@fresco,
You are dehumanizing people by providing no place for subjectivity.
We already make subjective statements like "the painting is beautiful". These statements have an inherent creationist logic to them. The conclusion is arrived at by choosing, choosing between the words "beautiful" and "ugly" for instance. And the conclusion is in reference to the agency of a decision. The word beautiful refers to a love for the way the painting looks. This love is what chose the word beautiful. The existence of this love is then a matter of opinion as well, which means it is just as logically valid to say it does exist, as to say it doesn't, just as it is equally logically valid to say the painting is beautiful as it is to say the painting is ugly. One must simply choose an answer.
What you are doing is cutting out the soul from the human being. Which is to say you cut out the choosing part, the spontaneity, that part the existence of which is a matter of opinion.
What we see in the brain, objectively as fact, is that it can turn out several different ways, and then it turns out one way in stead of the other, spontaneously. We do not see any soul. But then you do something weird and say that because we do not see a soul, therefore the question cannot be asked and answered about what made the decision turn out the way it did. But of course we simply have subjectivity for that, subjectivity is perfectly valid.
And the existence of God and the soul has always been understood as a matter of faith, opinion, which is why the word faith is almost interchangeable with the word religion.