Argument for an Immaterial Mind/Soul

I'm going to post this now and edit for mistakes later.

This is a challenge to those who believe that we are nothing but matter, chemistry in action and so on, or that a human can be completely reduced to chemical components. It is also a counterexample to those who suppose the natural sciences compose a complete epistemology, that is a theory of knowledge. Such a position leaves much out that is essential to the human experience and it is ultimately self defeating since there is no scientific experiment that can prove that all knowledge should be justified by science, hence the truth of the adequacy of a completely scientific epistemology cannot be verified within that epistemology. This is more or less the same problem that logical positivism ran into in the early 20th century. Logical positivism claimed that all knowledge must somehow be based upon observable facts. The problem is that there is no observation that can validates this requirement, thus logical positivism invalidated itself.

The form of the argument for an immaterial mind is based upon a classical argument for libertarian freedom, or freedom that is not compatible with determinism.

The argument goes something like this:

1. If I am morally responsible for an action, then that action is within my control.
2. If determinism is true, then everything I do is a result of events that took place long before I was born.
3. I am not in control of anything that happened prior to my birth.
4. If determinism is true, then I am not in control of my actions(2,3)
5. If determinism is true, then I am not morally responsible. (1,4)
6. Moral responsibility is a necessity of human nature.
7. I am human.
8. Since there are humans who are morally responsible, determinism is false. (5,6,7)

The argument against materialism and for an immaterial mind/soul follows a similar form:

1. If I am morally responsible for an action, then that action is within my control.
2. If materialism is true, then everything that I do is a result of the laws of physics.
3. I am not in control of the laws of physics.
4. If materialism is true, then I am not in control of my actions. (2,3)
5. If materialism is true, then I am not morally responsible. (1,4)
6. Moral responsibility is a necessity of human nature.
7. I am human.
8. Since there are humans who are morally responsible, materialism is false. (5,6,7)

Perhaps the most important claim here is that we are morally responsible. If one wants to suggest that we aren't, I'd like to see him argue that after getting punched in the nose for a birthday present. But if he still insisted as if it wasn't true that he shouldn't have gotten punched in the nose, then these arguments do not work. And that's okay. The arguments are intended only for those who believe in moral responsibility, that there are ways that we ought to behave.

As of the 17th or 16th posts, this thread is under scrutiny and off topic posts will be deleted. And it's no trouble to me to do some house cleaning every now and then.