BEST Case for the Existence of the Soul (w/ JP Moreland)

[@shilohauraable]

When my son was little, his babysitter had cerebral palsy. She was an amazing sitter & friend (still is, but he's 36 now 😊). When my son was high school age, Jenny was in a car that had a bad accident. She had head x-rays at the local hospital & discovered that SHE ONLY HAD 1/2 A BRAIN! 😮 She & her parents were so glad they didn't know this when she was little because they probably wouldn't have expected as much from her learning-wise. As it is, she graduated from normal high school classes, college bound trajectory. She has an Associate Degree in Early Childhood Education, works full time as a day care director, is married with 2 grown sons - one has severe autism - and volunteers as a Special Education Advocate in the local school system. She's a true, God blessed miracle! 💖

[@nmc1859]

Miracles do happen !! God Bless 💖

[@timothykeith1367]

That's amazing!

[@markmcflounder15]

Whooooooooa! That is incredible! She's doing better than most people with a full brain

[@allenbrininstool7558]

Amazing

[@billba]

Praise God!!!

[@nb7524]

I thank God for Dr. J P Moreland! All of these years he, like Dr. Dan Wallace, seem to be a bit under the radar among popular Christian apologist and theologians. He has been a wealth of information. Thank you so much for having him on. I am also very thankful to God for your channel.

[@radscorpion8]

who knew that an all powerful deity has to work so hard through the work of hundreds of religious scholars, who are still largely not taken seriously by their secular colleagues, in order to prove his existence to the general public! Its pretty remarkable that God can create the universe and all life, but he seems to have so much trouble convincing us that he exists. Doesn't that seem strange?

[@kennethobrien8386]

@@radscorpion8 _ What could God do to convince you that he exists AND that allows you to have freedom to evaluate evidence that he exists? Personally appearing to you and programming your mind or brain to believe in him?

[@Degenwise]

@@radscorpion8 Not strange at all. It's called free will.

[@dwightwhitman2781]

​@radscorpion8 Why would you biasly assume and insert that "God works so hard" through these great men to convince others of His existence? Just because you and many others deny the clear evidence all around you, don't think erroneously for even one second that God breaks some sort of proverbial sweat because you don't believe. You can read it in the Bible- but Jesus was asked that if someone would just come back from the dead, then many would believe... His response is for you also- you have Moses and the prophets- hear them. Even if God gave you what you think you need to be convinced, you still wouldn't be convinced. Everything you need to believe and be saved is already available to you- start reading the Bible, let God speak to you.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@kennethobrien8386 thing is, god won't let you prove his existence, so why are you so insistent on trying to convince people of something even your god doesn't want? it's like the turin tea towel, everyone trying desperately to prove it was jesus when it's patently obvious even GOD doesn't want anyone to know for sure - religists really are the densest people, i bet you all wear slip-ons cos you can't handle laces. just keep your voodoo fairy tales to yourself or otherwise pew polls and gallup will show a steady decline in belief. oh, it already does.

[@benyaeger4388]

I have a horribly painful neurological condition but the lord is putting it on my heart to pray for others first. This gives me a sense of Joy.

[@Bvoorhis03]

Thank you for this reminder

[@paulolsztyn549]

I love your interview style. You prepare thouroghly. You have your questions ready. You ask them and let the speaker talk, then you summarize what the speaker was saying and get his agreement before moving on to the next question. Excellent.

[@SeanMcDowell]

👊

[@ashleyhendricksbball]

I’m getting into apologetics (maybe even as a career path), but as a female, I’m not sure how to move forward with it…that’s why these videos are so helpful and interesting

[@velkyn1]

if you want to be an apologist, first read counter apologetics so you dont' waste your time repeating failed nonsense. I would recommend going out to Internet Infidels and checking out their library of essays.

[@danielbrowniel]

it's a monumental task, stick to what you know, know what you don't. Some people are really good at theology. Some are good at walking away from a particular belief I recommend focusing on how God has helped you.

[@patrickbarnes9874]

What does being female have to do with it? Your message implies that if you were a guy you'd know how to move forward but since you're female, you don't. That's weird to me. It's like saying as a person with green eyes I'm not sure how to become a chemical engineer or as a person with size 9 shoes I am not sure how to move forward as an accountant. What does being female have to do with apologetics?

[@Narikku]

I would encourage you to study not modern apologetics (there is nothing wrong with modern apologetics!), but rather, early church history. Many of the most common questions have an abundance of answers that were answered very well by our elders in the faith. (: Get a good foundation, and then move forward to modern apologetics. Understand Church History - how did we get where we are today? Understanding this goes an immensely long way. It helps to explain the complex questions much more easily. God bless. (:

[@theeternalsbeliever1779]

The problem with "Christian" apologetics is that is an intellectually dishonest venture; not because atheism or some other religion is true, but because "Christian" apologetics is based on inherent falsehoods that contradict scripture. It employs philosophical methods that distort the truth of scripture, and Paul repeatedly warned in Col. 2 to stay away from it.

[@isaacbonilla4687]

I could have listened to JP Moreland giving this topic for hours. The conversation was so enriching and insightful that I can’t wait to read the book. JP Moreland is my favourite philosopher. He has been willing to be loyal to the Lord not avoiding politically incorrect topics such as Miracles, NDEs and theistic evolution. He has chosen to be loyal and open to the possible ridicule of “intellectuals” in these topics rather than “intellectually acceptable”.

[@wowzers94]

JP Moreland is one of my favorite people to listen to on the planet. Great interview!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

this is the JP moreland who prayed for a pool table ( a professional one) and god supplied it, if only he had prayed to end poverty, or for me to win the lottery, we could have bought him a pool table (a professional one). JP has the brains of a snail imho.

[@SeanMcDowell]

Friends, because of unforeseen circumstances, we are going to have to reschedule the interview with JP. I am so sorry, as there are some GREAT questions here. But we will pick it up again and have Dr. Moreland back on. Thanks for understanding!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

this is the JP moreland who prayed for a pool table ( a professional one) and god supplied it, if only he had prayed to end poverty, or for me to win the lottery, we could have bought him a pool table (a professional one).

[@tomyossarian7681]

@@HarryNicNicholas You think McDowell cares for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Wake up and smell the.. flowers. 🤭

[@darrenmiller6927]

I don't see how this guy doesn't have millions of subscribers, yet. Facinating. Excellent. Moreland's arguments are mesmerizing, hypnotic. I could not stop watching this conversation. Sean asks the best questions, who could have done better?

[@monkkeygawd]

The information was TERRIBLE and outdated.

