Interesting piece of sophistry Tacky,but I think you are using argument from from ignorance, trying to convert an implication (suggestion) into an inference.(conclusion)
As far as I''m aware ,theists have yet to meet the burden of proof for the soul. Ie that anything survives brain death. Don't care who said what about the matter; there is currently no evidence to support such a claim.
That the entirety of the function of the brain may not yet be known may be used to imply all kinds of things.However, it may not be used to infer anything.
You mentioned Plato; the platonic method demands evidence in support of claims. It has been the so-called neo platonists (such as Augustine) who have argued truth can be established by reason alone.
The notion of the soul and an afterlife, like a belief in god(s) remains a religious belief based on faith,not evidence.
As far as I''m aware ,theists have yet to meet the burden of proof for the soul. Ie that anything survives brain death. Don't care who said what about the matter; there is currently no evidence to support such a claim.
That the entirety of the function of the brain may not yet be known may be used to imply all kinds of things.However, it may not be used to infer anything.
You mentioned Plato; the platonic method demands evidence in support of claims. It has been the so-called neo platonists (such as Augustine) who have argued truth can be established by reason alone.
The notion of the soul and an afterlife, like a belief in god(s) remains a religious belief based on faith,not evidence.