Does the existance of a soul, prove the existance of a god? It might prove the existance of an afterlife, but does it prove a god?

NO !

I guess it all depends on your faith. Many of the religions believe in the the soul. Then again so do many non-religious believers do to. I think that the soul is a spiritual defenition to our persona. We are more than just blobs of flesh when their is something else within us. So it all depends on if you believe God created your soul. If you do then yes. If you dont then no.

One would first have to define what a soul is.
And what a god is as well.

And, how does the existance of one prove the existance of the other?

That is akin to saying that since apples exist, therefore giraffes exist.

Soul and God are one and the same. Here are some quotes by some Christian mystics to illuminate my point:

To gauge the soul we must gauge it with God, for the Ground of God and the Ground of the Soul are one and the same. --Eckhart

The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God, as if He stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge. ---Eckhart

In those respects in which the soul is unlike God, it is also unlike itself.---St Bernard

The soul is in itself a most lovely and perfect image of God. ---St. John of the Cross

Also here is a good point made by a Hindu mystic:

..The real God is not to be sought in idols and symbols, in temples or churches.
The truth of the matter is that the purified man is God himself, for he has become one with universal life. The purified man is the self-realised man. He has not to await answers from God, for he has no questions to ask. He himself is the answer to all questions; his life itself is a benediction. (Sudhakar S.D, 1988.
p55)

So yeah the soul and God are one. However the personality isn't the soul but the ego which is an illusion in my opinion and in the opinion of the perennial philosophers. As Shankara elequently puts it:

You are the Self, the infinite Being, the pure, unchanging consciousness; which pervades everything. Your nature is bliss and your glory is without stain. Because you identify yourself with the ego, you are tied to birth and death. Your bondage has no other cause. --Shankara.

Sounds paradoxical doesn't it? Well Ramana Maharshi thought the same: There is no greater mystery than this: Being Reality ourselves, we seek to gain Reality.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you have to laugh and cry at the way our situation is. The mind is so complex and we all just want catharsis from the restlessness of it.

My understanding is that soul and spirit are two different things. In Hebrew the word for soul that is used biblically is "Nephesh", and it just means life. Like if I were to say that you could not fit another soul into the stadium because it is sold out. It just means living being. When your dead there is no proof that the soul which is just your life anyway moves on. Spirit is another matter, soul and spirit are not synonymous words. So based on the question I would say no from a research point of view just sticking with word origins. The proof of God is one of belief only.

I don't think the existence of a soul has ever been proven. I think it's that we're conscious that makes people accept a soul is what animates our selves. But that doesn't mean it's true, nor make us any different from any other thing that is conscious, save humans tend to accept there's a final outcome, at the end of their days, for those behaviors they do consciously. Hell, the void, heaven, Valhalla, etc... All conceptualizations, born of the hope/ faith that humans never really die.

Let us not forget though that science still can;t prove how the brain/matter creates awareness/consciousness

Ah, but there is an answer to that. The Superparadigm - All Science is Based on Consciousness

How does that explain 'crisis apparitions', a person who is seen where their not meant to be by a loved one who then finds out they died at that time miles away.
In the late 1800's a study was done on them, from 5000 accounts the number was wittled down to about 400 that were considered worth further study. These were accounts that had witnesses to the event, were written in a diary at the time of the event and the person claiming it was considered to be reliable.
The scientists involved in the study were unable to explain what the apparitions were due to the lack of the right equipment being available but noted that the similarities in all accounts was of such a degree that it was noteworthy for future scientists to study when they had equipment capable of detecting them.
That was the last large scale study of spirituality conducted by scientists shortly after it became a taboo subject and only the fringe scientists continue to this day to find answers. Unfortunalty mainstream scientists disagree with the findings not because they have studied them but because they do not want to be connected to such claims for fear of losing their status.

Also worth bearing in mind is that lack of scientific evidence does not mean lack of substance, until such time as A. the scientist knows what he is looking for, B. the scientist knows where to look, and C. the scientist has the right equipment available to search with.
It would have been hard to have scientific evidence of viruses until the microscope was invented but there were some scientists who had an open mind and felt the circumstantiasl evidence was worthwhile following up.

good to see i got some replies, thanks for your beliefs, i personally think they dont prove each others existance, but i wanted to get some other peoples opinions on the matter.

It's hard to explain, really. When I say I don't believe in a soul, I mean I don't believe in what is usually defined by religious philosophy as something that survives the body unto a judgment, after life. I do believe everything is energy, manifest or un-manifest. And when people die, their essence returns to that chaos.

I think people see the spirits of their dead loved ones, in your first example for instance, because of the emotional bond between them that resonates as a link, after life, so the loved one's still alive can channel those they are linked to, if they pass. However, I do not believe in a part of self that is judged for it's mortal behaviors, nor do I believe it ascends to an after life abode, like a heaven, hell, summerland, etc... per the various faith traditions that subscribe to such articles of faith.

Ya the only answer is that they have to create a new paradigm that says matter doesn't create consciousness. Stimulating parts of the brain may affect consciousness but that doesn;t explain how the consciousness got there in the first place. So about time science got abit more spiritual.

I seem to remember reading somewhere about some off shoot of spiritualism that believes in an afterlife and a soul as simple natural universal laws to which we're all bound regardless of belief, it rejects the idea of God or gods, can't be sure what they call themselves...something like survivalists, as distinct from the ones with guns bunkers and crucifixes of course.

according to the bible your soul is your spirit ..if you beleive in god then you seek god with your soul..for we are to love the lord with all thy soul..soul could be your heart the love one feels...or the hate one has..it would be that inner being that dwells in your flesh...but to say it proves god exissts no one would have to beleive in order to know god exsists..

Actually, I don't think science has that responsibility. Especially when religionists can not answer what made the god that they would be led to believe created, nurtured, empowers, consciousness.

What if "God" is eternal? If this is the case, then there was never a time it was not.