OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[Brewtus]

Where is Energy located within matter? How is an atomic explosion possible (we know it is) if we cannot locate where energy resides within an atom?

The soul - if it is - in my view is not so dissimilar from Energy (Mind) as it relates to Matter (Body).

Well there are many different forms of energy but as it relates to nuclear fission and fusion, energy for an atomic explosion come for the strong and weak nuclear forces. These are directly observable and physicists can precisely calculate how much potential energy is available in a given atom.

Your theory on where the soul resides is interesting, but completely arbitrary. If a soul does exist, there must be some way for it to interact with the neurons in our brain so our "self" can be transferred to the hereafter. And if the soul can interact with the natural and physical world, then there must be some way to measure or observe that interaction.

 

[muffler dragon]

It is in the strong force bonds between protons and neutrons.
Thus released during fission.

Well there are many different forms of energy but as it relates to nuclear fission and fusion, energy for an atomic explosion come for the strong and weak nuclear forces. These are directly observable and physicists can precisely calculate how much potential energy is available in a given atom.

It's been a while since I had physics, but I just wanted to make sure I was still thinking correctly on this topic.

Would it not be correct to say that while the amount of energy is determinable, it is not possible to "see" energy? The protons, neutrons, and electrons can be "seen", but the energy contained within does not have a physical presence. Correct?

Your theory on where the soul resides is interesting, but completely arbitrary. If a soul does exist, there must be some way for it to interact with the neurons in our brain so our "self" can be transferred to the hereafter. And if the soul can interact with the natural and physical world, then there must be some way to measure or observe that interaction.

Just to ask: why do you say there "must" be?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

It is in the strong force bonds between protons and neutrons.
Thus released during fission.

Sure. But.. where is it? Nowehere...and everywhere. Is it really accurate to suggest a force be somewhere? Why does the soul - assuming there is such a thing - have to be "somewhere" to exist and/or exert an influence over matter?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Well there are many different forms of energy but as it relates to nuclear fission and fusion, energy for an atomic explosion come for the strong and weak nuclear forces. These are directly observable and physicists can precisely calculate how much potential energy is available in a given atom.

Your theory on where the soul resides is interesting, but completely arbitrary. If a soul does exist, there must be some way for it to interact with the neurons in our brain so our "self" can be transferred to the hereafter. And if the soul can interact with the natural and physical world, then there must be some way to measure or observe that interaction.

I don't think it's arbitrary at all. In fact, I think it's completley in line with science. It is said that a soul behaves the same way energy does in that it is not created or destroyed, it just has different states .. ie kenetic, etc. In fact, isn't matter just a state on a contiuum of energy?

I get what you're saying about there must be a way for it to interact. But, if there is a soul, isn't your typing a response to me your soul interacting with matter? Can't you measure it with vision? Now... that said, can I point to my soul? No. I can't. So, your point about arbitrary is well taken to that extent. But, then, I can't point to energy either... until it exerts an influence on the matter around it. Why shouldnt' I believe it is an atom's SOUL which causes me to see an explosion? Six of one, half a dozen of another.

The best "proof" I've ever come up with for the soul is upon some self reflection, deciding I wasn't just my body. I realize, of course, that this is no proof at all. But, the idea of a soul is sensible and does not violate the laws of nature and offers a solution to other problems - ie ghosts - which defy other explanations save for denial of thier existence.

 

[Brewtus]

It's been a while since I had physics, but I just wanted to make sure I was still thinking correctly on this topic.

Would it not be correct to say that while the amount of energy is determinable, it is not possible to "see" energy? The protons, neutrons, and electrons can be "seen", but the energy contained within does not have a physical presence. Correct?

Sure you can see (and feel) energy. All the light that's around you, that's electromagnetic energy. The heat you feel coming from a fire, that's also electromagnetic energy.

Just to ask: why do you say there "must" be?