[@scapps8173]

God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. God can't be outdated

[@pamalogy]

As a sixty five year old recent graduate in philosophy, I appreciate work on defense of substance dualism. View’s shouldn’t be determined by academic consensus and pressure.

[@brieannatyler6055]

This is an absolutely brilliant conversation! Perhaps one of my favorite speakers you have had, Sean. I love how he speaks scientifically, but not in such a way that it's too far above the average realm of knowledge. I also love how he drew his conclusions based on a variety of subjects, including biology, chemistry, and physics. This was right up my alley - thank you to both of you!!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

really? JP is an idiot.

[@Konarali]

That was epic! Ive been watching it since it dropped all week and now it's Friday so just in time for the QnA video, I can't wait! 😃

[@cinven38]

This was a lot for my pea brain to take in! I enjoyed it though. Thank you.

[@ricardosierra9240]

Really enjoying the new intros! Blessings brother!

[@SeanMcDowell]

Glad you like them!

[@yourangelinfleshorsackclot1523]

truth videos have "nice intros" ... that's like movie credits playin at the start of a movie ... "Exciting" ... "Blessings" "brother" ... is it a "holy man" with a "bag "o" typed blessings" ... is he your "brother" or just some random souless NPC typing empty words ... nah I'm not being mean, while you "sleep"/suspended animation ... WE fight in the "battle of principalities"/battle for spirituality ... I already got it broke down for ya the "dude" said absolutely nuthin ... unless it's your real brother not sure why you'd respond to NUTHIN ...

[@robertvann7349]

​@@SeanMcDowell Sean teaches A is B law of contradiction impossible contradiction A is Sean teaches A is B, Anger is moral just and legal and B Anger is immoral unjust and illegal Sean is A is B A is Sean war is moral just and legal and B is Sean war is immoral unjust and illegal Hey GRASSHOPPER which is moral just and legal not both to avoid A is B liar?😍😎❤👍

[@robertvann7349]

Read my comment

[@robertvann7349]

Read my comment

[@johnkristenson139]

Sean that was a great discussion!

[@travissk5036]

Great Content. Love this information .

[@patticarey9016]

Love listening to JP Moreland! Great interview!

[@BaronReed-rj9rz]

I gained some clear insites from several articles written by others associated with Biola University titled, "The mind is not the brain."

[@SeanMcDowell]

Awesome!

[@yourangelinfleshorsackclot1523]

you "gained" NUTHIN by reading someone else's thoughts ... in this realm our souls are our eagle cages ... imagination is our wings ... smoke a joint ... sip on some spirits/wine ... MICRODOSE on some shrooms (IN MODERATION) = don't get stupid, lighten your physical yoke ... then I'd recommend prayin in private and introducin yourself to the Father of ALL creation whose "English"/babble name is Jehovah ... no pagan "religion" needed ... ALL will know my father and big brother by their basic "English"/babble names Jehovah und Jesus point blank period ... as written in the bible codex 2023 "years" ago amoungst infinity ...

[@robertvann7349]

​@@SeanMcDowell You need to redact " EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT " Logic science 101 A is B is the law of contradiction impossible contradiction, ie. Self defeating proposals A isn't B is the law of non-contradiction PhD and you never learned how to plug in data INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARGUMENT How to expose A is B illogical impossible contradiction A is non intelligence caused the effect of B is intelligence That simple Mr. PhD. this is an absolute false scientific hypothesis and I use A is B illogical contradiction to ESTABLISH ABSOLUTE LOGIC CONSCIOUSNESS ARGUMENT A is non consciousness caused the effect of B is your consciousness Any scientists that claim A is B impossible contradiction is possible should be committed to a mental institution as a cavemen moron and given a lobotomy so that scientist will never deceive anyone. Dah.. Your headed for hell PhD, your life is A is B A is Sean a non-pacifist that kills and breaks God's commandment thou shalt not kill is saved B is Bob a pacifist that doesn't kill and obeys thou shalt not kill is saved PhD Sean? This is your A is B false teacher life, ie. a liar. You know now Sean Sean says self-defeating A I kill lives to B save lives Sean A i destroy lives to B save lives A is B Sean, your a HYPOCRITE.

[@robertvann7349]

Read my comment

[@yourangelinfleshorsackclot1523]

@@robertvann7349 re read mine ...

[@Nighthawkinlight]

QUESTION: It seems that the sense of dualism which children naturally intuit could be explained by the sensation of existing as software running on the hardware of a brain. Likewise, consciousness being a property of software seems to account for the conceptual possibility of your "soul" being able to exist apart from your body - just as software can be transferred between physical computers, broadcast through the air as wifi, etc... What do you make of this objection? That the sensation of existing as a dualistic entity is explained by nature of our identity being a combination of both software and hardware? This does not answer where consciousness comes from, but it seems to explain how a naturalistic process could feel dualistic.

[@glenliesegang233]

Brains do not run software on hardware. Brains are built from atoms and small molecules up to the next level of base 4 stored digital information which codes for proteins, 1/6the of the genome, with 5/6 of the DNA serving as a massively parallel information processing system without software as a distributed series of the equivalent of AND, OR, and NOR logic gates. These then generate electric potential waiting to be triggered vor suppressed via input from other synaptic signals. Glial cells are ow known to be electrically active as well. Fatigue or the state of neur I n energy depletion from excessive firing, hormones like testosterone, adrenaline, cortisol modify how certain neurons behave at any given moment. Some alter the DNA reading frames. Grandparent's exposure to stress, famine, nutrient deficiencies can cause epigenetic changes passed on several generations. Consciousness and Brains are not computable because quadrillion if not sextillions of parallel events at a molecular any given second.

[@glenliesegang233]

Dualism is only 1/2 of the picture.

[@glenliesegang233]

The soul arises from such an infinitely complex atoms-up information specified arrangements of matter which dances with energy to produce flickering electromagnetic fields interacting with the material in the brain It functions to provide an overall progress of the organism to be maximally manifested. Every acorn has a "soul" built into its essence to become a towering oak tree which "blesses" all the world for its and every other being which benefits from its existence Sadly, the world also has e v IL which has the "intent" to destroy to maximize its reproduction.

[@eugenetswong]

Wow! It's so good to see you visit 2 of my favourite channels. I think that the atheist best definition/explanation is software running of hardware, but when I read scripture, I do not envision something being transferred out of the body in the way that we might copy a hard disk. I think of the spirit/soul as a pilot that must leave the pod of the ship. I read the novel about a video game. I think that it was EVE. If I understand correctly, huge ships are controlled by 1 pilot via implants and connections. If the ship breaks apart, then the human should be removed.

