The Soul - is there proof?

[Ana the Ist]

Then every person who has ever discussed anything that anyone has ever said or written is 'mind-reading' and should thus be discarded. Perhaps you should take a course or two on literary comprehension and criticism?

Oh no...you're only kidding yourself there Quid. He doesn't merely relate the words said by his female friend...no...he assumes her entire thought process and the thought processes of many others in what's basically a sad attempt at self-validation.

He can't read minds, and his dishonesty in pretending that he can to make an argument is telling. I'm sorry if he's some personal hero of yours (I saw that you quoted him again) but don't take it personally, it's not a reflection on you.

I have explained myself repeatedly in this thread on this point. I see no reason to repeat myself. Please feel free to read my earlier posts.

I read your other posts and frankly, I didn't see any answer to my question. It's certainly possible that I just missed it, so if you don't mind...could you at least point out the page and post in which you did answer my question? Or is that gonna be too much effort on your part?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Oh no...you're only kidding yourself there Quid. He doesn't merely relate the words said by his female friend...no...he assumes her entire thought process and the thought processes of many others in what's basically a sad attempt at self-validation.

He can't read minds, and his dishonesty in pretending that he can to make an argument is telling. I'm sorry if he's some personal hero of yours (I saw that you quoted him again) but don't take it personally, it's not a reflection on you.

Oh, I don't take it personally, although Lewis is one of my favourite authors. It is a common, but erroneous, defensive tactic to attack the way an argument is presented instead of the argument itself, so your comments weren't totally unexpected.

Tell me, whenever someone discusses a line of Shakespeare and speculates what is meant, are they 'mind-reading'? If we write a commentary on Plato, is this 'mind-reading'?
In fact, what of Wittgenstein telling us that the words we use presuppose that we accept their underlying substrates? What of Derrida telling us to deconstruct other's thought processes to see the construct from which they were working?
What of Socrates and his comments on the inconsistencies in other's thought processes?
These are all the equivalent of what Lewis is doing. He is working here from within the whole structure of Western Literature and philosophy. If you disagree with this method, then I assume you ascribe more to esoteric eastern philosophic ideas of what can be known is not what can be? (ie the Tao that can be known is not the Tao and its ilk).

I read your other posts and frankly, I didn't see any answer to my question. It's certainly possible that I just missed it, so if you don't mind...could you at least point out the page and post in which you did answer my question? Or is that gonna be too much effort on your part?

I hold thinking to be sufficient for Reason to occur, but I do not think that we can necessarily trust that Reason is valid or correct. Hence all my other posts to explain why I say this and the implications that this presents. Hope this helps.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

These are all specious arguments in anyway predicated upon my acceptance of Naturalistic Materialism. They are circular, for I can only accept these if I assume all my decisions are or can be based on physiological functions (which I do not). Besides, determinism is not provable by any measure of modern neuroscience, in spite of a few studies which may suggest pre-conscious action before a decision, which were neither conclusive, definite nor without flaws.

I'm not asking you to accept anything, just to consider the propositions and, if you find them invalid, or inconsistent, to explain why you think so. It's entirely optional, but this is the philosophy forum...

In standard human experience, no one believes their actions to be predetermined.

It's true that most people don't believe that, but it's also true that most people haven't thought about it in very much depth. In 'standard human experience' (I assume you mean 'most people') people are also superstitious. The number of people believing something is not a particularly reliable indicator of its truth.

You are treading on the same slippery slopes of Christian Science and Buddhist Sunya, which assumes universal delusion and a completely different metaphysic from the actuality of most humans. I trust this is not company you wish to keep?

Base my opinions on what I find to be reasonable, not on whether they concur or not with the beliefs of some esoteric group.

Then please supply your reasoning for saying so, keeping in mind that I was saying this in reference to my first couple of posts in this thread where the argument is laid out.

Your first post come across as an argument from incredulity - if I understand you correctly, you reject thoughts and reasoning as a product of brain function because you don't see how they could be reliable, "if all our thoughts and reasoning were merely the product of brain physiology, than there is no reason to trust that one thing is more reasonable than any other." As it happens, our reasoning in general isn't particularly reliable, we're prone to many different reasoning errors; but it is plenty good enough to get by on day-to-day.

