Re:
Scholars tend to agree that the Old Testament was composed between the 12th and 2nd century BC. The earliest Sumerian version of The Epic of Gilgamesh is dated to 2150 - 2000 BC. And yet the Epic of Gilgamesh is essentially the Noah's Flood story of the Old Testament. And the Christian concept of the soul is dramatically different from the definition you have chosen only because it suits your beliefs and your agenda.
The Epic of Gilgamesh hails from ancient Mesopotamia, originating in the Land of Ur, or as the tail puts it Uruk. Ur is the birthplace of Abraham, from which we get the three Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It stands to reason that the Noah’s Flood story is similar, or better yet the very same. As a slight correction, the Epic itself is not the story of the Great Flood even though the flood plays a key role in the story. That notwithstanding, the concept of the soul is not prevalent in this work. Gilgamesh’s search for immortal life is there, but it is a search for a continuation of the life of his body, not his soul. Even when Ishtar threatens to open the gates of Hell, there is no reference to human souls – she says that the dead will overtake the living. There is no reference to their individual consciousness or essence of life. Because they’re dead.
Re:
My definition is not a blind-assertion. It is quite well evidenced. Need I comb back through the threads to gather all of the assertions claiming the soul to be non-physical? Should I collect all of the assertions which show the standard concept to be other than what you present through your selected definition? Or are you willing to simply admit to the fact that hordes of evidence for other concepts of the soul, which are decidedly contrary to the definition you have chosen and well encompassed by my definition; do exist, are more popular, and therefore, more frequently asserted?
My selected definition is through proper translation and history of the word, one that Christians evolved their definition from.
But let’s look at other options.
Plato and Aristotle both asserted what I have also said, with a logical progression of thought. How about Avicenna, a Muslim, who made the distinction between a soul and a spirit. The spirit, by his definition, is what you have been concentrating on, and to which I will agree there is no scientific evidence.
Christianity teaches that the soul, as part of the human, is resurrected on Judgment day, and humans will achieve everlasting life – their bodies included. Obviously, no current scientific evidence exists to prove the coming of Judgment day. The concept of a soul, however, is directly related to corporeal life – not death. I don’t find this to be dramatically different from the definition I have given.
Buddhism teaches that the consciousness of the individual, or the self, cannot reside outside of the body. Hindus have two different words whose concepts are most closely related to the definition of the soul. It is eerily similar to Avicenna’s distinction of the two. One word refers to what Avicenna would have dubbed the soul, and the other refers to what he would have referred to as the spirit.
Re:
And please allow me to challenge you on your assertion that I have provided evidence of the physical manifestation of a soul. I believe you are gravely mistaken. Where and how have I provided what you claim?
By the definition of the word, and the concept behind it, you have provided evidence and proof of the essence of life, energy. You acknowledge that a creature can have a consciousness and you support the concept of energy production which ultimately leads to this consciousness. The culmination of energies which create life leading to an individual consciousness were explained by you when you described the process of energy production in the body – ADP and ATP, remember? That’s Biology 101, the study of life.
Re:
Your definition is supported by nothing but assertion. Writing an assertion down in an unverified document provides it with no greater veracity than if it isn't written down. You've simply chosen a definition you prefer, ignored the fact that it is highly contrary to most of the concepts of the soul as presented by others involved in the discussion (as well as the many such discussions on religious forums in which I have participated), and then asserted that your definition is correct, and all others are less correct. When the very concept debated remains not just unverified, but purely unevidenced, one should be very careful about asserting that any one definition is less correct than any other.
If you review the posts, I’m sure you will note that many people equate the soul and the spirit, whereas others have made the distinction between the two. There are also a couple of people in the previous posts who regard the soul as the essence of life, and used those words. So I am supported by modern beliefs, as well as ancient ones, that the definition I have provided is quite sufficient and accurate – not simply one I alone prefer or improperly assert.
Re:
I disbelieve that souls exist, by any definition provided or demonstrated so far. I also believe that adherence to unevidenced assertions is harmful to human intellect. However, I have no more need to "disprove" the existence of a soul, than you have to disprove the existence of 12-ton, sentient, purple dust-bunnies. Until you provide some supporting evidence, there is no call to demonstrate your conclusions to be false. You're attempting to shift what is often called "burden of proof", but should really be called "burden of evidence". You have no objective evidence, despite claiming that I've somehow presented such evidence. Until you have evidence to support your assertion, there is nothing to "disprove".
If I was trying to shift the “burden of proof”, my request would have been phrased thus: Prove to me the inexistence of the soul.
You may have no need to disprove it, but your second statement alludes to your agenda to do so. “I believe that adherence to unevidenced assertions is harmful to human intellect”. If you can disprove the existence of a soul, which you claim to not believe in, then you are able to provide light to those who are harming human intellect and correct the situation. If you had no agenda, then you would not have gotten involved in this thread.
