Can science prove there is a soul?

Answer 1

As science states that matter can not be created nor destroyed. What ever you choose to call the "spark" that animates us, and that leaves us when we die, I would call a soul.

That's just one pagan's view however.

Answer 2

No, the "soul" seems to be more of a state of mind than a physical thing, this is an interesting question so you should try and get more answers about it.

No. Science relies on factual evidence and the soul cannot be seen, touched, smelled, heard or tasted. So science cannot determine if the soul exists.

Another answer: It can be, if life is only a perception then who is the perceiver?

You only feel, hear, see, smell, and taste using your brain, and if you cut your brain out but kept it connected you could see your brain. So if all of that is true then who is the one seeing? I guess you could call it a soul...

An Answer:There are no constituents of a soul beyond the intelligence you perceive when you interact with one other than your own or when you reflect on yourself. Science is never going to be able to breach into the land of the dead or into the nature of the soul. It's simply impossible since places and things of a literal spirit nature are not comprised of atoms, strings or foam. It is not another category of mass in space-time, though. If what I am saying sounds paradoxical, that is because it is. The human soul and the world of the dead were created unverifiable in nature. They can not exist otherwise because the intrinsic nature of the two (their very definitions) is that they are not able to be demonstrated with empirical evidence unless you and the recipient of the evidence are both dead or physically separated from your flesh.

Your physical body houses it until your flesh dies and then you depart from your body no longer as flesh and spirit but continue to exist as an intelligence of spirit form alone. Your soul is you. Your physical body is you. Think of it as a literal "first person" environment where you (being a soul) relay messages to yourself (housed in flesh) and are relayed messages (from exterior forces and from your own flesh when it is trying to tell you things like "I am hungry", "I am in danger", "This is not healthy", "I am sick", etcetera) when you are alive without there being any delay.

Answer 3

This depends on the definition of proof, we could argue that our entire reality is a lie or illusion and if that were the case then science could not prove anything. however if we take the popular view that what we perceive around us when all our faculties are functioning properly is real then science is the only known reliable method through which reality can be understood hence science is the only way to prove anything

Answer 4

Science cannot prove the existence of a soul, as it is a concept that lies beyond the realm of empirical observation and measurement. The existence of a soul is often a matter of belief or philosophy rather than scientific inquiry.

Answer 5

Yes, we can definitely prove that some general things are true, and we can definitely disprove some specific ideas. The more general the idea, the harder it is to disprove.

Answer 6

..

Answer 7

No