It is more likely than not that an afterlife does not exist

Nature of negative/positive cases.Con has failed to sufficiently show why agnosticism must be 50/50. I freely admitted in the previous round that if one if looking for ultimate justification, one won't find it concerning the existence of an afterlife. However, that doesn't mean we can't weigh the available evidence for both sides and decide which is more likely. Con is misrepresenting my claim when he says I'm only claiming that since we must be agnostic, we must negate. On the contrary, advocates of an afterlife have brought together several claims which would be true if an afterlife existed (among them dualism, near death experiences, etc.). Since these arguments have been shown to be faulty, we have reason to fall on the negative side of the matter. Now I know Con will disagree that these have been disproved here, but I ask that he admit that in principle, if these are shown to be false claims, that the negation would be more likely than the affirmation.Furthermore, while we can't ultimately refute an afterlife conceptually, we can refute it's necessary presupposition, that is dualism. As I showed in R2, the existence of an afterlife where some part of us lives after death presupposes dualism which isn't defensible by way of the experiential difficulties in refuting/defending the existence of an afterlife. Con as of yet has shown no reason why (a) dualism is true or (b) why an afterlife could exist without presupposing the truth of dualism. This is an indirect though sound route to positively refuting the existence of an afterlife.Near death experiences.--Reasons/explanations. Con here doesn't make much of a point. On the one hand, an explanation for the occurrence of a phenomenon seems to fulfill the burden of providing a "reason" for it, when that reason is causal. For instance, lack of oxygen to the brain thesis provides a scientific explanation for NDE's. Con claims that I haven't provided an explanation for what this actually is and that I've imposed too strong of a burden on him by making him look it up. I apologize since the lack of oxygen thesis is (a) seemingly intuitive and (b) is popularly known by anyone who has looked into the concept of NDE's. To those who, however, are incapable of extrapolating what it means or have never heard of it, the lack of oxygen thesis explains NDE's by recourse to just that, lack of oxygen to the brain[1]. Con has since provided no refutation or argument for the superiority of the afterlife explanation and has only relied on complaints of supposed ambiguity in my explanation.--Further explanations.Con also invokes an appeal to ignorance in claiming that not knowing the evolutionary reason for NDE's proves that they don't have a natural explanation. Furthermore, Con's makes an appeal to authority in relying only on the opinion of a Harvard neuro-surgeon. Moreover, the fact that I have provided scientific explanation disproves this.Consciousness.Con's refutation of this point is unfortunately misrepresentative of my argument. Far from providing no explanation or reasoning for the physicality of consciousness, I offered sound examples from everyday experience which tip the scales in favor of physical monism. For instance, it appears that only physical stimuli actually affect our consciousness i.e., drug use, head trauma, etc. This provides us with a presumption in favor of physical monism. Con has offered no defense against this claim. In fact, the only way for him to salvage dualism was NDE's which I refuted above.Skepticism.See the point "Nature of negative/positive cases" above for an explanation of my refutation of this point by Con. On a note, I haven't only based my arguments on the fact of epistemic agnosticism, I've also shown that certain necessary presuppositions for the existence of an afterlife are false or untenable. Therefore the claim that an afterlife exists rests on shaky/unaffirmed foundations.Dualism/Interaction.I'd like to first note that I haven't dropped anything. The refutation of the various dualism/interaction points by Con are all contained in my R3 case.1. As I argued in R3, Con is burdened to show exactly how this interaction can take place. Just claiming that it's a possibility isn't enough since it's a conceptual possibility that we're the only minds in existence. This doesn't count as a very good argument though. Con has throughout this debate completely failed to offer any hypothesis or explanation as to the transfer of consciousness from physicality to non-physicality (spirituality).2. Con also argues that my arguments for monism don't justify the whole (only parts). To this I agree with in a sense. My argument was by no means exhaustive. But looking at the respective arguments by my opponent and myself, it should be obvious I'm the only one who has provided coherent evidence of my position. Con has merely argued that it's a conceptual possibility that consciousness could move freely from physicality to non-physicality (that there's no inherent contradiction in this thought). And while technically true, all it can show is that our positions originally stand on equal footing. However, owing to my points regarding (a) the clear bond between consciousness and its physical roots and (b) the lack of explanatory analysis by Con of his position, the monist perspective has been defended on much firmer grounds than the dualist.===Sources===[1] http://www.livescience.com... "Not only are the symptoms of anoxia (oxygen deprivation) very similar to the symptoms of an NDE, but patients who had the highest concentrations of carbon dioxide in their blood reported significantly more NDEs than those with lower levels."