Came across this piece arguing for the existence of the soul:
As I said in my first post, experiences are experienced by a subject, and learning the non-physical nature of our experiences does not immediately tell us the nature of the selves which have these experiences. It is compatible with what I have argued so far that we are material objects (our brains, say, or our bodies) which also happen to possess a special set of non-physical properties. As I mentioned before, this form of mere property dualism would be enough to get the argument from consciousness for theism off the ground (for reasons we’ll see later). However, I am going to argue in the next two posts that I am in fact a non-physical soul (or, if one prefers, am composed of a non-physical soul and a physical body–though it will become clear in the next post why I don’t like this formulation). So are you, and so are the other conscious animals.Dustin Crummett, “Do Humans HaveSouls: Yes, for Two Reasons” at Capturing Christianity
Maybe wondering about whether we have a soul is a bit like wondering whether we should act more mature in difficult situations. If you are asking the question at all, you are answering it in the affirmative, by definition. If you were not capable of behaving in a more mature way, you would not be asking.
See also: What is the difference between “soul” and “spirit”?