It's flexible and adaptable because the brain isn't hard-wired to think any particular way, it's a collection of specialised neural networks that learn how to perform their tasks effectively, they are trained by feedback from the sensory world and improve over time. We learn to interpret the world we see, we learn how to reach out and grab things, we learn to walk, to talk, to be social, we learn how things behave in the world - object constancy, how things move, etc., and we learn how to reason. Our reasoning is reliable enough to get us by because we've learnt simple logic from observing consistencies in the world around us, making predictions and seeing if they're borne out, learning language, social interaction, simple arithmetic, etc.

This kind of learning isn't restricted to the physiology of biological networks; artificial neural networks can learn by example (e.g. training) too. A striking instance of this is a neural network developed in software (you can run it on any PC) that can learn the rudiments of a language by interaction with a speaker (typing on a keyboard), much as a child learns language from its parents and teachers. It does this without any initial grammar, syntax, or vocabulary. This network, called ANNABELL (Artificial Neural Network with Adaptive Behavior Exploited for Language Learning) started as a blank slate and (after lengthy training) learnt how to give intelligible grammatical responses to questions about things it had been told. Full details here.

For a fascinating overview of how we think, and the two system types involved in cognition, I strongly recommend Daniel Kahneman's book, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow', which also contains examples, tests, and exercises to try yourself, that illustrate the points he makes.

 

[KCfromNC]

In fact as can be seen in for instance the reproductive advantages in fearless males gaining more female interest but running the risk of dying earlier versus cowardly ones living but having fewer mates, Evolution need not drive a realistic conception of risk for either case.

And interestingly enough, people are terrible at estimating risk. Guess we see exactly what you predicted from natural selection.

The very nature of Natural Selection makes it unlikely that the human species would have a generally accepted form of Reason, but rather a spectrum. This does not seem to be the case in practice.

Inductive, deductive, abductive, various forms of paraconsistent logic, fuzzy logic, and so on all exist. Not to mention all of the other types of math we've invented to solve various problems.

 

[KCfromNC]

A still humbler position remains. You may, if you like, give up all claim to truth. You may say simply ‘Our way of thinking is useful’ — without adding, even under your breath, ‘and therefore true’. It enables us to set a bone and build a bridge and make a Sputnik. And that is good enough. The old, high pretensions of reason must be given up. It is a behaviour evolved entirely as an aid to practice. That is why, when we use it simply for practice, we get along pretty well; but when we fly off into speculation and try to get general views of ‘reality’ we end in the endless, useless, and probably merely verbal, disputes of the philosopher. We will be humbler in the future. Goodbye to all that. No more theology, no more ontology, no more metaphysics…

There's no reason to think that fiction writing such as this would go away. People can still appreciate a good fairy tale even if they know there really isn't a magic goose or whatever. Samefictional with stories about gods and philosophy figuring out what is true.

But then, equally, no more Naturalism. For of course Naturalism is a prime specimen of that towering speculation, discovered from practice and going far beyond experience, which is now being condemned. Nature is not an object that can be presented either to the senses or the imagination. It can be reached only by the most remote inferences.

If he really believed this, why did he write his thoughts in a physical form rather than a supernatural one? I think someone was fibbing.

‘There is nothing except this’ — an assertion surely, as remote from practice, experience, and any conceivable verification as has ever been made since men began to use their reason speculatively.

It may not be 100% verifiable, but it works well enough in practice. Get back to us when you put people on the moon using supernatural engineering.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I'm not asking you to accept anything, just to consider the propositions and, if you find them invalid, or inconsistent, to explain why you think so. It's entirely optional, but this is the philosophy forum...

I did consider them and found them invalid as the argument was circular. I did mention this.
For your arguments require the assumption of Naturalistic Materialism to be valid and thereby you would want to show how determinism is possible in spite of our experience to the contrary, and thereby shoring up the assumption of Naturalistic Materialism when it comes to human Reason. This is classic begging the question, for you first need to show why human Reason can be trusted before you can use it to establish Naturalistic Materialism, before the rest of the argument can be made. The problem is though that Naturalistic Materialism undermines the validity of Reason though...

Your first post come across as an argument from incredulity - if I understand you correctly, you reject thoughts and reasoning as a product of brain function because you don't see how they could be reliable, "if all our thoughts and reasoning were merely the product of brain physiology, than there is no reason to trust that one thing is more reasonable than any other." As it happens, our reasoning in general isn't particularly reliable, we're prone to many different reasoning errors; but it is plenty good enough to get by on day-to-day.

