Again, you posit a soul exists, because of it's non-existent properties.
Think of yourself in a courtroom:
You - "I have this list of properties that a soul has and wou-"
Judge - "Ok. Before I allow these properties to be given, what evidence do you have for this 'soul'?"
You - "You honor, I'd like to enter no evidence for a soul, to establish that there is a soul."
Judge - "I'm afraid I cannot all-"
You - "Sir, there are many people who agree with me."
Judge - "Well, that's fine and dandy, but you have shown no ev-"
You - "Well, that's the problem with our current technology. We just don't know how to (and can't) detect it."
Judge - "Seeing how you have not est-"
You - "If I can be frank, your honor... I was hoping it wouldn't come down to this, but... I know there's a soul; I read it in a book, someone/thing told me and, most importantly, I feel it. And, if need be, I can repeat myself for as long as needed. I rest my case."
This seems quite reasonable to you?