Because that's how nature works. While the soul may reside in the supernatural world, our brains and neurons are in the natural world. Anything that interacts with something else in nature does so through one of the four fundamental forces. This is an observable phenomenon and if the soul interacted with our brains somehow, it would only be logical that we could also observe that.

I don't think it's arbitrary at all. In fact, I think it's completley in line with science. It is said that a soul behaves the same way energy does in that it is not created or destroyed, it just has different states .. ie kenetic, etc. In fact, isn't matter just a state on a contiuum of energy?

Who says that the soul behaves in the same way as energy does? Is there a Theory of Souls that can be tested? Bottom line is that the existence of a soul and life after death is strictly based on faith. And if someone were to postulate that the soul exists in the physical world then it rests upon them to explain how it works, were it's located or at least provide some evidence.

I get what you're saying about there must be a way for it to interact. But, if there is a soul, isn't your typing a response to me your soul interacting with matter? Can't you measure it with vision? Now... that said, can I point to my soul? No. I can't. So, your point about arbitrary is well taken to that extent. But, then, I can't point to energy either... until it exerts an influence on the matter around it. Why shouldnt' I believe it is an atom's SOUL which causes me to see an explosion? Six of one, half a dozen of another.

But I can point to energy. Energy is observable and testable which is why we are (nearly) certain that it exists (science is never 100% certain of anything).

The best "proof" I've ever come up with for the soul is upon some self reflection, deciding I wasn't just my body. I realize, of course, that this is no proof at all. But, the idea of a soul is sensible and does not violate the laws of nature and offers a solution to other problems - ie ghosts - which defy other explanations save for denial of thier existence.

And to me the idea that an invisible, unobservable soul exists is completely illogical and make no sense. Why would anyone believe in a soul, except as to be the recepticle that takes ones "self" to the afterlife? If you want to claim that the existence of a soul is based entirely on faith and thats it's invisible to the laws of nature, that's fine. But to claim that it somehow interacts with your brain and carries your memories, emotions, personality, etc. into the afterlife demands some sort of observable and testable explaination of how that is accomplished.

 

[muffler dragon]

Sure you can see (and feel) energy. All the light that's around you, that's electromagnetic energy. The heat you feel coming from a fire, that's also electromagnetic energy.

Theoretically, light is a particle and energy . Thus, it could be the particle that is seen and not the energy.

Because that's how nature works. While the soul may reside in the supernatural world, our brains and neurons are in the natural world. Anything that interacts with something else in nature does so through one of the four fundamental forces. This is an observable phenomenon and if the soul interacted with our brains somehow, it would only be logical that we could also observe that.

Couple thoughts/questions:

1) Do you believe that what would be observable must be perceptible? In other words, is it possible that the interaction is there, but that it's so minute (in whatever scale) that it's imperceptible?
2) Do you believe that there are phenomenon that exist that are not observable in some way, shape, or form?

 

[Brewtus]

Theoretically, light is a particle and energy . Thus, it could be the particle that is seen and not the energy.

But some frequencies of electromagnetic radiation cannot be seen (such as microwaves). Or maybe a better example is gravity. You can't "see" gravity but its force/energy is directly observable.

Couple thoughts/questions:

1) Do you believe that what would be observable must be perceptable? In other words, is it possible that the interaction is there, but that it's so minute (in whatever scale) that it's imperceptible?
2) Do you believe that there are phenomenon that exist that are not observable in some way, shape, or form?

1) Imperceptable to human senses? Definitely. But if it were possible to create an instrument with infinite sensitivity, then no.
2) Once again, theoretically no. Every phenomenon or interaction between particles, forces, bodies, beings, etc. are theoretically observable.

