If this came from a soul physical damage shouldn't have any affect.
It depends on what one defines as a soul, and how one assumes a soul affects our bodies. It's already clearly shown by medical science that our brains control a large part of our personality or actions, but that doesn't refute whether a soul, the incorporeal essence of a person's physical body doesn't exist. Or a soul can just simply mean the psychological parts of ourselves condensed into a single form. It depends on how you define it.
Furthermore, as different religions present different definitions of what a soul is, we can't refute the existence of souls as a whole even if we shoot down separate definitions.
A soul is said to be the source of a persons consciousness. Consciousness in general is ones capability to sense and respond to the world around them and can also refer to awareness of ones self. I would think an even basic understanding of how our senses work (the parts of us that does the sensing, making us aware ie conscious of our surroundings) would be enough to see that ascribing this quality to a soul is as silly as saying emotions actual originate from the heart.
A soul is said to be the essence of a person, what makes a living thing alive. This is silly in light of our knowledge in biology and chemistry giving us a view of the biochemical processes involved.
Yes some Christians believe that the soul is the focal point for our personality and such. But the concept of a soul is very much different in Buddhism or other religions.
And yes, the mind controls our behaviour and such and such. But who's to say that the incorporeal essence of ourselves doesn't control the mind itself?
Anyway, some people have tried their hands at philosophy to prove the soul exists:
1) Free will exists (follows from direct perceptions).
2) The soul is the incorporeal essence of oneself (by definition).
3) Free will is about voluntary choice, being able to choose oneâs own actions; the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. (By definition.)
4) Therefore, free will is itself a cause and not an effect in its interactions with corporeality (follows from 3)
5) So if free will exists, its basis must be incorporeal. (Follows from 4. If free will exists it has to have some kind of existence; and from 4 free will is not an effect in its interactions with corporeality, the basis of free will cannot be corporeal, the only alternative left is the incorporeal.)
6)The self chooses oneâs own actions (part of the definition of free will, i.e. from line 3), and is thus the basis of free will.
7)The basis of the self must be incorporeal if free will exists, since the basis of free will must be incorporeal, and the basis of free will is the self (from 2, 5 and 6).
