Humans Have Souls
*No round rules.
*No acceptance round; just start debating 1st round.
Humans have souls.
Has the Burden of Proof and 4 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that humans have souls and refute Con.
Has only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to refute Pro and make any counter claims.
*Definitions can be changed, in the comments section, before posting your first argument, as long as both Pro and Con agree.
*Definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument.
human - a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
have - possess, own, or hold
soul - the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
spiritual - of or relating to religion or religious belief
immaterial - spiritual, rather than physical or contingent on the physical
*May the better argument win.*
Our consciousness is our soul . Since consciousness is our soul and this coincides with my opponent's definition , this means that in order for my opponent to win they must disprove human consciousness.
I will now prove human consciousness in case my opponent is doubtful (which I do not think he does).
Consciousness is a spiritual product of the brain . Consciousness exists because without it we would not have free will , response , etc.
Now we get to the more difficult part of my burden. Proof of the soul's immortality.
The great Greek Philosopher, Socrates, was the first documented philosopher to introduce the argument in regards to the immortality of the soul . Since then it has expanded on to something that is much larger in the world of physics. The argument which was once referred to as Phaedo (by Plato and Socrates), has now been expanded upon scientifically and is now referred to as the Quantum theory .
Dr. Robert Lanza [1,7], who studies physics , quantum mechanics  and astrophysics , stated:
"death of consciousness simply does not exist. It only exists as a thought because people identify themselves with their body. They believe that the body is going to perish, sooner or later, thinking their consciousness will disappear too. If the body generates consciousness, then consciousness dies when the body dies. But if the body receives consciousness in the same way that a cable box receives satellite signals, then of course consciousness does not end at the death of the physical vehicle." 
This is the analogy presented. Lanza continues:
"Lanza also believes that multiple universes can exist simultaneously. In one universe, the body can be dead. And in another it continues to exist, absorbing consciousness which migrated into this universe. This means that a dead person while traveling through the same tunnel ends up not in hell or in heaven, but in a similar world he or she once inhabited, but this time alive." 
This may seem unlikely however he also provided evidence proving that multiple universes exist.
Before I present the evidence I will first show you the position that he and I advocate. He advocates the following position:
Lanza believes in the Multiverse theory. The multiverse theory is defined as - a space or realm consisting of a number of universes, of which our own universe is only one. 
Multiverse proponent, Max Tegmark, argues in favor of the multiverse using occam's rasor :
"[A]n entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long. Therefore, the whole set is actually simpler... (Similarly), the higher-level multiverses are simpler. Going from our universe to the Level I multiverse eliminates the need to specify initial conditions, upgrading to Level II eliminates the need to specify physical constants, and the Level IV multiverse eliminates the need to specify anything at all.... A common feature of all four multiverse levels is that the simplest and arguably most elegant theory involves parallel universes by default. To deny the existence of those universes, one needs to complicate the theory by adding experimentally unsupported processes and ad hoc postulates: finite space, wave function collapse and ontological asymmetry. Our judgment therefore comes down to which we find more wasteful and inelegant: many worlds or many words. Perhaps we will gradually get used to the weird ways of our cosmos and find its strangeness to be part of its charm." [8,9]
When referencing to the levels of multiverse, in case any readers don't understand:
Level 1: Beyond our cosmological horizon
Level 2: Universes with different physical constants
Level 3: Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics
Level 4: Ultimate ensemble
These are explained in further detail at source:  if you require further understanding.
Thus we can conclude:
- The sould = consciousness
- The multiverse theory is true.
- The soul can transport infinitely into multiple universes
- Therefore, the soul is immortal and does exist
 "Parallel universes. Not just a staple of science fiction, other universes are a direct implication of cosmological observations.", Tegmark M., Sci Am. 2003 May;288(5):40–51.
The resolution is about whether or not humans have souls.
There's even a definition for soul in this debate.
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."
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."
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.
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."
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...
