Being an immortal "soul" is a possibility

Opening Point: Understood, the word soul is not attached to any religion or philosophy in my own presentation either.Point 1: The problem with this is that it entails the concept of a standard of what we do know and revolve our lives around. As far as things go he notion of a "personal soul" doesn't actually fit the needs of an "Immortal Intelligence"; this is to say that the very concept itself may have absolutely nothing to do with what you're presenting at the concept which in turns makes you unable to discuss it. If that is the case then there's really no argumentation here. The factors behind this immortality don't actually even really coincide with anything; one could say for instance that the "Immortal Intelligence" is a non-being, non-thing that simply exists and doesn't and needn't think, feel, do, or otherwise act but would we consider that intelligent?What is basically the qualifications for being an "Immortal Intelligence" to begin with?Point 2: The notion of escapism has what to do with the soul? For when you were young you felt immortal but only because being alive was all you knew; no man, who is alive, knows death, but knowledge of death's inevitability is what seeps ino a man as he ages however when young all that is foreseeable is more life. I have no idea what this has to do with other realms like heaven or hell so I won't bother to guess. As for death having a purpose that's jus preposterous on many fronts; for one death is not an "event" that is active, it's a passive state, it's when your stops working regardless of how that happens. This is very different from what humans consider to be an active state such as "dying" however one is always dying, even from the moment of conception, so here's no real purpose to death just as there is no purpose to life; they are simply states of being used to describe the functioning, or non-functioning, of any given thing which has certain normal operations. It's no different than describing a rock as "non-living" because it doesn't fit the definition of being "alive".Point 3: No, this actually asks "Why is this necessary?" in essence. These things are still undefined. It has nothing to do with religion or philosophy and everything to do with the fact that there is simply a major gap in your conceptualization. There's no reason to presume that this thing does exist. So what makes it necessary? If it's not necessary why presume it exists to begin with? After all if it's beyond human comprehension how can you concretely describe it? If you can't concretely describe it how can you discuss it or make claims about it?Point 4: There are two major problems here. he first is that if the "Immortal Intelligence" can create itself then that is one of the rules of he universe which leaves me to wonder why they aren't being created at will by those who contain this ability (which according to you is all of us) and why then it's impossible to track or record this as a tangibility. The second problem is that it presumes that evolution runs an intelligent course and therefore there's some element of intelligence within the manufacture of society. This is at best, false, evolution as genetic mutation is completely random ( http://evolution.berkeley.edu... , http://evolution.berkeley.edu... ) even if Natural Selection is not. This is a major stick in your gears because there's no intelligence to this part of the process, which would be genetic allowances required for this "Immortal Intelligence" I presume. Of course by all means explain otherwise.Point 5: The sole problem with the world playing out over and over again is that this would be the direct opposite of intelligence as humans know it. Repetition is madness.