If an argument is being made that something exists (a soul, ghosts, afterlife, etc), then evidence must be provided to support that position. If you want to claim that God, a soul, ghosts, etc. exist outside the realm of the natural world and science, that's fine. There's no way to argue against that. But once a claim is made that supernatural entities interact with the natural world, a physical explanation must be given as to how that is accomplished if that proposition is to be taken seriously. You can't have it both ways without testable, observable evidence or a scientific theory - that a supernatural world exists outside of nature but also exists and interacts within nature.

 

[muffler dragon]

But some frequencies of electromagnetic radiation cannot be seen (such as microwaves). Or maybe a better example is gravity. You can't "see" gravity but its force/energy is directly observable.

Essentially, you're seeing the effect of gravity, but not gravity itself. This, I've never disagreed nor will I disagree with. I presume that we're discussing more of a philosophical difference than anything else.

1) Imperceptable to human senses? Definitely. But if it were possible to create an instrument with infinite sensitivity, then no.
2) Once again, theoretically no. Every phenomenon or interaction between particles, forces, bodies, beings, etc. are theoretically observable.

If an argument is being made that something exists (a soul, ghosts, afterlife, etc), then evidence must be provided to support that position. If you want to claim that God, a soul, ghosts, etc. exist outside the realm of the natural world and science, that's fine. There's no way to argue against that. But once a claim is made that supernatural entities interact with the natural world, a physical explanation must be given as to how that is accomplished if that proposition is to be taken seriously. You can't have it both ways without testable, observable evidence or a scientific theory - that a supernatural world exists outside of nature but also exists and interacts within nature.

If we take the above and consider it within the discussion of Deity. I, for the most part, will not debate whether or not G-d exists, but what you have written above is somewhat tangential; therefore, I'll keep it there. Many times, G-d is shown to operate through natural occurences or in other words, not that it is a supernatural event, but instead, an event that would not have happened other than G-d's providence so on and so forth. Thus, it would be imperceptible as being anything other than a natural event and thus, would not give proof to the existence or non-existence of G-d. Bringing this back to the discussion regarding the soul, IF the soul is the little bit of "G-d" that humans have inside each other; THEN wouldn't it stand to reason (in staying consistent with my statements just above) that there may very well be a soul interacting, BUT it makes nothing occur outside of the natural. Thus, there is no proof for the existence or non-existence of the soul.

Is any of what I just wrote making a lick of sense?

 

[Brewtus]

If we take the above and consider it within the discussion of Deity. I, for the most part, will not debate whether or not G-d exists, but what you have written above is somewhat tangential; therefore, I'll keep it there. Many times, G-d is shown to operate through natural occurences or in other words, not that it is a supernatural event, but instead, an event that would not have happened other than G-d's providence so on and so forth. Thus, it would be imperceptible as being anything other than a natural event and thus, would not give proof to the existence or non-existence of G-d.

Well then why even believe in the existence of God in the first place? For example, if someone is afflicted by an illness and then is cured to full health again through modern medical proceedures (assuming that being cured is not a physical impossiblity), why would a supernatural explanation for a cure even be neccessary? And even in instances where a recovery is very unlikely, it's still within the realm of statistical possibillities. (Occam's Razor is my motto)

Bringing this back to the discussion regarding the soul, IF the soul is the little bit of "G-d" that humans have inside each other; THEN wouldn't it stand to reason (in staying consistent with my statements just above) that there may very well be a soul interacting, BUT it makes nothing occur outside of the natural. Thus, there is no proof for the existence or non-existence of the soul.

But once again, why postulate the existence of a soul if one isn't neccessary and there isn't evidence of one? If we observed something interacting with our brains and then leaving our bodies once we died, I can see why there would be a need for a soul as a possible explanation. But we don't observe anything and if an argument is going to be made that a soul exists, then some sort of verifiable evidence needs to be given. Otherwise how do you know what exists and what doesn't? If I tell you that I live with an invisible pink elephant that cooks me dinner every night, would you believe me without some sort of evidence?

Is any of what I just wrote making a lick of sense?