It's flexible and adaptable because the brain isn't hard-wired to think any particular way, it's a collection of specialised neural networks that learn how to perform their tasks effectively, they are trained by feedback from the sensory world and improve over time. We learn to interpret the world we see, we learn how to reach out and grab things, we learn to walk, to talk, to be social, we learn how things behave in the world - object constancy, how things move, etc., and we learn how to reason. Our reasoning is reliable enough to get us by because we've learnt simple logic from observing consistencies in the world around us, making predictions and seeing if they're borne out, learning language, social interaction, simple arithmetic, etc.

This kind of learning isn't restricted to the physiology of biological networks; artificial neural networks can learn by example (e.g. training) too. A striking instance of this is a neural network developed in software (you can run it on any PC) that can learn the rudiments of a language by interaction with a speaker (typing on a keyboard), much as a child learns language from its parents and teachers. It does this without any initial grammar, syntax, or vocabulary. This network, called ANNABELL (Artificial Neural Network with Adaptive Behavior Exploited for Language Learning) started as a blank slate and (after lengthy training) learnt how to give intelligible grammatical responses to questions about things it had been told. Full details here.

For a fascinating overview of how we think, and the two system types involved in cognition, I strongly recommend Daniel Kahneman's book, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow', which also contains examples, tests, and exercises to try yourself, that illustrate the points he makes.

No, you have misconstrued my intent somewhat. I don't reject reasoning as a product of brain physiology because I can't see how they can thus be reliable. I don't think human reasoning is necessarily reliable. However for reason to at all exist then an A must follow from B necessarily at some point, which cannot be said if that reason which delivered B therefore A, was based on naturalistic processes.
Perhaps I am merely confusing people by not using formal propositions:

1: No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes - Reasoning requires insight into logical relations. A therefore B is rational only if the reasoner sees that B follows from, or is supported by, A, and accepts B on that basis. There must be rational insight into logical implication. If a non-rational cause like neurons firing in the head or trauma causes someone to hold A therefore B, it wasn't a rational decision.
If I refuse to approach a dog because I saw the dog bite someone, this is rational. If I don't because I had a scary toy dog as a child, this is not.
If I refuse to approach the dog citing natural selection to stay away from predators, I have explained my wariness, but it wasn't a rational decision but based on nonrational causation, ie the process of evolution.

2: If naturalism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes - all events can be explained by natural causes and human thoughts are ultimately functions of neurons and brain physiology.

Therefore, if naturalism is true, then no belief is rationally inferred (from 1 and 2).

But Naturalism can only be accepted based on inference from reason.

Therefore there is no evidence to accept Naturalism. Or if you do, no validity to any logical propositions you have made.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

There's no reason to think that fiction writing such as this would go away. People can still appreciate a good fairy tale even if they know there really isn't a magic goose or whatever. Samefictional with stories about gods and philosophy figuring out what is true.

The implication is that no body of knowledge as such would exist. Mathematics, Physics, Biology etc. would therefore all fall in this category as well.

If he really believed this, why did he write his thoughts in a physical form rather than a supernatural one? I think someone was fibbing.

What? One of the weirdest non-sequitors I have ever come accross.

It may not be 100% verifiable, but it works well enough in practice. Get back to us when you put people on the moon using supernatural engineering.

You miss the point entirely.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Gosh, I've got into some heated arguments over this subject. I believe that our conscience represents the soul, but others say otherwise. I think its all a cop out to keep assuming that there isn't life after death. I say thats ludicrous.

All the data we have points to consciousness being an emergent property of the physical brain.

The body and mind aren't 2 seperate entities.

 

[DogmaHunter]

For if all our thoughts and reasoning were merely the product of brain physiology, than there is no reason to trust that one thing is more reasonable than any other

Why?

We would consider it so, merely because my brain chemistry happened at that moment in time to be a specific way.

The neural network in your brain has evolved to respond to external input. It is accurate enough. But not that accurate.
Take "optical illusions" for example. Another word, which would actually describe that phenomena more accurately, would be "brain failures".

If it were different, than something entirely different may have been reasonable.

Off course. Other input results in other conclusions.
But you seem to be implying that brain chemistry is something completely random... that is simply ridiculous. It is most certainly not random.

