> "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.

In other words, pointing out 'absence of evidence' is not asserting 'evidence of absence'. See: Russell's Teapot and Sagan's Dragon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)