Sure it does, am I? :)

 

[muffler dragon]

Well then why even believe in the existence of God in the first place? For example, if someone is afflicted by an illness and then is cured to full health again through modern medical proceedures (assuming that being cured is not a physical impossiblity), why would a supernatural explanation for a cure even be neccessary? And even in instances where a recovery is very unlikely, it's still within the realm of statistical possibillities. (Occam's Razor is my motto)

LOL!!! To answer your questions straight-forward-like, the supernatural occurance is not why I believe in G-d. Truth be told, I view the order of the universe and the natural laws that exist to find their basis in a G-d who is orderly and lawful. So, in that regard it comes down to primacy.

As for health, I do believe that there in the power of prayer. To what extent, I don't know. However, I also view prayer as more of a conversation than a pleading contest. Nonetheless, I don't see the fact that there are natural explanations for things to be a negation of the existence of G-d.

But once again, why postulate the existence of a soul if one isn't neccessary and there isn't evidence of one?

My belief is not based on personal postulation. Instead, I believe what is written in the Torah regarding the "make-up" of man, and I also believe what the Jewish Sages have said over time in interpretation of said Scriptures.

If we observed something interacting with our brains and then leaving our bodies once we died, I can see why there would be a need for a soul as a possible explanation. But we don't observe anything and if an argument is going to be made that a soul exists, then some sort of verifiable evidence needs to be given. Otherwise how do you know what exists and what doesn't? If I tell you that I live with an invisible pink elephant that cooks me dinner every night, would you believe me without some sort of evidence?

I'll go in reverse order of your points:

Pink Elephant: to be honest, if you believed it; then as far as I'm concerned, I don't care. It has no impact on my life. Sorry for the apathetic response, but that's how I feel.

Explanations: I don't feel that I need to have an explanation for absolutely everything that I ponder. As I get older, I have to admit that I find more fascination in the unexplainable than I used to. I'll correlate to my concept of G-d. To me, G-d is ineffable, incorporeal, and completely un-understandable. There are glimpses of knowledge and wisdom that I believe G-d gives to me in human concepts so that my mind might comprehend, but I truly believe the Almighty beyond me.

Sure it does, am I? :)

Yes. I am grasping everything you are saying. I'm just not of the same mind completely.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Who says that the soul behaves in the same way as energy does? Is there a Theory of Souls that can be tested? Bottom line is that the existence of a soul and life after death is strictly based on faith. And if someone were to postulate that the soul exists in the physical world then it rests upon them to explain how it works, were it's located or at least provide some evidence.

That was a poorly worded sentence on my part. What I meant is that a soul is similar to energy in the sense it is something which either is or is not - is not created or destroyed, not that they behave in similar ways necessarily. There are parallels between the concept of energy and the concept of a soul.

But I can point to energy. Energy is observable and testable which is why we are (nearly) certain that it exists (science is never 100% certain of anything).

You actually can't. Not until it acts on matter. And then you say it was energy which caused the action. As I said, we might as well understand an object's potential energy as that object's soul. When the object begins to behave we can point to energy as causing it. Otherwise, all we can do is surmise potential.

And to me the idea that an invisible, unobservable soul exists is completely illogical and make no sense. Why would anyone believe in a soul, except as to be the recepticle that takes ones "self" to the afterlife?

Does it matter "why?" It either is, or it is not. Rationale hardly matters. My "reason" for believing in the atom hardly matters.

If you want to claim that the existence of a soul is based entirely on faith and thats it's invisible to the laws of nature, that's fine. But to claim that it somehow interacts with your brain and carries your memories, emotions, personality, etc. into the afterlife demands some sort of observable and testable explaination of how that is accomplished.