If your eyes get input of a rock flying your way, your brain will inform you to duck.
There's nothing unreasonable about that. Nore is there anything magical going on.

To believe I can make deductions and logical conclusions, that are truly thus, is to believe that something more than mere physiology is at play.

You keep claiming this, but you're not giving a single reason for why that is a valid statement.

Does this mean the soul is this something? Maybe, it certainly is the best candidate for it.

How can an undemonstrable, unsupported entity be a "best" candidate for anything?

Human Reason simply cannot come from unreason, solely from naturalistic processes, without losing all its credentials to be called Reason.

Why not?
What about cat reason? Or dog reason?

Why does a cat run, when it observes a sudden movement?

Because I believe that I can make logical conclusions, that B follows from A necessarily and not because my brain happened to be wired in a certain way,

But your brain IS wired in a certain way. Which makes it very prone to certain cognitive errors. This is all well known. It is very easy to fool a brain, if you know how it is wired.

I am forced to conclude the existence of a supernatural component to the Self

Yes indeed, you are forced to conclude such. But not because of the evidence. Rather, because of a priori religious beliefs.

A world where there is no soul, but only a physical brain, is not a world that is compatible with your religious belief.

I may be wrong, but if I am then it wouldn't matter, as no argument anyone ever made would mean anything anyway

That is again a restating of this claim you keep repeating, yet haven't shown to be valid in any way.

For human action and free will would anyway be meaningless, just a relentless march of chemical processes outside our control, as our 'decisions' would merely follow the way the brain physiology happened to line up.

Again, you are implying that brain activity must be completely random and nonsensical, UNLESS a brain is ruled by a "soul" (for which you have no evidence that it even is a sensible concept).

Talk about a false dichotomy............

 

[DogmaHunter]

Since you're an atheist, you don't grasp the concept of anything besides the natural world.

Or....
Since you're a theist, you don't grasp the concept of a natural world without a supernatural component

Just because the evidence shows there isn't a soul, doesn't mean squat.

Actually, if no evidence for a soul exists, it means that it isn't reasonable to believe that such a thing exists.

There's many things we don't know even though we have evidence to show we know.

Huh?

This is arrogance to think we know 100% of something when all we have is evidence of the known, there is still the unknown.

The unknown is........unknown.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Since you're an atheist, you don't grasp the concept of anything besides the natural world.

I grasp the concept just fine. I don't believe in the reality of anything beyond the natural world.

Just because the evidence shows there isn't a soul, doesn't mean squat.

It might not prove anything for all time, but it certainly means something. It means that there is currently no good reason to count the soul as a rational possibility.

It's like speculating that gravity is caused by tiny invisible elves. Sure, one can form the thought, but without evidence why should one take the "possibility" seriously at all?

There's many things we don't know even though we have evidence to show we know. This is arrogance to think we know 100% of something when all we have is evidence of the known, there is still the unknown.

Arrogance is on the side of believing that something exists when there is no evidence in favor, or evidence against.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Papias]

But we're not talking about fantasy. We're talking about something tangible. Yes we can't touch the soul, but we can feel the soul.. the Spirit.

You can feel feelings, you don't know if they are due to a soul, a masanasa, the work of 4 friddletotes, or brain activity. As pointed out before, the Egyptians believed in 9 parts to us. I see no way to test between all those different possibilities. If you do, just say it.

Perhaps Bart Simpson can help us out. He and Millhouse (who points out that souls can swim and have wheels) discuss the evidence for the soul starting at 1:50, here:

The biggest screw thats loose from this outlook is that this universe is billions of years old, when God could have easily made it in 6 days... then rested on the 7th.

We have more and better evidence that the earth is billions of years old than do for the idea that the US Civil War happened. The age of the earth has been proven. Yes, God could have done it in 6 days, but it doesn't look that way - unless you think He made all the evidence to look otherwise. Similarly, God could have made you last thursday, with all the memories of having a life before that. Why do you think he didn't do so?

I agree that this is not always the case, but its still true.

The point is that your attempt to say that because we can't know everything with 100% certainty, so then we can't know anything at all, is a common and well debunked fallacy.

So, yes, I still maintain that evolutionary factors could drive our brains in the direction of being "machines" whose generated "thoughts" cohere very well with "what is really the case".

Yes. In fact, the way our brains work is very much what one would expect if they evolved in response to the natural world, just like the brains of wolves, rabbits, whales, lizards and fish.

