One of the most interesting contributions I've heard regarding Dualism and the Soul.

Thank you God for this insight by Swinburne. Like all discussions, there will be a counter-argument, and the counter may indeed be convincing. Nevertheless, it presents (among other arguments) a strong case that the idea of a substantially different entity- a human soul- is a reality. I in no way think that dualism as it is perhaps traditionally understood (more a heritage of Greek Pagan philosophy than anything Hebraic) is necessary to the Triune God's reality. We are humans, whatever that means, and God loves us and can do anything. That said, here's the quote:

"It is characteristic of the advance of science that different branches of science have

become integrated with each other, such as optics with electromagnetism. But the
way in which such integrations have been achieved is by supposing that the subject
matter of optics and the subject matter of electro-magnetism are (despite appearances)
really the same sort of thing – physical particles or waves. That involves that
supposing that the secondary qualities by which we originally identify the subject
matter (the colour of the light, and the feel of the heat) do not really belong to the
physical thing, but are an effect of the physical things in us. But when you try to
explain mental things and properties themselves, obviously you can’t siphon off the
mental aspect of them! And so it is the very success of science in explaining physical
events , which makes it immensely unlikely that it will be able to take the final step to
explain the very different kind of events which are mental events."

This is very, very interesting. Think about when you're a child. As you learn, you may occasionally make mistakes concerning your perception of the world around you. You strongly associate the color red with apples, perhaps. This may lead you to think that a fundamental attribute of apples is its redness. That indeed, red is a fundamental thing. As you grow older, perhaps we learn that apples are a particular arrangement of atoms that happen to absorb all the colors of the visible spectrum, but reflects back the red wavelength which we see with our eyes and perceive as the color red.

What I mean is we learn that Redness is not a "thing" proper. Red is a geometrically located segment of the electromagnetic spectrum. Say that the radiation's wavelength is X hertz, then X hertz is what we perceive as red.

Now that's just the problem. As Swinburne says, it seems extremely difficult that mental events will be fully understood as physical properties. The electromagnetic spectrum is a thing that if we were blind, still exists as a wavelength. However, now that we're blind, redness ceases to exist. You could argue that is because we can't physically perceive them, which is not to answer the question at all. Redness still exists, but as a property of the mind.

I'm getting convoluted. As Swinburne says, we discovered more about the nature of electromagnetism when we didn't suppose the physical effect we saw was a property of the electromagnetism itself. Which is interesting, because that's really all science is anyway. The study of the mental effects it has on us, but abstracted in a way.

Electromagnetism has X properties. These properties don't include "redness", but rather a spectrum, a segment of which, we perceive as "redness". Scientific materialism has created the problem of dualism. If "redness" isn't a property but rather a mental perception, than how can we scientifically abstract redness as a thing?

Put another way, for scientific materialism to work, "redness" would need to be an actual thing on the same level as Apple is a thing, the electromagnetic spectrum is a thing, as atoms are a thing, as electrons and protons are thing, as quarks are things, as (theoretically) strings are things, as.... well, actually we can't go much further... there is no fundamental particle, another devastating flaw of materialism.

Put to wit, as soon as "redness" becomes a physically defined theory, then I think physically defined theories cease to mean anything. In other words, the scenario seems more likely that we are absolutely dual substances as humans, or that there is no such think as "material" and we may as well be existing in some bizarre sort of conscious thought. A model not at all irreconcilable to Christian Theism.

Again, it seems that the Triune God may be fundamentally inescapable.

This marks the third and significant avenue that terminates in necessary belief of God. I'd say there are 3 foundational doctrinal categories:

-The Triune God (this includes God the Creator, God the Son as atonement for our sin, and God the Holy Spirit as the sustainer and feeder of our faith)

-Original Sin

-Life everlasting (absolutely true should a "mind" or "soul" be admitted, absolutely possible if we're still only presently material beings)

Via Godelian logic, I think that God the creator is necessary. By the same logic, augmented, I'd say we have to have minds. This latest consideration is as addendum. And should the first two be admitted, it only makes sense that the resurrection is true too. After all, if God is verified in everything else He's said and revealed to us in Scripture, why shouldn't the Resurrection be believed as well?