I don't remember making any such claim about carrying memories, emotions or personality, etc.. If there is a soul, and if it does carry on to an afterlife, I doubt very seriously it carries with it personality and memory. It, in my mind, would simply continue to be. That's all.... and the idea of "afterlife" for me just simply means moving on to the next plain of existence (in some other universe) and not some sort of "party with G-d" or whatever.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

But once again, why postulate the existence of a soul if one isn't neccessary and there isn't evidence of one? If we observed something interacting with our brains and then leaving our bodies once we died, I can see why there would be a need for a soul as a possible explanation. But we don't observe anything and if an argument is going to be made that a soul exists, then some sort of verifiable evidence needs to be given. Otherwise how do you know what exists and what doesn't? If I tell you that I live with an invisible pink elephant that cooks me dinner every night, would you believe me without some sort of evidence?

Brew, I know this particular comment was not directed at me, but I wanted to respond to it anyway. The idea of necessary - if I understand the term in the way I think you meant it - is a poor tool in discerning much. To illustrate, your existence is not necessary, so why should we believe that you exist? This computer I'm typing on is not necessary, and yet... here it is. Necessity, I think, is an important - but not absolutely determinative - tool in the philosophical toolbox.

You mention evidence in favor of ghosts, souls afer-lives, etc. In this post above, you mention needing some "proof" of seeing a soul leave a body once we died. There have been offers of such a proof. Many "near death" experiences have been documented over the course of time. People who were indeed clinically dead and yet report awareness and events that occurred even while dead. Now, it is true there is other explanations for these occurrences other than a soul experiencing "life after life." But, there are likewise many alternatives to things we consider facts of nature. While I agree with you - I think - that gravity exists and is a tidy explanation, there's really no reason for me to think that reality actually functions under an 'intelligent falling' theory. I guess that's slightly ridiculous, but it does illustrate the point I'm getting at -

I will be unable to offer evidence and "proof" for something which you refuse to believe in the first place. I probably over state that, as I don't know that you've made such a "refusal" but... I would say if you we inclined to believe in a soul, there is indeed evidence in support of such a thing. Naturally, this does not prove or disprove that a soul actually exists.

I would also mention - in a post I have not quoted here you make note of being able to observe energy - like light. While that's true, it is only true because it is interacting with matter - in this case the object you're looking at and your eyes. Energy is not a "tangible thing" so my question about where is it was more of a trick question than anything, trying to demonstrate that a soul need not "be" anywhere for it to exist. Your mention of gravity - also not a tangible object - provides another illustration. It is a force that we believe in that provides a function that we an see, and therefore infer a rationale for it... we see it influence matter and we say "It is gravity" doing this.... We could as easily see a man act in the world and declare "It is his soul who made him chose to do what he has done." A soul, like a force, is not unnatural or uncommon to the natural world. There again, this is not proof of a soul. Instead it is an offer of suggestion that the notion is not precluded by an examination of the reality around us.

It may be there is no such thing as a soul. I dont know, and freely admit I could not offer proof of one short of my "introspection" example already given (and one which is admittedly well short of an acceptable "proof") But, it would seem to me, you have created in your analysis a thing which cannot be - called it a soul - and then defied anyone to show you it. But, wouldn't it be equally fair for me to say to you, until you dig to the center of the earth and show me gravity - what's holding this planet together - that the idea of gravity - a construct made to describe how the earth is held together, is not necessary?

 

[Brewtus]

LOL!!! To answer your questions straight-forward-like, the supernatural occurance is not why I believe in G-d. Truth be told, I view the order of the universe and the natural laws that exist to find their basis in a G-d who is orderly and lawful. So, in that regard it comes down to primacy.

As for health, I do believe that there in the power of prayer. To what extent, I don't know. However, I also view prayer as more of a conversation than a pleading contest. Nonetheless, I don't see the fact that there are natural explanations for things to be a negation of the existence of G-d.

My belief is not based on personal postulation. Instead, I believe what is written in the Torah regarding the "make-up" of man, and I also believe what the Jewish Sages have said over time in interpretation of said Scriptures.

Gottcha, thanks for outlining the basis of your belief system for me a bit more.

