Yes Supernova Kasprzak there is a soul!

Supernova Kasprzak is an atheist and he argues that the soul does not exist. [1] The first thing he says is "if soul exists things should be the case that are not the case." But that doesn't necessarily means thing would look any different. If there is no soul, or  nothing that  lives after the body dies (such as consciousness) then we won't go to heaven or have any kind of life after death. That's a major difference but things would not look any different to us.

Essentially Super's arguments boil down to the fact that we don't have real proof, that is scientific and undeniable, that the soul exists. He talks about how we have no scientific evidence for a tangible thing called soul but never shows what things would be different if there was a soul. Tangibility almost seems to be his only  criteria. He never establishes a justification for that as a standard.

I am quoting from the auido not from printed material so I may be off by a few words. He seems to say, "mind is physical--mind is part of body;" "it's all in  the brain," "everything is a product of the brain." it's all physical when brain dies you die:(see my essay "mind does not reduce to brain [2]) "It's all physical nothing lives after you at least not the physical part." He actually says that literally, "at least not the physical part." Ironic because we are not talking about the physical part, the soul is not physical.

That's really the issue. the materialistic atheists make solid physical existence the issue. That is all one is permitted to believe in. They never establish why that should be the only criterion.All of his arguments are based upon the idea that there's no evidence. The bible does speak of soul as a physical thing that leaves the body when we die. He does point this out but he he never addresses why this should be the only criterion? The obvious reason is one of verification. He does say nothing has been or can be detected as spirit.There is no way to verify it. He thinks all christians wish there was a mark to show if one is saved or not. I never wanted that and I never heard any other Christian express that as a desire. I think he is assuming the universality of an idea that is limited to his background.

He says we can't know Christians by the way they act. He has no documentation for that. It is true that quite often Christians don't act any better than non Christians, but when we find someone who the power of God has touched the difference is quite apparent. Now it is true that this grows old, people let down and laps back. But the rekindling of the fire is only a prayer away. "We have this treasure in jars of clay"(meaning, we are still human--2 Corinthians 4:7-9 NIV). There can also be an intuitive sense of the soul or of something living on.

Actually the soul is a symbol for the overall life of the believer in relation to God. That's why we sometimes speak of people as "souls." As in "he is a lost soul." Or, "my aim is to save souls." That is the soul. Spirit is the life force that lives on after death, I equate this with consciousness. The former is a symbol so that is not a matter of literal existence. It points to something beyond itself. The latter, spirit, we know exists, we know consciousness exists. Here we are only arguing about the state in which we find it, whether living or surviving death.

Kasprzak answers behaviors merely by asserting that he was a Christian and he had belief and behavior so he should not lose the Holy Spirit, therefore, there must not be one. He had the behavior then decided the belief wasn't true and abandoned it.He never deals with behavior as indicative of the Spirit nor does he demonstrate that one can't deny the truth and lose the Spirit. That may disprove certain doctrines such as "eternal security," but it does not disprove the deity of Christ, the existence of God,or even the soul. In my view eternal security begins with death. Apparently we can throw away salvation while we live as we see from Hebrews 6:4-6.*

There are reasons to believe in the soul and spirit. If the soul is indicative of our relationship with God then belief in soul depends upon belief in God. At this point  we just advance God-arguments. If we equate consciousness with spirit we can assert the reality of spirit by asserting arguments for irreducibility of mind to brain.It is a fallacy to think  since brain is physical mind must be physical. Like saying since water is liquid ice must be liquid. Or Since fire is hot smoke must be hot. I urge the reader to examine fn 2 below.

Another reason to take the soul and spirit seriously that is not impinged upon by the kinds of arguments Kasprzak is making; this is simply that Jesus tells us we have a soul (Matt,116:26). If we credit Jesus with being the incarnate logos then would trist what he says. Surely the logos would know.



___________ *Heb 6:4-6 "4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[c] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."

Notes

[1] Supernova Kasprzak, "Your Soul Does Not Exist" YouTube (Jan 12, 2014) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j2MWkDOaig&t=36s, accessed 3/15/22.

[2]Joseph Hinman, "Mind is Not Reduceabel to Brain. (part 1)" The Religious a priori, 2011, https://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2019/11/mind-is-not-reduceabel-to-brain-part-1.html,
accessed 3/23/22.

Part 2: https://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2019/11/mind-not-reduceable-to-brain-part-2.html