It's called resuscitation, but of course, when it fails, it's too late. :) And when it works, it's not because of a soul that came back, but because the person (body) wasn't really dead, or irreversibly unconscious. You may call consciousness "soul" by metaphor, but there's no actual evidence for the existence of spirits outside of brains. Even some theologians interpret the Biblical concept of "soul" to simply mean "being".
But this recalls to the fact that the human ability to imagine, and the fear of death, are a main cause of religiosity. There are stories of miracles in tradition, but no evidence of miracles in reality. Using an old story as an argument, assuming that it must really have happened, is fallacious. So is claiming that the old story must be true because another verse in another book also accumulated in the canon says that all scripture is inspired. You're arguing against the ability of current science to resurect, but it actually saves many lives in situations where it was not previously possible and to someone from the middle ages or earlier, this could appear like a miracle. At the same time, you cannot provide evidence of miraculous resuscitation using better means. Which is hypocritical.
If there wasn't a soul, then why can't they bring back that force of life?
This really means: I assert that a soul independent from the body exists and from that flawed premise, therefore assume that the only possible reason of death would be the soul leaving it. Without being able to show evidence of souls, anywhere, or at their claimed destination. On the other hand, the physical process of death and decomposition can be observed. We can even reliably infer that if permitted to, other life may feed on it. But we can only imagine souls and recite traditions about them.