I'll go in reverse order of your points:

Pink Elephant: to be honest, if you believed it; then as far as I'm concerned, I don't care. It has no impact on my life. Sorry for the apathetic response, but that's how I feel.

No need to apologize. I feel the same way. What you believe in your private life is really of no concern to me so long as it doesn't interfere with my life. But even so, I do enjoy these discussion in an attempt to try and understand why other people believe the things they do. It's such a foreign concept to me to just take something at face value without any physical proof. I understand that many people point to the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc. as their proof, but in order for me to accept something as truth I need confirming evidence from many sources. I guess I'm just a hard-core skeptic at heart. And I'm that way about everything, not just on spiritual matters.

Explanations: I don't feel that I need to have an explanation for absolutely everything that I ponder. As I get older, I have to admit that I find more fascination in the unexplainable than I used to. I'll correlate to my concept of G-d. To me, G-d is ineffable, incorporeal, and completely un-understandable. There are glimpses of knowledge and wisdom that I believe G-d gives to me in human concepts so that my mind might comprehend, but I truly believe the Almighty beyond me.

And I certainly don't claim to have all the answers or mean to imply that man can have knowledge of everything. There are many great mysteries out there, most of which we will never have answers to. But where I do take exception is when a concept or proposition is made that should leave behind physical evidence, but does not. For instance, if one claims that God works within the natural world and is transparent to examination and does not leave any evidence, then fine. I have no argument against that and it really doesn't matter to me if that God exists or not. But if a claim is made that God performs miracles and directly interacts with the natural world, then I will demand physical proof if that person wants to be taken seriously. Maybe they don't care if I take them seriously (actually I'm sure they don't), but I'm really more interested in why they don't use the same critical thinking skills in spiritual matters that they (presumably) use in other day-to-day matters. Would they buy a car or house without seeing it first based strictly on what the salesperson told them? If not, why would they blindly trust what their pastor/priest/rabbi or a holy book tells them which is much more of an investment in their time and life?

 

[muffler dragon]

Gottcha, thanks for outlining the basis of your belief system for me a bit more.

No need to apologize. I feel the same way. What you believe in your private life is really of no concern to me so long as it doesn't interfere with my life. But even so, I do enjoy these discussion in an attempt to try and understand why other people believe the things they do. It's such a foreign concept to me to just take something at face value without any physical proof. I understand that many people point to the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc. as their proof, but in order for me to accept something as truth I need confirming evidence from many sources. I guess I'm just a hard-core skeptic at heart. And I'm that way about everything, not just on spiritual matters.

I completely understand how you feel. I spent the greater part of my 20s really evaluating spiritual matters and self-inspection. I imagine that my decrease in that has come about because of responsibilities that require more time, energy, and thought (i.e. family, etc). I've never considered myself gullible even though there are a number of things that I have no problem accepting on faith.

And I certainly don't claim to have all the answers or mean to imply that man can have knowledge of everything. There are many great mysteries out there, most of which we will never have answers to. But where I do take exception is when a concept or proposition is made that should leave behind physical evidence, but does not. For instance, if one claims that God works within the natural world and is transparent to examination and does not leave any evidence, then fine. I have no argument against that and it really doesn't matter to me if that God exists or not. But if a claim is made that God performs miracles and directly interacts with the natural world, then I will demand physical proof if that person wants to be taken seriously. Maybe they don't care if I take them seriously (actually I'm sure they don't), but I'm really more interested in why they don't use the same critical thinking skills in spiritual matters that they (presumably) use in other day-to-day matters. Would they buy a car or house without seeing it first based strictly on the salesperson told them? If not, why would they blindly trust what their pastor/priest/rabbi or a holy book tells them which is much more of an investment in their time and life?

I would posit that in my consideration it's not complete blind faith. If we stick with simply the belief in G-d, I would imagine you can understand from my POV as to why physical evidence could very well be lacking on what I consider an ineffable, incorporeal Entity.

