Kaziglu... I say you make a bold assumption because there is no discernible evidence for either side,
OK suppose I accept this statement (I don't, but I'm being nice). Suppose you have two possible explanations for a phenomena, but neither one is supported yet by any evidence. One theory suggests that the phenomena can be explained using our knowledge of the natural world. The second theory suggests that this phenomena has an explanation outside of the natural order. Again, Occam's Razor suggests that we go with the explanation that makes the least assumptions. If your position is just that "Well there is no evidence for either of them, so I will go with the one that defies the natural order" is intellectually and scientifically bankrupt. But the real problem is that all of the evidence that we do have regarding human consciousness indicates that if we are not alive, we don't have consciousness.
and instead of magic I would prompt that a metaphysical would only ever assert that there is something you don't understand, not magic...
And everything that we DO understand is because of science. Metaphysics is great for though exercise, but what you really seem to be implying by "metaphysical" is a spiritual, non corporeal consciousness that survives death, for which there simply is no evidence. Therefore your position is faith based since it assumes a non-natural explanation for a phenomena that already has a natural explanation.
Remember a couple hundred years ago a walkie talkie would have been "magic".
And a couple hundred years ago most people believed that they possessed an immortal soul. A couple hundred years later, there is still NO evidence of this! Religion has had an AWFULLY long time to support even one if its claims, or to provide a meaningful and useful explanation for something, anything. It has never done this even once. Never has religion been able to provide a better explanation supported by evidence than science. Modern science, which really has only been around since Newton, so again a few hundred years, has done more in any given year to further our understanding of the universe than religion has done in millenia. Note that even someone as ridiculously mentally gifted as Newton still had his share of woo. Newton believed in alchemy, but do we remember him for his ability to turn lead into gold? No, because it didn't work, because it wasn't science based, it was wishful thinking based. Just like religion.
Lack of understanding does not equate to not real...
But what you are offering me here is that when given a situation where we don't fully understand a phenomena is that a lack of understanding implies that it is real. And in spite of your confidence in this subject, you haven't provided any evidence to support it. Additionally, I realize that lack of understanding does not equate to not real. Do I "understand" quantum physics? Hell no. It's heavy stuff. But the thing is, the evidence to support quantum physics is out there and being discovered, such as the recent discovery of the Higgs boson. Now I personally am not gifted in the area of physics, but people who are work on this stuff, and the evidence is available to anyone who cares to look, and is subject to the scrutiny and criticism of the rest of the scientific community. The nice thing about science is that no one person has to be an expert on everything. Now there are those who would say that this position is "faith based" because I am trusting scientists to do their job right, and trusting that their explanations are in fact real. Here's the problem. If scientists are in fact doing their job properly, there will be evidence to support their claims. That evidence is again subjected to scrutiny and criticism, and others try to determine if the same evidence can be found. No one was persuaded that evolution is true simply because a dude with an awesome beard said so. People were persuaded by Darwin's theory because the evidence is there. Being persuaded of the truth of something BECAUSE of the evidence is the EXACT OPPOSITE of faith. Furthermore, if evidence comes along that does NOT support the theory, and the evidence is not accidental, i.e. due to a flaw in experimental procedure, data collection, etc. then the theory is rejected. Only if a scientist asserted a theory that contradicted the available evidence would their position be at all faith based, unless new evidence demonstrated that the theory is in fact true. If a scientist asserted that the reason we don't fall off of the earth is because there are invisible fairies that hold us down, that would be a faith based and NOT a science based, position. See the difference yet???
So I guess my question to use is what verifiable evidence to you have to assert that I should accept a lack of existence in souls.
Do you understand how this works? The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. It's not up to me to "prove" to the BFRO that there is no such thing as Bigfoot. It's up to THEM to provide the evidence that Bigfoot is real, because they assert that he is. Something that is not real, by definition, cannot leave evidence of its nonexistence. Yet you are trying to tell me that the very reason that your position is so convincing is because there is no evidence. WTF man? If that's the game you want to play, then fine. Prove to me that Santa is not real. You can't. The best that can be asserted is that there is yet no evidence to support this claim, and therefore no reason to accept its validity. Which is what I am saying about immortal "souls". I don't think that there is such a thing, because there is no evidence that there is such a thing.
On your last point, The bullet through your head point is based on the assumption that the soul has a physical presence or is dependent on the consciousness... Would you agree???
I would of course agree that the soul is dependent on consciousness. That has been my position all along. In fact I go a little further than that and say that there is no reason to believe that what is commonly considered a "soul" is anything but the manifestation of our consciousness. There is nothing to suggest otherwise. A lot of people desperately WANT to have a soul that survives death, but it's rather obvious wishful thinking.
And did you forget that you posted this?
first off i recognize that a soul may be an illusion created by the split uf consiousness and other brain functions...
In other words you admit that an entirely natural explanation of "soul" is possible and that it is a result of brain function. This is my position, and you admit it to be a plausible one right here, yet insist that I reject this plausible, natural explanation in favor of an implausible, supernatural one. No thanks. To do so is just silly.
You also said
if a soul does exist it implies a metaphysical presence and is probably created at the moment consiousness is reached
So I ask if what you describe as a soul does not exists until consciousness does, then what reason is there to believe that it would continue on after our consciousness has been terminated? I don't know of any, and you haven't presented any reasons to believe this, other than the fact that this can be conceived of an an explanation. I could easily say that the reason people no longer "appear" to have a soul after death is because their soul has been snatched up by the Valkyries and is currently feasting in Valhalla. From your point of view, this should be considered JUST AS VALID of an argument as any other.
EDIT: Edited for minor spelling/grammar/sentence structure issues. Not enough coffee yet.