I have this form a debate and wanted to see if there is a fallacy:

Are you able to think about what you are thinking about?
There is a body, there is a brain, if there is a brain there is a mind

The mind exists in the abstract, can the mind be seen or empirically proven in any way? Yet it sums up most of our being.

Every thought and so every related action and deed originates in the abstract.
The abstract has intense impact on the physical but it is not the physical.
The prime mover of each human action is in the abstract.

Most of our 'us-ness' is totally abstract, our uniqueness, our essence. We cannot prove it yet we cannot argue it does not exist.

It is intellectually self refuting to argue from an abstract perspective that one cannot see empirical evidence for God, all the while we cannot see empirical evidence of his mind !!!!

Yet the atheist will stand firm on this, and demand that the only proof to budge him would be the miraculous in the form of a personal manifestation!!!

Let me dissect...

Are you able to think about what you are thinking about?

Yes, this is referred to as metacognition in psychology.

There is a body, there is a brain, if there is a brain there is a mind

In healthy people, sure.

The mind exists in the abstract, can the mind be seen or empirically proven in any way? Yet it sums up most of our being.

Empirical evidence consists of verifiable observation and experience. I guess it depends on what one is trying to "prove."

Every thought and so every related action and deed originates in the abstract.

This is not a given. It is possible that our physical bodies cause the thoughts, and the mind is the response to the physical world. Regardless, either theory cannot be proven or assumed.

The abstract has intense impact on the physical but it is not the physical.

ok

The prime mover of each human action is in the abstract.

Again, this is an unwarranted claim, not a fact. If we put our hand on a hot stove and pull our hand away, no "abstract" needed. The physical environment combined with biological/physiological functions was the "prime mover".

Most of our 'us-ness' is totally abstract, our uniqueness, our essence. We cannot prove it yet we cannot argue it does not exist.

Again, prove what, exactly? Through language and action, we can demonstrate our "us-ness" very clearly.

It is intellectually self refuting to argue from an abstract perspective that one cannot see empirical evidence for God, all the while we cannot see empirical evidence of his mind !!!!

This is not what self-refuting means. Anyway, can we not say the same thing about the mind of an invisible pink unicorn? Is the assumption here that because we cannot show empirical evidence for something, then it must or even just probably exists? Who comes up with this stuff?

Yet the atheist will stand firm on this, and demand that the only proof to budge him would be the miraculous in the form of a personal manifestation!!!

According to the Bible, God demonstrated his existence to many people, so if there is a God, he can and would do it. Millions of people today claim that Jesus appears to them, so again, is this unreasonable? As for me, I don't require any personal manifestation... just more evidence for the existence of a god than against.

First the argument is poorly worded and rambles. Bo broke it down, but I cut through the Gordian knot simply. The argument is fraught with Begging the Question assuming God exists if the mind exists. Also Arguing from ignorance using the possible unknowns of the relationship between the brain and the mind, as an argument that the source must be God.

The facts are simpler than the argument portrays. The brain and mind do simply exist and all the known evidence indicates the mind and consciousness cannot exist without the brain. The properties of the mind and consciousness exist throughout the animal kingdom related to the brain and the evolution of the brain. As the brain becomes more complex the mind and consciousness becomes more complex.

The biggest problem with these arguments is we have no world with God to compare with a world without God to make any argument for everthing from complexity of life, the nature of the mind and consciousness, and objective morality to make an effective argument that a God is necessary for the nature of existence as it exists.

The mind exists in the abstract, can the mind be seen or empirically proven in any way? Yet it sums up most of our being.

yes, it is possible to empirically prove and pinpoint all components of the "mind" with the level precision, you just have to look at the patients with Frontal lobe injury.

Again, yes we can. Frontal lobe links and integrates all components of behavior at the highest level.
Emotion and social adjustment and impulse control are also localized here.
Injury to parts of the frontal lobe may cause an inability to move part of the body or the whole side of the body.
Speech may become halting, disorganized or be stopped except for single explosive words.
Personality may change.
Social rules of behavior may be disregarded.
The executive functions, planning, abstract reasoning, impulse control, sustained attention and insight are all located here.
The frontal lobe is highly susceptible to injury.