[@zeroccas8439]

It's interesting, but the soul doesn't work the same. Our soul can't travel from one hardware to another. Also, computers were developed by humans, not naturally formed. It still raises the question of how consciousness and the soul came from pure material. If anything the software analogy would point to a creator and eventually to a God.

[@pianogal853]

12:55 you've known him for almost 3 decades- that explains why he greeted you fondly as "Dr. McDowell" 😊 Very sweet

[@PsycheDismantled]

Great discussion. Great points. Thank you both for being so generous with your time.

[@Jeddacoder]

9:30-10:30 "So the question is: how could there be such a thing as consciousness coming from brute matter, which doesn't even have the potential for consciousness?" How do you know that matter doesn't have the potential for consciousness? The hard problem of consciousness is that we don't know _why/how_ experiences accompany these physical functions. Is it not disingenuous to state that it's not possible, when we have no idea?

[@adeniranm7647]

Interesting point about kids naturally being duelists. My 2 year old often says, "I'm going to exercise my body." I was amazed the first time she said that, wondering, "How do you know there is a difference between you and your body?" It just came naturally to her.

[@CTCTraining1]

My little one says he is a train ... but I have my doubts 😀

[@Standing.W.Israel]

My favorite NDE research data point is the dr who put a sign up on the roof and on the top of the refrigerator in the room to test people who said that they had an NDE.... crazy... and Im a Christ follower who knows that there is life after death, but the odea that there is some type of linger after death just trips me out

[@chrisgreen1514]

Great talk, love it. Perhaps the beliefs of very young children in different societies of the world should be studied more? Children seem to have some innate understanding prior to becoming influenced by others, largely through their language, they almost seem to live in a different world. My own personal experience was that something of my innocent connection with nature was lost as I grew up but I do think it is possible to regain it. Human ideas clearly evolve and ideas do have consequences…

[@DanellTomasella]

I'm looking forward to this!

[@peterpaulvanderven9425]

Nice interview! There is also talk of a Q&A around the topic of 'the soul'. When is this episode scheduled for? Looking forward to it!

[@jerryloufretz1797]

When my Dad was dying, I was sitting next to him, holding his hand. I actually felt his soul leave his body. He was amazed and in a hurry to go. He loved the Lord Jesus.

[@conociendoelislam85]

I am a spanish speaker from Latin America, I can understand english well, but I was lost in translation the first 47 minutes... some concept were hard to understand but... It was great to learn a little more about our souls and mind

[@davidphillip9198]

How do you explain Genesis 2:7, Ezekiel 18: 4,20?

[@CTCTraining1]

Question - the test carried out in hospital to identify death for those in coma (lack of brain stem activity). If the soul is separate to our brain and it’s activity then are you saying clinical practice is wrong? Are some with brain activity potentially already deceased, while others without brain activity still hosting a soul? What test would be more meaningful in light of your magnum opus?

[@FLDavis]

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

[@JereKrischel]

Don't souls get treated as "brute fact" by Moreland? Aren't they simply ex nihlo? Are we back into infinite regress? It seems that ultimately, the decision on whether or not to believe in emergence or extra-natural souls, is an aesthetic one according to Moreland.

[@WendyWzOpinion]

I love brilliant thinkers like Dr. McDowell, Dr. Moreland and Dr. William Lane Craig. What amazing treasures for the defense of the Christian faith and just reality as revealed in the Bible! Praise to God for giving us these amazing teachers!

[@jamesbock7995]

Great discussion! I’m curious how Dr. Moreland would explain the body’s importance as an expression of the self made in the divine image, i.e. how does substance dualism avoid a simplistic reduction of the body as the mere machinery that the “real” person inhabits? Does this worldview too easily render the body arbitrary in questions of identity?

[@Convexhull210]

It avoids it by saying that the physical body is holistic and not just a machine but interacts with the immaterial. Since God himself is immaterial, then all identity is not reduced to the body but comes from him. Atheism would lead to a reductionist view of the human body as just a physical robot.

[@jarrettepp6622]

Been following your page for a couple months now. Loving the content. Question: After listening to your arguments for consciousness being a potential evidence for the soul. How would we respond with animals having a consciousness and ability to feel pain and emotions? And if it’s applicable what would then be their eternal state?

[@dwightwhitman2781]

That's a great question.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

souls were invented when some bright spark asked "how do we get to heaven when the body is lying there rotting?" someone had to think fast and poof! another plot hole filled - temporarily, until someone asked "how does a soul actually work" - it can't. god is imaginary.

[@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831]

Wonderful to listen to JP moreland again.

[@benyaeger4388]

I have had supernatural events occur in my life, yet I still have a faith that goes up and down everyday. Am I alone in this?

[@heidihaga]

According to genesis 2:7 it is the breath of life which animates the body and causes one to be a living soul. It is Not the soul which animates the body. We do not have souls ,rather We become living souls when we have the breath of life and a body. “And God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. “. Its not biblical that we receive a soul or have a soul. In other words, we are not two components:body and soul, which can be separated . Rather when body and spirit (ruach: breath, wind, soul) are combined, we are living souls. If we have no spirit or breath in our body, we are not living souls. In fact, the Psalmist says that even our thoughts perish at death (so does Job). I think it’s extremely important for Christians to contemplate the first lie in the garden of Eden and ask themselves if they believe the serpents claim; “You will not surely die.”

[@theeternalsbeliever1779]

A person does not need a spirit to live, because it does not serve the purpose of making someone a living thing. Animals don't have spirits, and yet they live. The human spirit, as 1 Cor. 2:11 says, enables humans to grasp and appreciate material knowledge. That is why this same passage says a person needs the Holy Spirit to do the same thing with spiritual knowledge. The human spirit is what separates us from animals.

[@user-ly3li3ex8c]

Stop scaring people. From the beginning there was the Word and then the Word became flesh. Jesus existed before he was embodied, and perhaps so were we and will forever be unless perhaps thrown into the lake of fire which is a different and worse place than hell after Judgement day. Becoming a living soul just means you have become a soul embodied in a living vessel. If you don't make a distinction between the soul and spirit, you will be entirely ignorant of the very real witchcraft of astral projection, how it works and why it is so dangerous. We are made of soul, spirit and body. Your spirit is your metaphorical flame that keeps your body alive, God breathed that flame in us. When we astral project or have our soul by God's allowance go see what is beyond our body, our spirit is still in our body keeping it alive. How spiritual experiences work don't even make sense unless you know this. The spirit is attached to our soul with what is seemingly an infinitely long cord [a threefold cord], which is vulnerable to getting cut by demonic entities and witches when we wonder out of our body without getting God's permission which protects us. This is why people sometimes suddenly die during eastern meditation for seemingly no reason.