My opponent is incorrect in regards to consciousness. Yes the resolution didn't mention it but it still coincides and I will now refute my opponent's scientific evidence in support of consciousness being physical. Our consciousness AS WE KNOW IT is contingent on the physical however it possibly goes beyond this as my research from Dr. Robert Lanza demonstrated.
Spiritual =/= religious. If my opponent wants we can discuss why this is not the case separately however since I am not basing it off spirituality I will not go into depth on the reasoning behind me saying this. The definition of soul states the spiritual OR immaterial part of a human being or animal. It does not say 'and', therefore, I am going with immaterial - not spiritual.
Just because something is contingent on something, this does not mean that it is not immaterial. Contingent means 'dependant on' .
Imagine there is a human being called A which has a neuron-based brain and is therefore self-aware (if you are super-sceptical and claim that we can’t really know whether A is self-aware, feel free replace A with yourself). Since every neuron in A’s brain is physical and deterministic, there is nothing preventing us (theoretically speaking) from making a perfect copy of it. This also means that we could make an exact copy of the entire brain of A’s and attach it to a body that is also a perfect copy of A’s body – let’s call this new entity B. Now, B itself must be conscious, since lack of consciousness would imply that there must be some other, non-physical quality of A’s which wasn’t “copied” to B, which would contradict the original assumption. Now, let’s say that we put A and B in two separate, controlled environments, so that all of their perceptions get identical inputs (the simplest example would be two dark, isolated rooms with same temperatures and air pressure). The main question arising from this is: what would be the relation of B’s awareness when compared to the original awareness of A? I can see two possible answers:
1) There is no new consciousness created in the process – A’s awareness is that of B’s and vice-versa.
2) B has a separate awareness which is independent of A (although they would obviously have same thoughts and behaviours)
Of course, no one could know which of these two would be true (not even A/B), but it is intuitively clear that only one can hold.
If we assume that 1) is true, that would imply that consciousness must have some non-physical aspect, since same awareness would be present in two physically separated beings. This contradicts the original assumption of the neuron-based consciousness.
On the other hand, 2) would also lead to contradiction, because two identical physical entities produce two different awarenesses. If you can’t immediately get your head around this, imagine that A’s brain was instantly replaced with the newly created brain of B’s. From the physical point of view, nothing in A’s physical composition has been changed, but his awareness has been replaced with that of B’s. This implies that consciousness must be based on something that is outside physical.
Unless there is another possible case which I’ve missed, all this would imply that consciousness cannot be based on any physical entity.
My opponent then re-states his argument in regards to consciousness' contingency on neurons however this has already been refuted and does NOT stand.
To conclude, my opponent has falsely categorized consciousness as physical and therefore his entire rebuttal fails. I thank Con for the debate so far and hope that he can produce a more direct rebuttal in the following round.
1. The agreed definition of immaterial for this debate says "rather than contingent on the physical."
"Just because something is contingent on something, this does not mean that it is not immaterial."
Actually, that's exactly what it means, in this debate...since consciousness is contingent on the physical, which is counter to the definition of immaterial, consciousness is not immaterial, and therefore not a soul.
2. Pro's pieces of evidence, in the form of Robert Lanza quotes, weren't Robert Lanza quotes.
Pro stated, 1st round:
'Lanza also believes...the body can be dead...absorbing consciousness which migrated to this universe.'"
Lanza continues by saying "Lanza believes?"
Who is he? Tarzan?
Does Lanza always speak in the 3rd person?
Pro, all of your "evidence" from Dr. Lanza is just Signs of the Times's paraphrase of their interpretation of Lanza's work; these are not Lanza's own quotes, even if Pro says they are.
Pro, why should we trust your sourcing?
3. I had mentioned Robert Lanza's lack of experimental evidence for his claims of biocentrism and the idea of a traveling consciousness.
"My opponent seems to dismiss this entire argument on the basis that Lanza has been critiqued by many people. This an extremely poor rebuttal."
It wasn't that he's been critiqued; it was WHAT he's been critiqued for.