A lot of really cool scientific evidence on the evolution of our brains is available here. It's amazing how much scientists have discovered about the way evolution built our brains:

https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal...8&qid=1472576268&sr=8-1&keywords=moral+animal

In Christ-

Papias

 

[ElxDalto]

You can feel feelings, you don't know if they are due to a soul, a masanasa, the work of 4 friddletotes, or brain activity. As pointed out before, the Egyptians believed in 9 parts to us. I see no way to test between all those different possibilities. If you do, just say it.

Perhaps Bart Simpson can help us out. He and Millhouse (who points out that souls can swim and have wheels) discuss the evidence for the soul starting at 1:50, here:

Ha, I don't believe there is a test to see if we have a soul. I guess it goes along with faith. Good video, gotta watch that one.

We have more and better evidence that the earth is billions of years old than do for the idea that the US Civil War happened. The age of the earth has been proven. Yes, God could have done it in 6 days, but it doesn't look that way - unless you think He made all the evidence to look otherwise. Similarly, God could have made you last thursday, with all the memories of having a life before that. Why do you think he didn't do so?

Boy I heard Catholicism was cooky but.. Just Joking brother. The age of anything can be speculation, I for one don't trust carbon dating methods. Im just on the side that believes 6000-10'000 year old earth.

The point is that your attempt to say that because we can't know everything with 100% certainty, so then we can't know anything at all, is a common and well debunked fallacy.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that it's possible that we don't know truly.

 

[ElxDalto]

I grasp the concept just fine. I don't believe in the reality of anything beyond the natural world.

In my eyes that's not grasping.

It might not prove anything for all time, but it certainly means something. It means that there is currently no good reason to count the soul as a rational possibility.

It's like speculating that gravity is caused by tiny invisible elves. Sure, one can form the thought, but without evidence why should one take the "possibility" seriously at all?

There's always a good reason to believe in a soul.

Gravity... Such a wonder in my thoughts. It's a wonderful speculation, but I still believe thats God's gift.

Arrogance is on the side of believing that something exists when there is no evidence in favor, or evidence against.

Stand for something or fall for anything, I guess.

 

[ElxDalto]

Since you're a theist, you don't grasp the concept of a natural world without a supernatural component

Ya I don't, chaos theories man. Now that's scary.

Actually, if no evidence for a soul exists, it means that it isn't reasonable to believe that such a thing exists.

It's reasonable to those that seek.

Huh?

Scientific theories.

The unknown is........unknown.

KNOWN BROTHER

 

[ElxDalto]

All the data we have points to consciousness being an emergent property of the physical brain.

The body and mind aren't 2 seperate entities.

I agree, until death. My opinion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh, I don't take it personally, although Lewis is one of my favourite authors. It is a common, but erroneous, defensive tactic to attack the way an argument is presented instead of the argument itself, so your comments weren't totally unexpected.

Tell me, whenever someone discusses a line of Shakespeare and speculates what is meant, are they 'mind-reading'? If we write a commentary on Plato, is this 'mind-reading'?
In fact, what of Wittgenstein telling us that the words we use presuppose that we accept their underlying substrates? What of Derrida telling us to deconstruct other's thought processes to see the construct from which they were working?
What of Socrates and his comments on the inconsistencies in other's thought processes?
These are all the equivalent of what Lewis is doing. He is working here from within the whole structure of Western Literature and philosophy. If you disagree with this method, then I assume you ascribe more to esoteric eastern philosophic ideas of what can be known is not what can be? (ie the Tao that can be known is not the Tao and its ilk).



I hold thinking to be sufficient for Reason to occur, but I do not think that we can necessarily trust that Reason is valid or correct. Hence all my other posts to explain why I say this and the implications that this presents. Hope this helps.

I can see that we're still talking about this. I'm not focusing on the mind-reading fallacy of his argument to distract from his main point, it's entirely central to his main point. He's making assumptions about the way people think and then claiming that "you should think this way...not that way." Had he made his point without the assumptions of mind reading...I wouldn't be bringing it up.

You're the one who quoted him, I'm sure that you can go back and see all the points in which he's basically mind reading...as well as time-traveling and mind reading...the thoughts of people whom he doesn't understand the thought processes of. It's extremely apparent in his discussion of people who lived in Jesus's time, he's assuming their entire thought process without even an inkling to justify his assumptions.