[@heidihaga]

@@theeternalsbeliever1779 I am speaking about the Greek ;ruach, which means: breath, wind, soul. I’m not talking about the Holy Spirit. I’m talking about the breath of life combined with a body, makes for a living soul. That is the creation account. In this understanding, the soul is the full integration of what makes up each person. In this understanding the soul can die and in fact, does die when the person no longer has breath. At the heart of the confusion is the belief that the soul is the conscious part of ourselves and is inherently immortal (a teaching from paganism, but not a teaching from the Hebrew Scripture) In 1 Thessalonians, we are told, “do not fear fear him who can destroy the body, but fear him who can destroy both body and soul in hell.” And in psalms, David, declares ,”his breath goes forth. He returns to the Earth in that day his thoughts perish”. 146:4 I am presenting food for thought that common definitions for soul , as presented in this video, may be unbiblical. Blessings

[@smallbeginning2]

​@funkfamily4165then what of Jesus' promises of eternal life?

[@smallbeginning2]

@funkfamily4165 ok, but what about the thief on the cross? Do you not think people go to heaven at all? 'today you shall be with be in paradise'... today, not thousands of years from now?

[@JereKrischel]

Probably the strongest argument for cartesian dualism is that time is an illusion, and every moment that happens is a permanent mark on a dimension we only pass through ephemerally, but that mark endures beyond our perception. It could be that the "afterlife" is a misnomer because the existence of the soul is neither before nor after anything, and our experience of the passage of time is a perceptual trick.

[@radscorpion8]

Its not exactly clear why time would be an illusion when special relativity, and more broadly general relativity, clearly and experimentally show that clocks show differences in the amount of time elapsed depending either on an object's speed as a significant fraction of the speed of light, or else its proximity to a source with a strong gravitational field. We know atomic clocks that orbit the Earth have experienced a slower passage of time compared to us on Earth for example.

[@JereKrischel]

@@radscorpion8 Our subjective experience of time is qualitatively different than our experience of other dimensions, even though, mathematically, there's no reason they need to be treated differently. The entire idea of "before" and "after" and "causality" is premised on our very subjective experience of the passage of time, and the steady increase of entropy in the universe. We have good models of time being relative under different gravitational and speed conditions, but we take for granted that time is simply monotonically moving in one direction and one direction only. We rarely give much though to challenging that framing because it is so fundamental to our experience. Much like how Conway's "Game of Life" with cellular automata seems to show spontaneous complexity from what might be considered simple, we forget that simply designing the boundaries of cells, and placing them next to each other, is much more complex than we give credit for.

[@brando3342]

I would be very curious to hear what a philosopher has to say to someone like Michael Knowles, who claims the substance dualism position is what the trans activists use to justify their position that someone can be “born in the wrong body”. As opposed to his position of hylomorphism.

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

Souls aren't gendered. Where has Knowles talked about the soul?

[@brando3342]

@@Jimmy-iy9pl What's the argument to say soul's can't be gendered? Also, Michael spoke about it on his show, can't remember the episode now.

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

@@brando3342 To be gendered is to possess certain physical characteristics. Souls aren't physical, by definition. Hence, a person can be gendered, as people are composites of body and mind.

[@brando3342]

@@Jimmy-iy9pl "To be gendered is to possess certain physical characteristics." Why relegate it to physical attributes? Who says we are not also different on the metaphysical side of things?

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

@@brando3342 I'm talking about the soul on the assumption that this is the soul as conceived through the lens of Cartesian dualism. That's because the discussion began as a question about the implications of Cartesian substance dualism. Cartesian dualism posits a soul that's essentially an immaterial mental substance that is contingently related to a particular physical body. If Cartesian dualism is true, there is no such thing as a soul that can possess any physical properties. Our physical properties are wholly dependent on our bodies and whatever properties they happen to have.

[@karenwade2484]

The soul you are describing is simply the mind. The mind is eternal. The mind creates the soul in order to evolve, learn, heal, and balance, The mind is conscious, the mind creates it's form...in an earthly body or in an ethereal body. The mind can alter the physical body and experience the afterlife. Your mind is eternally connected to God. “'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'"

[@richartsowa9852]

Hi Sean, the bible clearly states that Spirit is Eternal and when it takes on flesh the union Becomes 'a living Soul' scriptures verify that 'the soul that sins shall die' and that at Death the 'Spirit leaves via the mortal coil to return 'to God that gave it'

[@theresaroussell919]

Ohhhhh, now I understand. 😊 Thank you for this info. ❤

[@trebla925]

I like the idea that since are cells are always replacing themselves are body/brain is constantly different today than it will be tomorrow. And even though we are physically different are personalities/soul remain constant. So it's kind of proof we have a soul. But how would this idea explain my dog for example. I would assume her cells are constantly dieing and replacing themselves too so the physical dog she is today is not the same as a month ago. However she still knows the same tricks and reacts to certain people in certain ways. I thought that animals not created in God's image do not have a soul. So why does my dog seem to have a soul in this idea?

[@danielbryant3437]

Question: Do you think Alzheimer's or dementia is the result of soul being out of line with the body (brain)? I totally agree with what he is saying, but that is a puzzling issue.

[@yourenotthere]

The driver controls the car; unless... the car becomes damaged in a way that prevents the driver's control. If a wheel comes off, or the brakes lock up, or some other essential part breaks, then it may not matter what the driver *wants* to do, the car's going its own way. Something similar could be happening in the case of Alzheimer's or dementia, where the brain represents the car and the soul and mind represent the driver.

