How about: maybe some things lie outside of the purview of empiricism and materialism, the belief in which does not radically impact one's behavior so long as they have a decent moral compass otherwise, can be taken on faith, and "proving" it does exist or doesn't exist is a pointless argument, since it exists outside of that ontological system.
I say this as someone who believes in a higher being, we have played this game before, the ethereal thing can just move to someplace science can’t get to, it is not really a valid argument for existence.
The burden of proof lies on whoever wants to convince someone else of something. in this case the guy that wants to convince people it likely is not real.
> "The human brain is mutable, the human "soul" is a concept thats not proven yet and likely isn't real."
The soul is "a concept that's not proven yet." It's unproven because there's no convincing evidence for the proposition. By definition, in the absence of convincing evidence, the null hypothesis of any proposition is presumed to be more likely. The presumed likelihood of the null hypothesis is not a positive assertion which creates a burden of proof. It's the presumed default state of all possible propositions - even those yet to be imagined.