Anyway... we're starting to go in a slight circle; thus, I'll bow out unless there is anything else that comes to mind that you'd like to discuss or entertain.

 

[Brewtus]

That was a poorly worded sentence on my part. What I meant is that a soul is similar to energy in the sense it is something which either is or is not - is not created or destroyed, not that they behave in similar ways necessarily. There are parallels between the concept of energy and the concept of a soul.

And how do you know this exactly? What is your basis for believing the soul even exists? Saying that a soul exists with similar properties of energy without evidence is really no different that just making it up.

You actually can't. Not until it acts on matter. And then you say it was energy which caused the action. As I said, we might as well understand an object's potential energy as that object's soul. When the object begins to behave we can point to energy as causing it. Otherwise, all we can do is surmise potential.

Very true and I agree. But the reason the concept of gravity, magnetism, etc. came about was to explain an observation in nature. What incident has been observed in nature that would require a soul as an explanation?

Does it matter "why?" It either is, or it is not. Rationale hardly matters. My "reason" for believing in the atom hardly matters.

Rationale and reason matter in the sense that they help explain something. The reason the moon revolves around the Earth is because of gravity. But we don't have any reason to believe in a soul because there is no observation that requires an explanation.

I don't remember making any such claim about carrying memories, emotions or personality, etc.. If there is a soul, and if it does carry on to an afterlife, I doubt very seriously it carries with it personality and memory. It, in my mind, would simply continue to be. That's all.... and the idea of "afterlife" for me just simply means moving on to the next plain of existence (in some other universe) and not some sort of "party with G-d" or whatever.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you claimed memories, etc. are contained within a soul. My question was directed more toward the traditional Christian belief that the soul, which contains ones "self", is transferred to heaven to live out eternity with other souls. As for what you believe the soul to be, I really can't argue against that since its existence would be transparent to all natural forms of observation.

Brew, I know this particular comment was not directed at me, but I wanted to respond to it anyway. The idea of necessary - if I understand the term in the way I think you meant it - is a poor tool in discerning much. To illustrate, your existence is not necessary, so why should we believe that you exist? This computer I'm typing on is not necessary, and yet... here it is. Necessity, I think, is an important - but not absolutely determinative - tool in the philosophical toolbox.

Conceptually I agree. The existence of the entire universe is not necessary. However, to use your example of a computer, typing on the keyboard creates words on the screen so the existence of a mode for that information to travel from the keyboard to the screen is necessary. Everything we observe around us has an explanation, even if we don't understand or know the explanation.

You mention evidence in favor of ghosts, souls afer-lives, etc. In this post above, you mention needing some "proof" of seeing a soul leave a body once we died. There have been offers of such a proof. Many "near death" experiences have been documented over the course of time. People who were indeed clinically dead and yet report awareness and events that occurred even while dead. Now, it is true there is other explanations for these occurrences other than a soul experiencing "life after life." But, there are likewise many alternatives to things we consider facts of nature. While I agree with you - I think - that gravity exists and is a tidy explanation, there's really no reason for me to think that reality actually functions under an 'intelligent falling' theory. I guess that's slightly ridiculous, but it does illustrate the point I'm getting at -

Hearsay and fuzzy pictures are not proof. The brain still functions for a while after the heart stops. And with the billions of cameras in the world, why hasn't anyone taken a clear photo of a ghost like this?

I will be unable to offer evidence and "proof" for something which you refuse to believe in the first place.
...
...
...
But, wouldn't it be equally fair for me to say to you, until you dig to the center of the earth and show me gravity - what's holding this planet together - that the idea of gravity - a construct made to describe how the earth is held together, is not necessary?

I understand where you're coming from, I guess we both just have different criteria which need to be met before we accept something as "truth". My null position is that nothing exists, and then I build up from there based on my personal experience and what I read, hear, see, etc. from other sources.