

My Professor Responded to me by saying this 

it certainly does not seem to make sense to say that a thought has length...but, since we know we can trigger thoughts by stimulating parts of the brain, we might be able to say where a thought is located, or that it is a result of neurons firing....
you say, " The soul is his identity/personality etc."....how do you explain our ability to change people's personalities with chemicals, or behavioral therapy? like, for example, a person's personality could completely change if he or she takes certain drugs or has the brain altered in some way....if the soul isn;t physical, but is what makes our personality what it si, why would changes to the brain change the personality?


----------



## Confessor (Dec 26, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> My Professor Responded to me by saying this
> 
> it certainly does not seem to make sense to say that a thought has length...but, since we know we can trigger thoughts by stimulating parts of the brain, we might be able to say where a thought is located, or that it is a result of neurons firing....
> you say, " The soul is his identity/personality etc."....how do you explain our ability to change people's personalities with chemicals, or behavioral therapy? like, for example, a person's personality could completely change if he or she takes certain drugs or has the brain altered in some way....if the soul isn;t physical, but is what makes our personality what it si, why would changes to the brain change the personality?



That the physical and the mental affect each other does _not_ imply that they are the same, or that one is reducible to the other. It just means that body and soul interact, which shouldn't be too surprising.

To "turn the tables" (graciously, of course), the fact that your professor pointed out that thoughts don't have a particular length or weight is _proof_ that the physical and the mental are not equivalent. If X has a certain property that Y cannot have, then clearly they are not the same.


----------



## T.A.G. (Dec 28, 2009)

Wow I had know Idea that Greg Bahnsen denied a dual aspect of man in the sense of dualism.

PA143

what do yall think about what he is saying?


----------

