Proof from the soul

Those who acknowledge the existence of the soul cannot explain its existence with atheistic explanations (multiverses, etc.). So although these explanations are in themselves much less good than the divine explanation, here they completely collapse, and they offer no explanation for the existence of souls. Therefore, truly atheists generally do not believe in the existence of a non-physical part of a person but rather hallucinate that their hallucinations are something physical. Therefore, I think this proof is definitely worthy of attention.

Y.D.
When I look at people around me, I can think that they do not really think but are some kind of sophisticated robots whose actions (including verbal ones) appear as if they are thinking. When I look at myself, I know that my consciousness is there. This consciousness has no physical explanation. So maybe I can explain all your actions with a physical explanation (through neurons), and this also includes your claim that you have consciousness, but I cannot explain my own consciousness.

For some reason, the Rabbi underestimates this evidence, even though it is very strong. And I have already posted it here on the site.

A. Most of the world does not assume that the soul is ancient - the above assumption is logical and hence a creator is needed.
B. This evidence greatly increases the physico-logical evidence. The chance of a world with humans is zero. [Whereas before it was possible to argue whether complexity is an undefined concept, etc.]
C. It is easier to argue for freedom of will by analogy with the Creator of the world.
D. It strengthens the theological evidence that shows that will only enters the story late in the story, so that there is a planned course in the world.

This adds a few more things, but I need to argue for them first.

The soul proves nothing. Who said it wasn't always there? It adds nothing to the cosmological view and has no relevance at all to the physico-theological view.

You need to repeat the first notebook.
The question is whether this proof is visible to anyone, that is, is there anyone who is clear that a soul needs a creator but not the physical world. It seems to me that there are such people and anyway the proof is good for them (at least the questioner's friend is like that, and I think there are many like him).
It seems to me that most people do not think it is likely that their soul existed before their current existence.

Yishai,
Of course this is the accepted assumption that most people accept - the soul does not precede the body.
From here anyway there is a ‘cosmological’ view; something created is purified by a creator.
Only the Rabbi here denies this view [perhaps without the brain there is no memory and consciousness].

Also this view greatly strengthens the physico-logical view -
a. We have an indication to assume that there is a will.
b. The chance of an intelligent being emerging that the soul will be assigned to is zero. The fine-tuning argument
And in any case the chance of such a world emerging is zero. And so the view is completely objective, although it is possible that there may be other universes with complex products but not in the universe.

And strengthens the tautological view - we see a process that progresses towards a certain function.
There is also a law that came into play at a later level only after 14 billion years….

And it also gives evidence from morality and from meaning (even) more validity.

Yishai Shalom.
For anyone who thinks this way, the proof is perfect. This is of course a tautology, so what did they want from me? I'm talking about what I think about it because that's what I was asked about. In parentheses, I'll add that the claim that the soul needs a creator but material things don't – seems quite bizarre to me.

Why is the claim puzzling?
If I am willing to accept ancient things but not spontaneous creation (which is a logical direction), and I assume that my soul is not ancient but about my age (another claim sounds puzzling to me), then I can assume that matter is ancient (even if it was once concentrated in a point) and therefore does not need a creator, while the soul does need a creator.

Excuse me, it's a bit embarrassing to discuss this nonsense.
Regarding the inference, I already wrote that it is tautological and therefore correct. My comment only touched on its premises.
If you are willing to accept that matter is ancient, then why is the soul (or the ”materials” from which it is made) not? These are strange things, Toba. (My specific body is also not ancient, only the materials from which it is made)

I have already explained above – I have an acquaintance with my soul. I cannot rule out with certainty that it (meaning me) actually once sailed in the upper worlds and I don't remember anything about it, or that it was once inside another person or inside a fly, an anemone or streptococcus, and all memories were lost. This is skepticism at a very high level, about basic things in my consciousness.
So maybe your soul is ancient, and maybe you are a sophisticated robot in general (it seems to me that it is not), but as for my soul, it seems to me clearly unreasonable to assume that it is ancient. And it seems to me that most people think so.

I understand that you remember your body from ancient times (from the year minus infinity onwards)?

I didn't get to understand the question.
Just because something is ancient doesn't mean I'll remember it. First, because I'm probably not ancient. Second, even if I am ancient, it doesn't mean that my acquaintance with that something is ancient.
I also couldn't understand whether you think your soul has existed for 15 billion years, or maybe 5777 years, or whether you think it's your age. If you think it's your age, then you're admitting to me that there's an intuition that the soul isn't ancient, and this intuition isn't related to the fact that the entire universe isn't ancient. In other words, there's additional, independent proof here.

And I didn't get to understand what was so complicated here.
My argument is that the evidence from the soul adds nothing to the usual evidence (from the existence of a material world). And if you say that matter is ancient, then the soul can also be ancient. And if you talk about your specific soul (which is not ancient), to the same extent you can talk about your specific body (which is not ancient). And if your body was created from ancient materials, the soul can also be made from ancient ”materials”.
In short, the discussion is exhausted.

This is precisely the claim that the soul cannot be created from primordial matter, emergentism, is a mistake.

I understand that this is the claim and I say to what extent it is possible to claim that there is a God and that is it. Why should the existence of God be dependent on an argument that is no more necessary than that? As mentioned, it adds nothing to the usual proof.

Moshe
He wrote that the soul can be created from primordial 'materials', that is, from some spiritual 'materials'. There is some world where there are parts of souls that occasionally maybe collide and sometimes a connection is formed until in the end a soul is created and then somehow it reaches the body of someone who is born. Maybe he has a less stupid description. He probably thinks it is as plausible as a primordial material universe.

What is stupid about this description? If this can happen in matter, why not in the soul? If we adopt the primacy of matter without logic, why not adopt the primacy of parts of souls? Because we have not scientifically seen that this happens? This is what I repeat and claim that the soul has no addition to the usual argument. At most, it is the God of the Gaps (because the soul is something that we do not understand and do not know how it was created, if at all. By the way, from this I would conclude that it was not created, but always existed).

I agree that if you adopt something that goes against logic, then you can adopt anything, because as we know, any claim follows from a false claim. But if we are talking about claims that cannot be proven false but are implausible, then we can rank their plausibility.

If I may ask a question here,
Why does the Rabbi assume that the soul is primordial? We have no indication that it is primordial unless otherwise noted. After all, we are finally seeing something new in the world. A soul that did not appear in the world before. (Before the baby was born) The easy explanation is to say that it is new. So someone must have created it…

I didn't assume that. I just said that the argument from the soul adds nothing to the usual argument.

I'm sorry, this adds a lot. A person can accept that there is an infinite regression of causes/there is a pre-existing world. And still the view from the soul he will accept…

So how does the Rabbi deal with someone's natural death? Assuming there is no God in the story.
Why would the soul suddenly “escape” from the body? If it enters the body, there is a law that when the fetus is X years old, then a soul will enter it. Or is the soul the one that chooses to enter the body from a Platonic pool of souls somewhere up there.
But who made it escape from the body at the time of death (I don't feel like I want to die for the truth… and even those who died naturally would prefer to continue living like that because their souls didn't want it)

Kobi Shalom.
No need to be sorry. If it adds a lot to your health, then it adds nothing. Just as a soul enters, it can also leave. In my opinion, we have exhausted ourselves to the point of bloodshed.