Using scientific methodology, are we able to prove the existence of a persons soul, if not, Why?

Question

Is it because we don't have the scientific equipment to measure a soul at this point in human history, if not will we ever. If no, does the soul in point of fact, exist, or is it just an explanation of consciousness and mental activity, and of emotion.

Answer 1

Cool question. I don't think science can do this.

We're talking about the soul here, so pretty much anything goes as it's a very wide open subject.

Science deals with matter, energy, space and time - pretty much all there is. But what if there's more to the game then that? I don't mean some new physical universe thing that's undiscovered. The soul may not be within the physical universe, or depend upon it, it may not be subject to energy readings and wavelengths or any "physical universe measurement device."

In the 1900s there was a thought floating around that a true study of physics or of the universe had to begin with the mind. The reasoning behind it was when studying the world one comes upon MENTAL PHENOMENA like distance and weight and time. If there were no minds, no consciousness (or souls), who or what would experience such things? Rocks and planets and dirt do not. So to even say "distance" implies a mind is present. The mind is the basic starting point, not matter, energy, space or time, nor the path science is walking today with looking for smaller and smaller things (but then again, frontier science of the very small keeps running into the mind these days, so science might take a drastic turn someday).

Science breaks things down and down and down to understand. Breaks it down until it finds the prime cause or independent variable or something like this. Or, another way to say it, science looks for the zero point, the thing that cannot be broken down any further. Then everything can be explained by this super basic unbreakable thing. What if it's the mind or soul or consciousness? Not too far a stretch, especially considering everytime science finds "the zero point," it eventually gets broken down again. Where's the end of this? Is it the soul lying between the physical universe and God?

If science limits its search to matter, energy, space and time, it may never locate the mind or soul if the soul is not part of matter, energy, space and time.

Buddhism and its successor by far, by light years, provide the actual answer to your question as compared to science or any religion. (Buddhism and its successor originally weren't reilgions, they were pathways out, people turned them into religions in time.) That's my answer anyway.

Answer 2

We cannot exactly prove through scientific methology that the soul is in existence because of the requirements is that the subject should be observable (should be seen, touch, or etc.).

However, by logical explanation, observation and analogy, we can safely think that there is such thing as soul.

Before that, let us consult the bible if we are doing a right thing.

According to Roman 1:20

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

It is said by the bible that the unseen things of God (one of them is soul) can be seen thru the things He have created (physical things).

Now, let's test.

Premises:
a) The soul is a component inside ALL LIVING.
b) The soul is an IMMATERIAL inside a MATERIAL.

Problem: Is it possible that something immaterial can contained or can be inside a material?

Hypothesis:
a) yes; because the bible said so.
b) no; immaterial (like light) cannot be contained in material (like jar)

Observation:
The only way for us validate the biblical account and the existence of soul is to prove that God created a material thing with immaterial within it.

Thru observation, the problem is solved. Look around you, can you see that there are lots of them? The obvious answer is the matter itself.

Conclusion:
ALL MATTERs(physical) HAVE ENERGY (non-physical); it is likewise saying that ALL LIVING (physical) HAS SOUL (non-physical).

So, the bible is correct when it said that things cannot be seen is clearly seen thru things that can be seen. God made a counterpart component between living and nonliving. Soul and energy may be different thing. But take note, living and nonliving is also different thing.

In short, God teahes us thru things that we can see.

I have no doubt on it.

Answer 3

Because we simply do not have the technology to do it. We need the right 'tools' and we don't have them

No one knew mircowaves existed until recently - when we used the right tools to see them.

No one knew infrared waves existed until we found the right tools to see them and study them.

You can't see your kidneys without the right tool (x-ray), but you know they're there, right?

Same thing with the human soul. It's there. We just can't scientifically prove it's there. Maybe someday we will.

Humans have come very far since the beginning - the Earth used to be flat. The reason for an eclipse was a dragon eating the sun. Now we know better.
Now we have the technology and intelligence to prove otherwise.

Same thing with the soul, ghosts and God. They're all real, they just can't be proven at the current time.

Answer 4

An object cannot be mass-free and physical, it cannot react with energy without having energy and mass is just condensed energy. In order to react with the brain it must have mass, but in order to be invisible it must be mass free. In order to be undamagable it needs to be mass free, but in order to see it requires photoreceptors and energy measuring devices which need to interact with the physical world.

Evolution is the next problem for the soul theory. The fact that animals and such evolve through complex statistics and simple biochemical change. There is no part of evolution from one species to us that requires the addition of a soul along the way.

Answer 5

For me that isn't sufficient of a logical argument to teach some thing exists. It proves it ought to exist although. despite if it is not definitive evidence. listed right here are my own 2 considerable factors for believing in Christianity. a million) the opportunities of: the galaxy having the suited actual constants, that the sunlight is totally located and made to assist existence giving planets, that the planet earth is totally located and made to assist existence, that existence ought to randomly evolve even whilst random complicated order defies the regulations of entropy. All of those odds blended at the same time are quite worse odds of there being even one pair of comparable snowflakes ever. and that i think of that maximum folk will agree that having 2 comparable snowflakes is in basic terms against all odds, regardless of each and all the snowflakes made, that it by no ability occurred, or will happen. And yet people have self assurance that some thing infinity extra complicated in basic terms occurred? i think in case you do away with some form of intervention, this is the only clarification left. yet for me the opportunities are too great. some thing had a hand in becoming the universe and existence itself. This leads me to my 2d element, which faith is right. i'm going to bypass with a faith that had a actual historic determine. and because some thing astounding occurred with the becoming of the universe, then i'm going to hunt for astounding acts. yet there are legends approximately historic figures doing astounding issues, which historic past says are not genuine. whilst it comes to Alexander the finished, his legendary deeds have been ascribed to him hundreds of years after his lifetime. the comparable element applies for Mohamed. the recent testomony exchange into written in an quite adverse environment, with residing eyewitness nevertheless around to be sure the astounding claims. basically, Christianity does no longer have formed, no longer in that environment, no longer if the claims it made weren't genuine. and for this reason I proceed to be a Christian. (sure i exchange right into a Christian in the previous this, yet I constantly felt there exchange into some thing lacking in the reason, then I chanced on those info and that i'm confident they're nicely suited)

Answer 6

There is no scientific evidence of anything like a 'soul' that exists after we die. None. Nor do I expect any to turn up since I don't think such a thing exists.

Answer 7

I believe that when a person dies, his soul has left his body. Because if a person has no soul, we should be able to revive a dead person by transplanting healthy body parts. Only the absence of a soul makes this phenomenon impossible.

Answer 8

Tests were attempted to weigh bodies before they died and afterward to try to prove the existence of a soul.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

Nothing was really proven or at least proven that people will believe. This firmly falls into the "we'll never know for sure" category, same as God, heaven and hell.

Answer 9

The soul as we commonly think of it is not a Biblical idea. It is an idea taken from Greco-Roman philosophy that was perversely mixed with Christianity when the patriarchs hijacked the faith.

Answer 10

Still aren't getting it...
You are confusing what is physical with what is spiritual.

Death--it is what happens when the "soul" or spirit leaves the body. You may not be able to "measure" it, but you sure notice when it isn't there!