Either our soul ends, or it does not end. But is it meaningful to say that it ends? What is the subject that does the action of ending? Is it the soul when it exists, or is it the soul when it does not exist anymore? But it cannot be the soul when it exists, because a thing cannot at the same time partake of existence (since it exists) and reject this existence (since it ends). But it cannot be the soul when it does not exist that ceases to exist, because a non-existing thing cannot do anything, including ending.
Counterexamples - your body when it dies, stars when they go supernova, weather patterns when they break up, your concious mind everytime you go to sleep at night.
a thing cannot at the same time partake of existence (since it exists) and reject this existence (since it ends)?? But it cannot be the (rocket’s thrust; program’s execution; existence of various species; presence of concious activity; presence of chemicals in a certain state before reacting) when it does not exist that ceases to exist, because a non-existing thing cannot do anything, including ending?
Things end all the time. Unless you’re stating that the soul is originally non-existent, I don’t see how this argument works.
Well, you can define the soul. But there are consequences to definition.
Most people consider the definition of the soul as “whatever it is that makes a person who he/she is”. Usually they associate this with their minds and personalities, rather than their bodies. This would count as a definition of the soul. And it’s existence, in that sense, is not in question - we are who we are for a reason, something makes us that way. No one will claim that we are who we are for no reason, by no mechanism, or that we are not who we are.
But then you need to ask, where is it? How does it work? How is it manifested in the world? Is it, in fact, immortal?
Similar explaination - the soul is energy, energy doesn’t dissapear, it just converts itself from type to type, so energy is saved and soul is immortal