[@AlecSorensen]

I mean, to be honest, we don't if there's a "what it's like to be an electron" (nod to my panpsychic friends). More appropriately, I think he seems to be saying that we're choosing to limit our definition of consciousness to those who can express or articulate in some degree "what it is like" to be experiencing what they are experiencing. However, opening up the definition of that experience in some form or fashion may actually be a wider phenomenon than those who can reflect on or articulate it nicely avoids some problems. For example, you no longer have to explain the emergence of experience (it's part of matter generally), but just the facilities to reflect on and articulate that experience. So more simple, if experience is part of matter or the fabric of reality, etc, if there's something it is like to be an electron, then you don't *have* to have a soul to explain the emergence of consciousness. And you can explain a lot of human psychology (reflecting, feeling, articulating) as things that a complicated brain allows us to do with the raw material of experience that is woven in to everything. There's a parallel issue with his approach to free will. He *assumes* that free will is property of individuals, and not say a property of matter, reality, laws of nature, etc. He then argues that since he has this property that other matter does not, he must have some special property like a soul. However, if you don't make the assumption that free will is a property of humans, his logic falls apart. If free will is a fact of the universe, then all that makes humans unique is that I have the physical equipment to exercise free will, where as a rock does not, and animals do not appear to have the same level of that capacity. An analogy here: I drop a rock in the water. It doesn't swim. Yet, I CAN swim. Is there some special property of me (my swimming soul) that enables me to do what a rock cannot? No, swimming is an inherent possibility of fluid, density, the laws of motion, etc. I don't need a swimming soul, I just need to have the physical machinery to take advantage of what was already present in the laws of nature and the properties of matter. Perhaps the brain is the machine by which recognize, reflect on, and move through choices in a somewhat analogous fashion that we perceive, identify, and move through the water while a rock does not. I'm not saying that I can prove I am only my brain. In fact, I don't believe that. However, his supposed "proof" of a soul via free will is defined more by his assumptions going into the problem than the logic of the argument itself. I don't think that a person has to make the same assumptions, and so this argument is not very persuasive to me without really diving into why those assumptions are at least preferable than the alternative.

[@AlecSorensen]

I think this line of argument that "my consciousness possibly can live after my death, but my brain clearly cannot, therefore I have proof for the existence of a soul" is totally flat. All he's really saying is that because of what I've heard "I BELIEVE there's a possibility my consciousness might survive." The belief that you have that possibility is not evidence that you, in fact, have that possibility. What Moreland is showing is that the concept of consciousness is separate from the concept of brain... however, not all possibilities relating to consciousness and or brains are necessarily true. An an example: I've flapped my arms, and I did not fly. Therefore, we know that I do not have the possibility of flying merely by flapping my arms. However, I could imagine a version of a me, that is exactly the same in psychology, physiology, and experience... but he has the potential to fly. Flying Alec is not the same concept as actual Alec, because he has a possibility actual Alec does not. However, my belief in this potential does not make flying Alec real. The difference with life after death is that you can't run the experiment. So no, I don't know that there is or isn't life after death. But my beliefs about its possibilities don't prove anything except that I have a bunch of logically distinct ideas, some of which might be counterfactual. So when Sean summarizes "this proves that I am not my brain" -- he's wrong. He's just proved the concept of brain is not the same as the concept of consciousness/soul. His whole thinking and experience could ACTUALLY still be just his brain, whereas his soul with the possibility of surviving after death could just be an interesting counterfactual that logical a separate idea than the idea of his brain.

[@jaybo420]

I heard a Ravi ism. “Found to be Difficult and left untried” very informative, great show. I think therefore I am. Materialist’ use free will to consciously ignore there own soul. 😮

[@str.77]

That's actually a Chesterton-ism.

[@ClunyRedwall-xo9yk]

Knowledge gained in Spirit outside of the brain, must be stored somewhere. Perhaps we have software brains as well as hardware brains

[@pamburtness6635]

Interesting

[@tongakhan230]

Without the hardware the software wouldn't work. For anything to exist and work, the human being should be alive. Compare James 2:26.

[@gravitascascade5798]

43:50 "you could possibly survive death" is the claim that you need to argue, not simply assume

[@hextoken]

This will be Epiccccc! JP Moreland in da soul house!

[@kennethobrien8386]

My understanding is that DNA is physical matter and a code that instructs the operation of of cells in the body. Is that correct?

[@kennethobrien8386]

In other words, DNA is both matter and a code of instructions for different parts of the body like the liver or the blood, etc. Is that right?

[@midimusicforever]

I have a soul for sure!

[@maryaddams3145]

What about spirit? We are body, soul and spirit. Maybe I missed that part of the discussion?

[@joeosp1689]

An educational and entertaining story about increasing faith is the book Axis of Beginning.

[@CRMWTY]

Excited for this!

[@JohnnyStanley4844]

This hast to be in the in top 5 of sean best shows . Im really enjoying it . I wish he wld have him back to do a series on the soul is real and what it is and were it is in us añd it never dies .we will have a new body too house our soul .

[@SincerelyBradley]

Any of y’all try to read this book? What about his much more approachable “The Soul”? No? He’s intense. God bless him. Always been inspired by him

[@HarryNicNicholas]

really? he just makes crap up.

[@yadurajdas532]

Sir, I will suggest you to facilitate a discussion between leading proponent of Analytical idealism ( Bernardo Kastrup) and JP Moreland. Analytical idealism post a greater challenge to the existence of the soul than any other world view. 🙏

[@justincroft794]

Loved the Prince of Egypt music in the beginning of the video

[@NancySwass-jv4kp]

Do my memories go with my soul, or body? My sense os humor? Etc...?

[@yadurajdas532]

In his new book, there are responses to materialism, panpsychism, however there is not responses to analytical idealism.

[@str.77]

My first question: is his position identical to Cartesian dualism? Sometimes it sounds like, sometimes it doesn't.

[@lubberdenw]

QUESTION: It seems the story of Phenias Gage and psychopathy support physicallism. Can you explain how these phenomena can be explained with a dualistic worldview?

[@johnkristenson139]

Hey John do you know about patristics?

[@Jaxorian]

Then how do we rightly handle the verse that says I have been crucified with Christ and it is no longer I that lives but Christ that lives in me?

[@user-ly3li3ex8c]

It sounds like a metaphor that you are living for Christ instead of yourself now

[@lancemarchetti8673]

... a fascinating discussion.

[@bewise5239]

I'm on the 29th minute mark on this video, so my question may perhaps be answered in the latter portion of this conversation. Where does the mental state fall? The soul portion or the physical body?

[@markb3786]

well it moves depending on the argument

[@frankt7521]

How does substance dualism relate to depression/mental illness? Also, if the soul brings life to a body, do my dogs have a soul?