The people I cited all had critiqued Lanza on his lack of testable predictions about the immortal consciousness.
There's no experimental evidence for Lanza's biocentrism idea, period.
I dismiss Lanza's ideas based on the lack of experimental evidence, which neither Lanza nor Pro has provided.
4. Pro mentioned first round that "consciousness is a spiritual product of the brain" and sourced it.
There are three problems with this.
A. The source was answers.yahoo.com, which isn't authoritative on matters of consciousness, neuroanatomy, or philosophy.
B. Pro's link did not link properly in order for us to verify it.
C. Pro DIRECTLY contradicts himself in the 2nd round by saying "I am not basing [the soul] off spirituality...therefore, I am going with immaterial - not spiritual."
So which is it Pro?
Is consciousness/the soul "a spiritual product of the brain" as you claim it is in round 1, or is it "not spiritual" as you claim in round 2?
5. The definition, agreed on by Pro, for spiritual in this debate:
"spiritual - of or relating to religion or religious belief"
Pro claims 2nd round:
"Spiritual =/= religious. If my opponent wants we can discuss why this is not the case separately"
Then why did you agree to a definition that literally is the opposite of what you're saying?
6. This is perhaps the most crucial of Pro's misses.
Since Pro only cited secondary sources about Lanza's work, Pro missed the most important source...Lanza's own work.
You see, what I have sourced above is Robert Lanza's own article, with his own words, published in the American Scholar; there is no secondary source or paraphrasing.
Since Pro is using Robert Lanza to demonstrate that consciousness is immaterial, I must see what Lanza says about the contingency of consciousness on the physical.
After clicking the link to The American Scholar article by Robert Lanza, go down to about the 20th paragraph and Lanza clearly states:
"Consciousness cannot exist without a living, biological creature to embody its perceptive powers of creation."
Lanza uses this as his reasoning to adopt a biocentric view of the universe...read it for yourself.
So Pro, if the very source you're using to demonstrate the immateriality of consciousness claims that consciousness is contingent on a living, biological creature, then how do you reconcile this?
Pro, is Lanza correct that consciousness is contingent on biological creatures?
*Now on to Pro's A and B thought experiments.*
Pro has us imagine that there's a human with a neuronal brain and consciousness, A.
Pro then has us imagine that there's an exact copy of A's head and body, we'll call B.
Then we are to imagine that both A and B are put in two separate dark rooms with the same temperature and air pressure.
Pro claims either A & B have the exact same awareness or A & B have separate awareness.
The latter seems correct to me, and here's why:
The moment you make the copy of A, B is already receiving different stimuli than A.
Before even putting them in their separate rooms, A and B must be in two different points in space; they are in fact humans, thus on the macro physics scale.
At these different points in space, A and B receive vastly different stimulus from light, radiation, gravity, objects and their distinct relative distances from A and B, bacteria, and dust.
Yes, by being in different points in space stimulus affects you differently, and A and B are no exception.
Since the stimulus is in fact different for both A and B, their consciousness is unrelated to each other; one has to account for natural fluctuations in stimulus that stimulate each person's consciousness differently.
So, by the time A and B get to their sequestered rooms, B has already been inundated with different stimuli than A, so their consciousness is different.
Even in the controlled rooms, there are minor differences, and these all stimulate consciousness differently.
"imagine that A"s brain was instantly replaced with the newly created brain of B"s. From the physical point of view, nothing in A"s physical composition has been changed."
The new brain that A receives has already been exposed to other stimulus that A's original brain was not exposed to, so it is physically different now. Different neurons have fired, different amounts of blood were sent to the brain, and the cells of each brain have changed to account for these differences given only A's and B's different positions in space and the fluctuations of stimuli there within.
So, because stimuli is different in different points in space, conscious brains react and change differently to these stimuli.
The consciousness is still contingent on the physical.
I maintain that consciousness is contingent on neurons as Cambridge University declares, I'll add that Dr. Robert Lanza agrees that consciousness is contingent on biological beings, and I also maintain that humans do not have souls, because Pro has not demonstrated anything immaterial being part of humans as the definition for soul requires.
