Instigator / Con
0
1479
rating
316
debates
39.08%
won
Topic
#4999

Can anyone argue to disprove there's life afterlife?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Pro
0
1302
rating
218
debates
44.95%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

I see many of these *proving God existing* debates. Can anyone argue there is absolutely no life or nothing further after death?

If unsure, leave a comment. If you think definitely, accept the challenge.

Round 1
Con
#1
Granted that you haven't died and come back, what evidence could you possibly have to verify there is no life after life?

When a person expires or the life thereof is extinguished, the heart stops beating, no more breathing, no blood flow, no sight, no sound, no experience in that body, is there another or consecutive experience of awareness aside from the physical body?

Some may refer to this as a soul essence. Can you prove this doesn't exist?

I don't see how this can actually be proven but I am here to get comprehensive ideas , examples based on the natural world of laws that help us see a possible answer.
Pro
#2
Given that all humans are different, it is certain you wont be born again after you die.

So no, there is no life after death.

We havent seen anyone come back from the dead yet, so the evidence is our eyes.

If there was life after death, we would see that life. But we dont. 100 billion people died and we dont hear from them anymore.
Round 2
Con
#3
I understand we don't actually have proof so I don't expect you to actually present any.

But to pushback and create some critical thinking, here's my response to what you've said.

You said "Given that all humans are different, it is certain you wont be born again after you die."

What is the correlation of human polarity and death being final?


"We havent seen anyone come back from the dead yet, so the evidence is our eyes."

This is like saying because I haven't witnessed something, what I do see is evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence. Golden nugget. 

Just because I haven't seen you play sports doesn't prove you're not a sports athlete. Be careful with the word "we" because others have said they've come back from death. Not only that but have witnessed some sort of life after the death of someone in which can be referred to as an apparition, entity , ghost or spirit.

"If there was life after death, we would see that life. But we dont."

Are you speaking from your experience? Why would you see life after death granted you never died before?

"100 billion people died and we dont hear from them anymore."

What about the ones who report their own near death or death experiences?

You got to be careful not to go into the argument of silence fallacy .







Pro
#4
Well, do we hear from dead people?

No.

We only hear from those who almost died, because they didnt actually die.

Of course, you could claim that they did die and then came back to life, but lets be real here, shall we?
Round 3
Con
#5
"We only hear from those who almost died, because they didnt actually die."

No the people that speak on these experiences were reported as flatlined. Now we can argue that because the brain is still alive or is still oxygenated, they're not technically dead. But that goes into clinical technicality.

Death is a process. After a person is pulled off life support , it is declared that they're dying and death is there finale. Now does everybody wait until the last cell is produced, last molecule of oxygen is gone or any movement whatsoever?

There's what you call post mortem contractions that morticians witness. But at the time funeral homes are in handling of what is referred to as the deceased, that's exactly how the body is identified.

So we can get caught up in splitting the hairs in technicalities and the official state of death and when that particular status is reached. But then we open each individual case to assess first what makes an experience what it is. 
Bottom line to get rubber to meet road, we're talking about somebody who's heart has stopped, functions are shutting down, diminishing, stopped breathing and everything else. No consciousness, awareness of reality and non responsive.

"Of course, you could claim that they did die and then came back to life, but lets be real here, shall we?"

You don't have to because you haven't died, it hasn't been proven to you there's no life afterlife. Furthermore your lack of proof does not allow you to prove it to me. You haven't died I don't think. You haven't confirmed that with me. You haven't died to witness empirical facts of the afterlife.


Pro
#6
Do we hear from the dead? No.
Round 4
Con
#7
I say again...." you haven't died, it hasn't been proven to you there's no life afterlife."

What is your rebuttal to that?

All these other points about the dead not coming back to report anything, we're going in circles on that.

On top of that, even if a person that was declared dead come and tell you what they experienced, how do you confirm the veracity of their report?

You're arguing because no person has come back from the dead to tell you about the afterlife proves it doesn't exist. This is the biggest fallacy in the book of not one that's bigger. This is an argument of silence you're giving.

"We havent seen anyone come back from the dead yet, so the evidence is our eyes."

We or you really. Don't throw "we" in there. You can just speak for yourself and what it takes to see something for yourself.

You haven't seen anyone to hear a report so therefore that's the evidence that life afterlife doesn't exist. 

Just because I can't see something doesn't necessarily mean it's not there. I mean blind people will tell you that.

But you're right. The evidence is in your eyes what you can see for yourself. So therefore you'd have to die to see it for yourself. Only then can you verify for yourself whether there's any existence further or not.


Pro
#8
After you die, there wont be anything.

You wont even know anything.

Again, we really dont hear from the dead a lot, do we?
Round 5
Con
#9
"After you die, there wont be anything."

You have absolutely no proof of this.

"You wont even know anything."

No proof presented for this. 

"Again, we really dont hear from the dead a lot, do we?"

Just look at this question. Keyword"a lot". It's like you're conceding we do hear from the dead regardless of the number. So I thank you on that point.

So the best you had to use was an argument of silence.

Just because you never heard me audibly talk, doesn't prove I don't have the ability to talk.

Just because you haven't seen or heard from an experience of the afterlife, doesn't prove it's non existent.

I've reiterated this over and over and you just come back with the original point. You have to actually counter what I say to invalidate it. Not just repeat a refuted point over and over.

Case closed.

Pro
#10
Why would anyone wish to live again?