[@coreymccain]

After watching this video I wanted to share some thoughts from a Seventh Day Adventist perspective. This video primarily examines this subject from a atheistic worldview vs a traditional Christian worldview. There aspects from both sides that I agree with and aspects from both sides I would disagree with. For those that don't know SDA's believe that when a person dies, he is dead, unconscious, ceases to live. This video wasn't making biblical arguments so Im not going there either except for framing my perspective. In my worldview it would be correct to say I am a physicalist, as I do not believe in immaterial consciousness including the person God. I call immaterial consciousness: spiritualism. I also believe spiritualism is the foundation to Satan's kingdom, his plan to deceive the entire world. I bring this up because it will give a foundation to what else Im saying. There are points in this video that I believe are impossible for an atheist to explain but I also believe atheists have points on this topic that do not fit within the substance dualism doctrine. I'll give some examples. I don't believe atheists can deal with near death experiences except to pretend the evidence doesn't exist. As for me near death experiences are evidence to me of the foundation I mentioned in the beginning. Near death experiences are very inconsistent, some pointing to a traditional Christian worldview, some to a pantheist or other spiritualistic worldview and many people have no experience of one at all. I believe the experiences these people have are very real but I believe it is the devil giving them the experience in order to establish the doctrine of dualism as it plays a very important role in deceiving the entire world into the mark of the beast in the finale of the world. Now although this doctor may sound highly knowledgeable on this subject, to me its all based in philosophy and human reasoning. The complexity of the brain and the emergence of consciousness is not something I can explain, I'll admit that. I can try to use all my ability and it will likely fall short of being adequate. I simply stick with the Bible that the dead know nothing, and from dust you are and dust you shall return. Obviously im not going into depth there but I believe almost all of Christianity has been deceived into the idea of dualism. For me the soul is the abstract spiritual manifestation that emerges from complex physical properties yet allows for to be in control of the system. The atheist worldview although being similar to what Im saying does have a problem because it is based on naturalism, where mine is based on design, I just haven't been taught exactly how this complicated body works. A point about dualism that needed to be examined more was its foundation. Where did it come from? Do animals have a dualistic framework because I see the foundation for spirit bringing life to be the same in both man and animal? Obviously my understanding of spirit is different than dualism because I don't believe in immaterial consciousness. I say "spirit" in the context of a spirit of a being (God, Jesus, man, animals). In dualism the soul has all the data stored within it, otherwise when a person dies they would have no knowledge or memory to interact outside of the body, as it would be dumb. I didn't see a good answer in this video that arises from all the problems when the soul and body are together. Why would the soul be dependent on the physical brain for memory when the data is in the soul/spirit? If you place all the data in the physical then you're left with a dumb spirit once you die. All the science shows that data and the transactions of it are physical properties. They can actually hook things up to your brain today and read your thoughts with some fairly decent accuracy which gets better as technology develops. I believe this area is an area that the atheist has the upper hand on when it comes to this subject. I think most of his arguments sound plausible because of the complexity of the issue but in reality we shouldn't put much weight in them because they are ultimately the philosophy of men. In the finale of the world you all will see how important this issue is when you have your dead grandma, or dead anyone visit you as a ghost. It won't be grandma, it will be a familiar spirit, a demon impersonating the dead. They won't tell you new lies, they will simply encourage you in rte direction you are already going. They will confirm your current Christian beliefs and this will give you confidence they are not lying when the reality is, you had already been deceived by the antichrist (pope) and false prophet (traditional Christianity). I know that is offensive but Im telling you the future before it happens so that you might have a chance to escape the great deception in the future. Blessings Corey

[@discern3392]

Very good biblical understanding you have. I am the same as you and thought I'd give this video a listen. Sadly no light in it and not worth a full listen. Your response is encouraging to know at least a few watchers may find your comments and be awakened ... God bless😊

[@smallbeginning2]

So with that worldview what do you believe about the afterlife? What is heaven? What is God? A physical person on another dimension? Do you believe kind of only in the physical as in you'll just be ressurected one day in the kingdom after the end? So you die and then however long from now you just kind of are reformulated in time to fight the final battle? Or just after? Like waking up from a sleep?

[@smallbeginning2]

Kind of sounds like you think God is playing sims with us and storing the righteous to be respawned later?

[@terryhuffaker3615]

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, strength, mind and soul" .. it never says with your brain. 😊

[@timothykeith1367]

I never think of myself as a brain. Identical twins do not have co-brains

[@Standing.W.Israel]

It says your heart, strength, soul, AND mind which is separated in that verse from soul and heart which indicates via knowledge, like separately indicating heart for emotion, which means your brain, since you don't retain knowledge anywhere else.

[@blackbeardsghost6588]

I'm a Christian and a dualist . . . but a QUICK cautionary note on this discussion. The materialist is going to argue that this entire discussion is "question begging", and very ad hoc. They will argue that if a brain state actually DOES cause the emergence of a conscious experience, just as the combination of hydrogen and oxygen causes the emergence of wetness, then there is no need to argue for a soul. One simply gives rise to the other, in the same manner. They will point out that by adding a "soul" into the equation, you are adding something that is unnecessary, and urge you to use Occam's Razor to simply do away with the soul.

[@SeanMcDowell]

Good pushback. JP addresses this in his book and we’ll tackle this one Friday.

[@Nighthawkinlight]

1:10:52

[@fcastellanos57]

We do not have to listen to those who do not accept nor understand spiritual things. We have been give a spirit, not a soul, and that spirit is what interfaces with our brain and gives us the sense of self and awareness. This spirit is immaterial, it cannot be detected by any piece of equipment, so we can only accept this because is coming from the word of God, but we have spiritual experiences that confirm the scriptures.

[@blackbeardsghost6588]

@@SeanMcDowell I hope I can attend on Friday. GREAT discussion!!! I see someone has already used the "God said it, so it's true" argument, but I'm NOT an atheist. I'm trying to sharpen my skills, not dull them. I think Dr. Moreland is a little too dismissive of the point above. If we assume that God does NOT exist, and neither does a soul (or spirit or whatever), then it's fairly easy to still imagine that just the right combination of COMPLICATED interactions in a brain could result in the emergence of measurements expressed as impressions or "experience". In this sense, the color "red" may not actually exist as anything other than as a quality of light, as measured by the brain via the eyes. "Red" is not really a "thing", but a DESCRIPTION of a thing, namely light in the wavelengths of roughly 640 to 690 nm. The reason a rock doesn't notice it is because it doesn't have the right combination of chemistry. Again - AWESOME discussion, and my compliments to you and Dr. Moreland!!!

[@wishlist011]

Well put. This is almost precisely what I would argue as a possibility in response to what - in some places - sound like mere assertions to me from J.P. Moreland - "... material doesn't even have the potential for consciousness". Perhaps I can be forgiven for not being quite as confident about his knowledge of the limits of the material world as he is himself?

[@tongakhan230]

According to the Bible, the soul is a living breathing human or animal. Genesis 2:7. There is nothing trapped within a human called a soul waiting for a death to take a trip.