Oh, though irrelevant to this debate Pro claims:
"Since every neuron in A"s brain is physical and deterministic..."
Just because it's physical, doesn't mean it's deterministic.
Since there are so many naturally fluctuating stimuli (light, temperature, radiation), conscious beings' reactions are not deterministic; as the stimuli fluctuate, so do our reactions, which are physical.
Even if immaterial = not contingent on the physical, I still win due to the fact that I said: "AS WE KNOW IT" before I made the claim. I also said after the claim: "possibly goes beyond this as my research from Dr. Robert Lanza demonstrated". My opponent has twisted my words into making you THINK that I have attempted to bypass the definition when really I haven't.
In regards to the quote, that was a mistake on my behalf however if you exclude [Lanza also believes] from the quote, then the rest of it is a quote. I got the informtion from the book off a reliable site (TIMES), and before the quote it said Lanza also believes. I admittedly forgot to cut that bit out of the quote but that does not warrant the decision to ignore the quote and its value in regards to the debate resolution.
My opponent questions my sourcing however they fail to acknowledge two things.
a) The same can be said for my opponnet.
b) I have used more reliable sourcing than my opponent.
Proving (a) is simple. My opponent uses forbes which is an online site in which anybody who signs up with their email address and creates a password can post whatever they like (as long as it isn't inappropriate) . He uses this when he attempts to show that Lanza's theory has been questioned by many. Due to this unreliable source, this could simply all be false. The ONLY citation that he used in this round was TheAmericanScholar. This site is an UNOFFICIAL internet site that provides news . I won't go into detail about why the internet isn't necessarily reliable other than the fact that at this source, you can sign up and make a webiste for free in under an hour . Meaning that virtually anybody can make a website and write about whatever sh!t they like. Furthermore, Dr.Robert Lanza is an extremely busy man who has NEVER written for any unofficial internet sites . He has only given speeches and written books and essays on his research - all of which are copyrighted and have not been published on the internet .
Proving (b) is also fairly simple. I have used wikipedia - which, although it can be extremely controversial, the controvery is exaggerated.
"In 2005, the peer-reviewed journal Nature asked scientists to compare Wikipedia's scientific articles to those in Encyclopaedia Britannica—"the most scholarly of encyclopedias," according to its own Wiki page. The comparison resulted in a tie; both references contained four serious errors among the 42 articles analyzed by experts.
And last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute." 
Due to the fact that this study analyzes scientific articles in particular it is safe to say that Wikipedia's (extremely well sourced) article on Lanza is true. And of course, the usage of Robert Lanza's official site also provides more credibility to my arguments.
The people that critiqued Lanza are ultimately irrelevnat due to the new information regarding the reliablility of my opponent's site. Since it is an online site in which anybody can post. It is possibly untrue that these people ciritqued Lanza and sincemy opponent has merely asserted that elements of Lanza's theory are false this also should have no impact upon judges in my opponent's favor. He states that there is no evidence for Lanza's biocentrism idea. Where is his source? Where is the quotation of the assertions that Lanza has made? The answer is that there are no sources provided to back up my opponent's claim and there are no quotation proving what he said either. My opponent's argument is therefore an assertion.
Again, my opponent takes my words out of context in regards to the contradiction. What I said in regards to the soul's spirituality was almost completely irrelevant to my case. That was merely a source to show opinions. Even if the source was unreliable, the purpose of it was not to use it as an argument as you can clerely decipher from the minimal detail provided in support of that argument.
I said that I am not basing my argument (not the soul), off spirituality. My reasoning (which I thought was evident), was because spirituality is almost impossible to prove. I went with immaterial because I believe it is both immaterial and spiritual however by proving that it is immaterial, I am sufficiently affirming the resolution.
I am not arguing that spiritual = religios. If consciousness is the soul (although it may appear to be implied), it does not necessarily neccessitate an intelligent designer / God. The soul can just be a part of evolution .
