There Is Probably An Afterlife

In this round I will briefly summarize my points, and my responses to my opponent's points, and reaffirm my resolution that there is probably an afterlife. In round 2 I argued that: The proposition that everyone has just one finite life is obviously highly improbable, whether there is an afterlife or not, which is why most people consider themselves lucky to be alive. And when combined with my second argument against physicalism, by inference it seems more probable that everyone has multiple lives, or an infinite afterlife. The popular physicalist notion of consciousness is unnecessary and problematic. It posits more steps than necessary to explain the source of consciousness, and relies either on weak emergence (which arguably would lead to my position) or on strong emergence, which is poorly defined and may not even be possible. So in my view the mainstream physicalist view of consciousness is less probable than idealism, or a kind of panpsychism, which would likely lead to an afterlife. In round 2 Con first used what would be his strategy for most of the debate. The thrust of his contention is that without any direct evidence, it is most probable that there is no afterlife. I responded by saying that there doesn't need to be direct evidence of something in order to assume it is probable. I provided rational arguments for the probability of the afterlife. In round 3 Con stated that scientists have discovered an "on-off" switch in the brain which turns off consciousness. I do not deny that our individual consciousness is based in the brain, of course, but that doesn't mean it is limited to the brain. There would be good reason to think so if physicalism were true, but I established it is not. The brain is a localized network of consciousness which can be damaged and altered, but at death its connections would decohere and, rather than consciousness dissipating, it would assimilate with its fundamental basis. In round 4 Con once again brought up that there is no direct evidence for the afterlife, and agreed that when we die we are absorbed into the universe, but stated that we lose our consciousness in this process. As I argued, however, there is reason to think we would not lose our consciousness, but gain even more. In conclusion, I provided three main arguments which, when tied together, in my opinion form at the very least an intriguing case that there is probably an afterlife. My opponent, in contrast, seems to have one central point: that there is no evidence. I argue that, regarding the nature of the afterlife, you would not expect there to be direct empirical evidence, since it is inherently inaccessible to us. However I think there are good reasons to accept it. Keep in mind, of course, that I think skepticism is a great and important virtue. I do not necessarily believe that there is an afterlife, which, strictly speaking, is not my resolution. I am just entertaining the idea as a possibility, and arguing that it is more probable than not when considered from a new perspective. In the end, I think I presented better reasons for my side of the debate than my opponent did for theirs. If you agree, please vote Pro. Thank you to Ozzyhead for debating me on this topic.