That there is reason to believe that experience after death is possible.

I’d like to start out with Con’s strongest point which is, in fact, purporting a two-fold refutation.Con writes:“ I would refer you to a book and lecture by Prof. Lawrence Krauss "Something from nothing" Which explains in perfect scientific reason why we have a universe from nothing or at least how it's possible. In a nut shell, nothing, has mass. There is a lot going on in nothing, on the quantum level anyway. If you have about an hour I would recommend this lecture.”The purported refutation applies, by my count, to both, my argument that the metaphysical question posed earlier doesn’t have an answer and equally (and by dint of the former) that there is reason to believe that there is experience after death. That said, I’d like to take a quote, directly (at about the forty minute mark of the video), from the lecture Con has posted wherein Krauss says:“ This answers this crazy question religious people keep throwing out... why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is there had to be, If you have nothing in quantum mechanics you’ll always get something.” (Krauss, 2008) underlining is my own.From here, I’d like to point out why none of this constitutes as a legitimate refutation of any claims made in my argument."Religious People" I believe the most obvious and cogent disqualification is the religious frame Krauss throws on the statement. The very terms of the argument explicitely preclude religious characteristics. Furthermore, rather than deeming the question itself crazy, it seems more likely Krauss was referring to the use religious people make of the question, videlicet, as an argument for the existence of a deity. Immediately, we should see this doesn’t apply to my case as no such argument was given. Moreover, the metaphysical question wasn’t even given as direct evidence for experience occuring after death. All that was said was that it establishes that the movement of non-existence to existence cannot be explained in terms of cause and effect because, by the underlying logic of the question itself, causality would, necessarily, come into question by the question. This is because the principle directing this movement would have to be a primary principle; establishing why things are the way they are, as the way things are are because this principle exists and, aha, if the principle exists, yet existence is being questioned, we can only conclude that it isn’t a suitable answer. Therefore, posing any principles as an aswer would be unavailing.Scientific Mendacity Once again, I’d like to reiterate my belief that Krauss was referring not to the ridiculousness of the question itself (as I don’t see anything overtly ridiculous about it), but rather, the ridiculousness of the religious arguments which are predicated from it. Nonetheless, there is still the matter of Con’s argument:“ In a nut shell, nothing, has mass. There is a lot going on in nothing, on the quantum level anyway.” I find a grave misunderstanding in this in that it completely ignores the real scope of the metaphysical question. As explained, any principles fail to serve as an answer to the question, much less the observable principles of quantum mechanics. What my opponent is doing is changing our meaning of nothing, which is completely unfair to the original question, as it isn’t at all concerned with that special type of nothing which can be given a physical description in terms of quantum behavior. Alas, this is nothing more than simple equivocation. Even more to the point, at about thirty-two minutes in, Krauss says “What’s so beautiful about a universe of total enegy zero? Well only such a universe can begin from nothing...you don’t need a deity. You have nothing, zero total energy, and quantum fluctuations can produce a universe.” We see more evidence that Krauss didn't consider the question crazy, also he implicitly states that what he means by "nothing" is a system (in this case a universe) of zero total energy. This doesn’t imply the scope of “nothing” referred to by the original question and thus obfuscates what relation his statements might have with respect to the question “why is there everything rather than nothing?”. Points on “Reason” The rest of Con’s contentions can be summarized with his statement:“It all comes down to evidence, not philosophy, not hope, and not wishful thinking. My opponent has provided a great philosophical debate, even something worth thinking about, but without evidence there can be no reason. Reason without evidence is faith. The topic was "There is reason to believe experience after death is possible." Not "I have faith that experience after death is possible."Because we wish something to be true, does not provide evidence, thus no reason to state that it is indeed factual.” With this statement, I see a host of problems, all of which disqualify its legitimacy as a refutation. First and foremost is the apparent breach of terms. I quote myself from the first round:“Reason, here, will mean any justification that meets the standards of logical validity.” Nowhere was it stated that "reason" was to mean having met any scientific standard of validity. Consequently, the resolution was never posed as a scientific statement and shouldn’t be forced to satisfy the conditions establishing scientific validity. Moreover, when my opponent agreed to these definitions in the first round he meant that he agreed to abide by these meanings in the proceeding argument and disregarding this agreement doesn’t save him from going on to refute himself by establishing new meanings to these terms which were not originally accepted by the resolution. At the same time, science shouldn’t be considered the only legitimate avenue to truth. To imply that philosophy is on the level of "wishful thinking" is, altogether, disagreeable. Futhermore, I did actually offer evidence to legitimize my resolution. Not only was it logically valid but I even went further and explained why this was the only reliable domain from which evidence should be taken. At the same time I think it’s interesting to note that, should any of our readers be curious enough to watch the video, I’d like them to take notice at about thirty-three minutes in. At that point, Krauss jokes about how he knew the universe was flat but the data didn’t fit his predictions (which actually seem to come from rather arbitrary reasons like ‘its the only mathematically beautiful universe’). Krauss says: “ People like me were pretty sure the universe was flat, but the damn observers came up with the wrong number.” This seems to imply that the entire case from Krauss hasn’t yet met the level of scientific validity that Con expects my own argument to meet. Thus, per his own standards of validity, his foregoing point about the inherent ‘quantum abilities’ of nothing to produce a universe is self-refuting. Thus I entreat that Con’s refutations be rejected as both fallacious (a la equivocation) and self-refuting. At this point I’d like to sum up my previous argument which should be regarded as unrefuted and tenable. The summary is as follows.SummaryA: Our metaphysical question has no answer and, ipso facto, is not strictly a question.A1: No answer implies asymptotic causality with respect to non-existence and existence.A2: No definite answer implies any answer will be given in terms of possibility.B: “Given the terms of my present, conscious, experiencing state, there is reason to believe that future states of consciousness and experience are possible so long as they proceed from the same terms.”B1: Terms with respect to experience: 1) There was an interval in which I did not exist. 2)The interval of nonexistence was followed by an interval of existence.B2: Death satisfies our first term. Therefore, should consciousness and experience proceed from death, it will proceed from the same terms.Resolution: There is reason to believe experience after death is possible.