The Logic Behind Free Will: Evidence of the Soul’s Existence

In this article, we explore a critical piece of evidence for the existence of the human soul. This proof holds unique power because those who doubt it might find themselves questioning their own humanity—the very essence of what makes an individual moral and responsible for their actions, endowed with rights and duties. In short, one cannot deny the soul without denying oneself, as we will see:

1. As discussed in our previous article, nature operates according to laws and a cause-and-effect framework. The laws of nature lack will or consciousness; they function automatically.

2. Even highly complex actions, such as a computer simulating human behavior (virtual characters), ultimately rely on pre-existing software (lines of binary code), fundamentally no different from a calculator processing numbers. This aligns with material nature as we know it.

Therefore, in the future, should computers successfully pass the Turing test (perfectly simulating human behavior), they would still remain input-output machines, working according to pre-designed software that dazzles us with complex presentations, driven by countless backstage computations aimed at executing the desired program, naturally devoid of self-thought, intention, or will.

3. In animals, this entrenched software is known as "instincts." An ant, from birth, understands its role until death—how to march, build a nest, protect the queen, etc. A cat protects her kittens until they're three months old, then may compete with them for food or even mate with them. These instincts aim at survival and procreation (humans also have some instincts beyond their control, like a newborn instinctively sucking or a person jumping from danger without intending to).

4. However, unlike animals, humans can choose between rationality and irrationality, sacrifice desires for values, and make choices contrary to basic survival and procreation goals. This makes humans unpredictable (not implying that a righteous person will suddenly commit murder, but there is a choice in everyday actions, allowing movement in any direction of strength or decline). Humans can repent or deteriorate, seek truth or ignore it, chase pleasures, risk their lives, or be either righteous or wicked.

5. Free will, by definition, is the ability to oppose the natural forces acting on a person, indicating spirituality. Without choice, a person would be an automatic being, devoid of thought and responsibility for actions. Free will endows a person with a supernatural power to resist natural forces.

This doesn't imply choice without reasons (triggers), but rather that a person stands at every moment as a judge, choosing between rational and irrational reasons (the good inclination vs. the bad inclination, short-term pleasure vs. long-term goals).

6. Without free will, there would be no deliberation between good and evil, no conscience, and no guilt. Humans would always perform rational actions with the highest survival probability (like an ant working from dawn to dusk, every person would learn and accumulate resources to produce numerous offspring without personal will).

Without free will, human society would be 'perfect' and rational—robotic—like a sophisticated ant colony, where every action serves collective survival. In such a society, no one would smoke after learning its dangers, people wouldn't risk their lives needlessly, government corruption or atomic threats wouldn't exist, and people would abandon cars for environmental benefits, avoiding pollution. Yet, these people wouldn't be truly human but sophisticated machines. Just as they couldn't harm themselves or others, they couldn't do charity or heroic deeds (unless pre-programmed).

[As a side note: notice how atheists, who don't believe in a soul, must accept the absurdity that an ant is a superior survival machine compared to humans who endanger themselves and their species by nature. What defines an organism is survival and reproduction efficiency. A more successful organism achieves these goals better, preferred under natural selection laws. How then could such an unsustainable creature as humanity exist, capable of irrational choices that harm its survival and reproduction odds? An atomic bomb, for instance, threatens all earthly life. Yet humans self-harm privately (smoking, adultery spreads diseases, etc.), proving free will as they contradict basic survival laws even ants know better]

Naturally, in a truly materialistic reality, animals wouldn't have emotions, acting mechanically nearly error-free, ensuring maximum offspring production].

7. Real intelligence appears unattainable without free will (autonomy), as intelligence embodies creativity and individuality. Without free will, we're left with robots, complex input-output software repeating actions based on external influences—with no self-thought. Thus, a calculator doesn't truly think, same with software presenting complex virtual images on a screen.

Animals feel and sense but lack choice, acting according to ingrained instincts, hence lacking real intelligence like computers. To truly be autonomous, thinking, individual creatures, freedom of thought and action is required.

Human intelligence is real because we choose to use (or not use) rational tools, shaping ourselves and our lives as desired, beyond pre-determined mechanics.

Nature doesn't allow free will. Therefore, free will in humans demonstrates the soul's existence.

Critics might argue: "Humans always act according to the strongest reason at any given moment."

Response:

This is a logical fallacy of presupposing the question, as critics refuse to genuinely explore the existence of free will by presupposing every human action stems from an external force. Even if free will exists, allowing resistance to acting forces, such critics could never perceive it, pre-assuming a lack of free will in any action...

Seeking truth requires equally examining both possibilities, free will's existence, or its absence, comparing them against human behavior.

We mustn't presuppose (shooting arrows then drawing targets around them) but study observable reality: does human behavior prove blind external force adherence, or can humans resist nature, even opposing active forces?

Observations attest to choice: individuals can reflect and realize moments they battled against nature, resisting stronger urges and forces (note: the free will claim doesn't deny reality's reasons but claims reasons exist for each side, and we freely choose which reason to heed as judges. In other words, people can choose good inclinations even amid stronger desires by resisting nature!). Most human choices balance intellect versus emotion, rationality against irrationality.

Without free will, we resemble robots performing calculated, cold actions, never acting irrationally, endangering their lives or survival and reproductive chances. In a choice-less reality, people would never sin but always act according to truth (Judaism wouldn't recognize the concept of "trials" without choice between good and evil).

Therefore, the mere existence of deliberation between good and evil, "The righteous may fall seven times but rise again," proves free will.

Once someone acknowledges their soul's existence, it should lead them to seek life's purpose—a spiritual purpose beyond earthly life, not aimed at material gain, as matter fades and vanishes, while the soul returns to its Creator upon the body's death, accounting for all its deeds in this world. Thus, the choice between good and evil signifies our spiritual purpose, as King Solomon said:

"And the dust returns to Earth as it was, and the spirit returns to Hashem who gave it. 'Vanity of vanities,' said Kohelet, 'all is vanity...' The end of the matter, all has been heard. Fear Hashem and observe His commandments, for this is the entirety of man. For Hashem will bring every deed to judgment, with every hidden thing, whether good or evil" (Ecclesiastes 12).