I have already shown the lack of credibility in my opponent's source and therefore the whole rebuttal based around this fails completely. None of this is Lanza's work , it either plagiarism of Lanza's work. Or it is BS. If it were plagiarism, it wouldn't have lasted on the internet this long since other examples of plagiarism have been removed in the past . This means that it isn't Robert Lanza's work and is therefore BS.
Due to a lack of time, I'll respond to my opponent's rebuttal to my A and B example in the final round. There is no debate structure and my opponent has done the same in regards to refuting points from 2 rounds before (when he addresses the mistake in my quote in which Lanza appears to speak in the third person). Due to this, I should not be penalized for continuing in the following round.
There is something slightly bigger though.
Pro has been very dishonest, and shows no regard for definitions in this debate by running semantics the whole time.
Geez, I thought I was being obnoxious by putting so many definitions in the first round, yet they were still ignored.
1. Pro used Robert Lanza's biocentrism idea to prove that consciousness is the soul.
However, Lanza wrote an article, which clearly says "By Robert Lanza," asserting that:
"Consciousness cannot exist without a living, biological creature to embody its perceptive powers of creation."
Pro's dishonest characterization of my source as illegitimate, can be disproven by ANYONE going and checking my source...Robert Lanza wrote this article!
2. My rejection of Robert Lanza is not contingent on what others say.
So, my Forbes source is not what should be regarded as a refute to Robert Lanza...the fact that there is NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE for Lanza's biocentrism idea has been supported by Pro and Lanza's lack of evidence...I doubt Pro will actually provide this evidence of a soul last round too.
So I'm saying, that the biocentrism approach has no new information about consciousness, and it relies on ignoring recent advances in understanding consciousness from a scientific perspective.
3. No soul has been demonstrated in this debate, because by definition the soul is immaterial.
Pro's main source agrees that consciousness is contingent on the physical, so consciousness has not been demonstrated to be immaterial, thus Pro has not met their burden.
I reject the resolution based on such.
Firstly, I would like to point out that I have not been running a semantics argument. Secondly, even if you agree with Con and say that I have, Con has already conceded that there are no round rules or rules to the debate as is evidently stated in R1. So if you think that I've been running a semantics argument. There is no reason for you to vote me down.
It doesn't matter if it says: 'By Robert Lanza' because that is clearly false as I demonstrated in the previous round by proving that to be an illegitimate source. My opponent drops my evidence showing that Robert Lanza has NEVER written an internet article on his work, so I will reiterate what I said previously. Either this source is quoting Robert Lanza or the source is FAKE. I extend this argument because it was DROPPED. Just because something says that it was written by somebody, this does not make it instantly a truism.
My opponent continues to assert that there is no evidence for Lanza's biocentrism idea however he fails to stated many things.
a) what experimental evidence is required
b) what his alternative view is
c) how experimental evidence is even possible for that theory
Let me start off by saying that there is minimal experimental evidence for many of the theories in regards to the Earth's and universe's origin. The Big Bang lacks experimental evidence however we have evidence that it is true based on the fact that we can see that glaxies are moving away from us and are red shifting as a result . Lanza does provide evidence. Maybe not experimental evidence but the same could be said for many theories including the Big Bang.
Since my opponent has provided NO alternative view, the only view that you can buy here is mine. Even if you think that it lacks evidence, my opponent provides no alternative. When you are presented with one option. There is nothing else you can choose other than that option and in this case it is clearly Dr.Robert Lanza's theory.
What experimental evidence could we possibly have to prove that our souls are going to other galaxies. Yes, we have evidence which I have emphasized through quotations regarding Lanza's work. I can't conduct an experiment with a mini soul and figures and a model of the galaxy. That is simply impossible and that is a truism since we do not have access to experimental and miniture souls to conduct this experiment.
My source does NOT agree that the soul is contingent on the physical. That is said by my opponent's source which is FAKE.
I have met my burden in this debate.
The resolution is affimed.