[@avpet]

There is no soul only according JW/SDA and a few baptists. So they are kind of quasi-Christian materialists, not Christian in essence. Well, least SDA and Baptists accepted the Trinity, so there is hope.

[@tongakhan230]

@@avpet : The Bible clearly speaks of souls. However, the concept of the soul which is believed by the majority of the churches is not what the Bible teaches. 1 Peter 3:20.....in Noah’s day, while the ark was being constructed, in which a FEW PEOPLE, that is, EIGHT SOULS, were carried safely through the water. These eight souls refer to people. Whereas, the churches' concept is of some unseen sinister entity which is trapped within a human body, just waiting for death to escape. After death this unseen entity begins to take long trips. How is not explained. BTW for those who believe the Trinity, there is no hope. Matthew 7:23.

[@avpet]

@@tongakhan230 Well, this is not as simple as it seems, because we need to think about the big picture, the ultimate goal which is indeed a Resurrection, no doubt about that. Resurrection is a triumph of the Spirit over corruptible matter (including the body which is subject to decay because of the Original Sin). 'Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God'. (1 Corinthians 15:50) The spirit is invisible in us, like it was invisible in Jesus when he resurrected. But the invisible spirit is coupled with a body and can manifest itself. “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." ‭‭Luke‬ ‭24:39 So our body and our world is in no way a prison of course, our goals is to reach the new transformed realm where Spirit will prevail over matter eternally in such a way that the whole Universe will be ordered and safe.

[@tongakhan230]

@@avpet : The spirit associated with any living creature is an electrical like force that activates all the bodies organs and cells to make them function. As the electricity which powers a train or even a toy car is the same. Ecclesiastes 3:19 for there is an outcome for HUMANS and an outcome for ANIMALS; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and THEY ALL HAVE BUT ONE SPIRIT. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. 20 All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust. Switching off the source of electricity will stop the appliance from working. Similarly, when this spirit ceases to be active. James 2:26 Indeed, just as the body without spirit is dead, .... When someone dies, it is the end for that person. The promised resurrections bring the dead BACK INTO EXISTENCE. cf Acts 24:15. Humans were created to live ON EARTH. That is where obedient humans will live. (Psalm 37:29) The righteous will possess the earth, And they will live forever on it. That was a purpose of God sending a sacrifice in the form of Jesus. The word Spirit used in the Bible has other meanings.

[@JereKrischel]

We naturally see the world right-side up, even though the images projected upon our retinas are upside-down. Cartesian dualists are experiencing a real sensation, but that doesn't mean that it correlates to an actual physical truth. It seems that what Moreland is arguing for is a philosophical position, not a physical position.

[@Bvoorhis03]

JP is brilliant

[@JereKrischel]

So here's an interesting question - do people with split corpus callosum have two souls after the split? The different hemispheres of the brain can have different free wills when separated.

[@jeremiahh.3383]

When has this happened?

[@JereKrischel]

@@jeremiahh.3383 There are some people who have to have their corpus callosum split (I believe it's an anti-seizure treatment sometimes). When they do, and they do experiments where they have their left eye see one thing, and their right eye see another, their left hand and right hand will literally have contradictory wills. For example, one eye might see the command "put the fork on the plate", and the other might see a picture of putting a spoon on the plate, and the left and right arm will try to do different things and fight over it. Put another way, even if you do believe in a soul, there's no reason to believe that it is some sort of monolithic thing - it could be a conversation between many "sub-souls", and in a unified brain, actions reflect the outcome of that conversation of differing "wills", whereas in a split brain, those conversations may be separate, and actions may be "un-unified" .

[@mirandaschneider6049]

I completely agree with the evidence of the second part but the possibility of a difference thing was really bad. In the spiderman example, imagine that you could not directly test the thing that forced Sean to be born in California (let's say evidence of some specific regional radiation in his cells) on spider man. So you could say it's possible that he could come from New York but you don't actually know if it is possible; spider man could have that same radiation you just haven't tested it. In the case of the soul surviving after death, it could be completely impossible if the soul is actually just neurons firing. I also think the color vs wavelength thing was also just misusing language. We could just as easily have the same word for brightness and amplitude, for example. Also, a thermometer is entirely physical and the height of the mercury is not the same thing as heat, but is directly caused by it. In the same way, a materialist could argue that color is our wavelength "thermometer," physically expressing a measurement of wavelength. Maybe I just didn't get their argument or maybe it was too abbreviated here. The rest of the video was very compelling and I do affirm the existence of a soul

[@mirandaschneider6049]

I could see an atheist using that possibility of a difference thing against you. For example, the Jesus Christians worship cannot be the same as the historical man because there is a possibility of the man being conceived by Joseph while there is no possibility with your Jesus, since God cannot possibly lie. The argument just feels off, I wouldn't go there

[@christopheradams2074]

⁠​⁠@@mirandaschneider6049I think the logic is sound. The problem with your atheist is that they make the claim that the historical Jesus possesses the possibility of either having been divinely conceived or naturally conceived, but they do not present any argument for why we should assume that was the case. The atheist’s mistake is in believing that because he can imagine a historical Jesus that possesses the possibility of having been naturally conceived, the actual historical Jesus must possess that possibility. In fact, if the historical Jesus and the Jesus that Christians worship are the same Jesus, then it would follow that the historical Jesus does not possess the possibility of being naturally conceived.

[@wildone106]

I love J.P. and I don't pretend to understand 95% of what he says but hes fun to listen to

[@tomyossarian7681]

Yeah, who cares if any of that ass gravy is true. 🙄

[@OldThingsPassAway]

What do you think of the idea that there does not appear to be a reductionist reason why crossculturally children are dualists, but this does not mean that a good reason does not exist? I am someone who believes there is a hierarchy of being where the spirit is the deepest and our behaviors are the most shallow. However, I would never phraze this as "physical vs non-physical' because the spirit is different from the soul is different from the heart is different from the mind/intellect. Also, behaviors are not physical but are more shallow than our body.

[@sullivan1858]

I really really wish Jordan Peterson would sit down with JP Moreland on the soul and consciousness!!!!

[@shannagrubbs8548]

Wow..great topic..deep stuff😳

[@philhart4849]

Please demonstrate the existence of this thing commonly referred to as a "soul".

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Will there be a Q/A?

[@judithzoe204]

The intro music 😂 definitely Moses at the burning bush haha

[@NancySwass-jv4kp]

What parts of me are my soul?

