Humans Have Souls

The resolution is about whether or not humans have souls. There's even a definition for soul in this debate. . http://www.debate.org... The definition of soul makes no mention of consciousness, and is quite specific, given the auxiliary definitions for spiritual and immaterial. So the resolution is: Humans have a spiritual or immaterial part. Our consciousness is contingent on the physical, which does not coincide with the agreed on definitions of immaterial; immaterial is clearly "rather than physical or contingent on the physical. " It's also the case that consciousness does not coincide with the definition of spiritual, as one could not have any religious belief at all and maintain having consciousness; religion is irrelevant to consciousness. 1. Consciousness is contingent on the physical, so it is not immaterial. Our consciousness is contingent on the neural substrates present in humans an many non-human animals. According to Cambridge University, "neuroscientists, neuropharmacologists, neurophysiologists, neuroanatomists and computational neuroscientists gathered at The University of Cambridge to reassess the neurobiological substrates of conscious experience and related behaviors in human and non-human animals. " . http://fcmconference.org... What did they determine? "Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. " . http://fcmconference.org... I argue that consciousness is contingent on neurons, which are physical, thus consciousness is not immaterial. 2. Consciousness is neither religious nor relates to religious belief, so consciousness is not spiritual. As I've argued, consciousness requires neurons, and one could have neurons and not have a religion or religious belief. My example is myself, and the millions of animals with proper neural substrates and no religious beliefs. Consciousness is also not a product of religion. Consciousness is rather a product of neuroanatomical interactions, and these interactions preceded religion in any pre-human animal with the particular neural substrates; in fact I argue that religion is contingent on consciousness, but that's another debate, for another day. To sum this up, consciousness is irrelevant to this debate, and Pro's metaphor, "our consciousness is our soul," is incongruous with the agreed on definitions of soul; Pro, you're equivocating. 3. So now on to Robert Lanza. .. Pro relies heavily on the musings of Robert Lanza and the review of his work from "Signs of the Times," which is a Seventh Day Adventist publication. . http://www.sott.net... Here's the problem. Robert Lanza is not a physicist and is trying claim that he's made "the theory of everything" with regards to general relativity and quantum gravity. While I agree that the multiverse is a valid theory, it only provides places for Lanza's unproven "traveling consciousness" to go. Lanza's essay on the traveling of our consciousness has been harshly reviewed: "But many physicists who were sent the essay were underwhelmed. .. All said Lanza"s theory needs to make clear predictions of experimental results, so that it can be tested. " . http://www.forbes.com... This is where I stand on the musings of Lanza. Until we can see some experimental evidence for the claims of a traveling consciousness, we have no reason to believe that it's the case. We also have no reason to believe that consciousness is independent of neural substrates, so, without neurons, there should be no consciousness; claiming otherwise requires more than speculation from Robert Lanza. So Pro, could you please try to demonstrate an immaterial or spiritual part of humans. Without any real evidence, your consciousness claims are unfounded, and even if they were supported, consciousness is irrelevant to the soul because of consciousness's contingency on neural substrates; consciousness is not the soul. I reject the resolution that humans have souls, because nothing spiritual or immaterial has been demonstrated to be a part of humans. ; Pro has not posited anything spiritual or immaterial yet. On to Pro. ..