Had he simply said, "you shouldn't just rule out the supernatural because it defies the laws of the natural world" we would have something to discuss...but instead he chose to dress it up in a myriad of fallacies so that he can give his audience a verbal pat on the head as if they've done well for not being skeptical.

As for thinking and reason...by what process did you arrive at the position that Reason itself isn't valid or correct?

 

[ElxDalto]

Well let's hear it...what's the difference? Neither has any evidence...

There's a reason for souls existence.

Not sure what you mean by this.

Just saying that we can understand so much about our natural world, we forget how little we actually know.

So much for being open-minded....

Open-minded... With Christ on my side.

How so?

Emotions can easily set you off. You can make ill decisions through them. You can also overcome petty emotions, instead of falling into sinful actions. Your emotions help mold you and define you. Your emotions play a big part in what you do and think. Very helpful when Jesus is in your life everyday too.

It's a variety of techniques...one is called a "cold read". Look it up.

There's no evidence for it.

Well, nobody can make you have faith... free will and all.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There's a reason for souls existence.

Having a personal reason for something to exist doesn't make it exist. It has no effect on its existence at all.

Just saying that we can understand so much about our natural world, we forget how little we actually know.

I think it's more important to realize that all we actually know about the natural world came of natural means...no magic, spirits, souls, ghosts, elves, gods, or any of that were involved.

Open-minded... With Christ on my side.

If you don't have any evidence of being correct, and you cannot admit the possibility of being wrong, you're pretty much a walking talking example of close-minded.

Emotions can easily set you off. You can make ill decisions through them. You can also overcome petty emotions, instead of falling into sinful actions. Your emotions help mold you and define you. Your emotions play a big part in what you do and think. Very helpful when Jesus is in your life everyday too.

We aren't discussing what emotions can do...or what effect they have...we're talking about what they can be evidence for. Do you have anything? Or do we agree they aren't evidence?

Well, nobody can make you have faith... free will and all.

Glad for that.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Why?



The neural network in your brain has evolved to respond to external input. It is accurate enough. But not that accurate.
Take "optical illusions" for example. Another word, which would actually describe that phenomena more accurately, would be "brain failures".

Please read my posts, already discussed.

Off course. Other input results in other conclusions.
But you seem to be implying that brain chemistry is something completely random... that is simply ridiculous. It is most certainly not random.

If your eyes get input of a rock flying your way, your brain will inform you to duck.
There's nothing unreasonable about that. Nore is there anything magical going on.


But your brain IS wired in a certain way. Which makes it very prone to certain cognitive errors. This is all well known. It is very easy to fool a brain, if you know how it is wired


Again, you are implying that brain activity must be completely random and nonsensical, UNLESS a brain is ruled by a "soul" (for which you have no evidence that it even is a sensible concept).

Talk about a false dichotomy............

Never said it was completely random. This is your frankly ludicrous inference as I repeatedly was talking of reasoning, which by nature can't be random. I can only take it that you are attempting your habitual obfuscation.

You keep claiming this, but you're not giving a single reason for why that is a valid statement.

That is again a restating of this claim you keep repeating, yet haven't shown to be valid in any way.

Please read my posts. I have given multiple reasons. I see no reason to repeat myself because of feigned ignorance.

Why not?
What about cat reason? Or dog reason?

Why does a cat run, when it observes a sudden movement?

There is a difference between Reason, Inference, Deduction, Inductive reasoning etc. but as you are obviously not even seriously considering anything, I am not going to waste my effort explaining this.

Yes indeed, you are forced to conclude such. But not because of the evidence. Rather, because of a priori religious beliefs.

A world where there is no soul, but only a physical brain, is not a world that is compatible with your religious belief.

Now please stop using terms you have no idea what they mean. You continually embarrass yourself. You did it before with Occam's razor and now you are repeating it with a priori.

A priori does not mean a preconceived notion or idea held prior to an argument.
A priori beliefs are beliefs held on account of reasoning and independant of experience. So mathematics is an a priori belief system, tautologies like all unemployed persons have no job, ontological proofs or deductions from reason are all a priori.
The idea that there is no soul for instance, is an a priori belief derived from the assumption of Naturalistic Materialism as it cannot be proven that no soul exists definitively.

So please in future stick to concepts which you know the meaning of or if you think you want to use a term, please look it up.