[@ready1fire1aim1]

What's the difference between the postulated soul (no spatial extension, zero size and exact location only) and quarks (mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts)? (A: there is no difference) What's the difference between my quarks and the quarks that make up anything else in the universe? (A: the Logos)

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an elementary particle. It had a geometric counterpart, which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people. [In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's Monad (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together using the strong nuclear force]: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force. 2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Leibniz's monads interact non-mechanically through perceptions. In the context of the strong force, quarks interact through the exchange of gluons, which doesn't follow classical mechanical rules but rather the principles of quantum field theory. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions. em·a·na·tion noun an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Metaphysics Context The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System. Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others. This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance. Summary The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances), then it turns to their principle or creator and finishes by using both to explain the world. (I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible". Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered: (1) entelechies or created monads (§48), (2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and (3) spirits or rational souls (§82). Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of (1) living beings and animals (2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable. The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul. (II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will. (III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90). In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite." The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves. (IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”. This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.

[@Lillaloppan]

Thank you so very much🙏😊!

[@chrisraper6181]

I'll go ahead and try submitting my question for Friday's live stream here: What are the best reasons to prefer a Thomistic understanding of the soul as opposed to a Cartesian understanding? Are there any books you would recommend for examining the strengths and weaknesses of these two views? FYI, I have already pre-ordered JP's new book!

[@patrickbarnes9874]

I am biased but I would say just as a general principle that you should prefer non-Thomistic understandings of pretty much everything. Scholasticism is idolatrous by its very nature as it places the human intellect in a position to define and comprehend the divine for one and it places scripture in the context of Plato and Aristotle for another. It replaces the God of scripture with the Monad of Plato's philosophy.

[@radscorpion8]

maybe reject the idea of a soul as unscientific in general

[@HarryNicNicholas]

it's all made up, you can write your own book on the subject if you want, no one can disagree with you.

[@isaiahceasarbie5318]

Love you Dr Moreland!

[@jonmichaelgalindo]

QUESTION: In AI (LLMs like ChatGPT), we can vivisect a live intelligence. Can we look for an "I am" inside it? Or can we put an "I am" inside it with engineering? What would the answers to these questions mean concerning our own souls?

[@glenliesegang233]

It is impossible for humans to grasp the interaction of matter and energy and the information encoded in the total body cellular DNA length of the distance from the sun to the Earth and back 30 times.

[@glenliesegang233]

A whole automobile has properties greater than what each part does. Consciousness is an infinitely self-reflective process of nerves interacting with the electromagnetic fields dancing locally, regionally, and generally across the brain. The data producing the picture on a TV screen is not the picture. A Monet painting is not simple pigment and canvas. Molecular biology proves life was created by a Superintelligence. Consciousness was created by and planned for through evolution by this same Intelligence. This is Imago Dei.

[@jonmichaelgalindo]

@@glenliesegang233 I don't even know how to respond to this... Make arguments from axioms, not assertions from authority.

[@user-ly3li3ex8c]

I worked in machine learning. Artificial Intelligence is just a mockery or mimic of consciousness with machine learning, we are being brainwashed by movies into anthropomorphizing this useful and fun tool which can have dangerously and foolishly anti-human consequences if we trick ourselves into thinking its anything more than a tool.

[@RLBays]

If it's real then what's it made out of?

[@JereKrischel]

There's a misunderstanding here of what "science" is - it is not a method of determining truth, it merely puts boundaries on where truth could be. Popper's falsification criteria to solve the demarcation problem does not insist that empirical science absolutely determines truth - it only means that we use science to determine what is *not* true, and within the remaining explanations there still may be unfathomable mystery (see Godel's incompleteness theorem). While substance dualist scholarship is interesting philosophically, it won't enter the realm of "science" until it has falsification criteria, and we start looking earnestly for those falsifications, and fail to find them.

[@captainfantastic7843]

Thank you both for bringing this subject alive in a great conversation! Has J.P. ever read Dane Rudhyar's book "The Planetarization Of Consciousness"? If so, what does he think of it? This is one of my favorite philosophy books regarding the subject.

[@locust666av]

So is consciousness the soul?

[@russellmiles2861]

This is the "best case"!

[@yunusjhon651]

Some islamic teacher believes that soul is sensation,Hayat is age maximum,Nur is intimated light.thus elements are inside the body in every human as one origin parts of God,my question is God multiple ?

[@photoionized]

So, I get that arguing for dualism means making a case against pure naturalism. I guess the thing that I always find a bit unfortunate though is that there's not a real discussion on what "the soul" in a dualist sense actually means in Christian thought (i.e. Paul's distinction between ψυχή and πνεῦμα especially in 1 Corinthians 15). While Paul himself is following the Aristotelian view of what ψυχή is -- i.e the "life-breath," it seems like a much bigger question, at least from a Christian perspective, as to why Paul seems to consider ψυχή part of the "natural world" while the eschatological view of reality is that the ψυχή itself will pass away and be changed to πνεῦμα in the end. In other words, Paul's understanding is that the final state of man itself is for both the flesh and "soul" (i.e. life-breath) to pass away or be subsumed into πνεῦμα ("spirit"). The fact that Christians have an understanding of "the soul" as the final, disembodied state thus seems to be problematic. So, I see arguing for the existence of the soul, aside from making a case against naturalism, fundamentally muddying the waters around the early Christian ideas of afterlife and making people think about it more in terms of Greek philosophy rather than Pauline theology. So, I guess I get the need for the book, but it's unfortunate that the question is often focused primarily on whether "the soul" exists rather than realizing that Paul is far more concerned with something distinct that he calls "spirit" and that those two terms, at least to Paul, are not interchangeable.

[@gailpurcell1649]

I have been considering this same point. I think that the higher animals have a soul, but not the the spirit that God gave mankind. Dogs and cats, for example read human emotion and have a will. They do not have self-awareness like humans and have no concept of past and future, yet people can have a relationship with them and can ask them to do things that on their own, they would not do.

[@chrisgreen1514]

Are our thoughts, ideas, and concepts physical? Is mathematics or language or even the current laws of nature physical? I think not. If our soul (our conscious awareness) is the sum of all ideas held within the vessel of our body then it is conceivable that we can, in some form, continue and survive our physical death. The question today is whether physical matter is illusionary!

[@markmcflounder15]

And, then there's Sam Harris. I really like Sam but man! His reasoning can leave one wanting. He was on Big Think stating that the self is an illusion. Ah man! That kind of thing makes my illusory self need to take real Tylenol. The best comment on there (one of the funniest comments on conscious) is "there is no self and no free will then why do I have to repay my student loans?"

[@warrior2731]

The Bhagavad Gita emphasizes that the body is distinct from the soul, a concept elucidated by Lord Krishna to Arjuna on the first page of the text.