Reincarnation should be considered more likely than not on a rational basis

Thanks to my opponent. In this round I will present my case and refute my opponents in the next. What does it mean to decide something rationally?To determine what is or is not more likely to be true on a rational basis, we need to have some kind of system for deciding what is consisent with reason and, hence, rational. We need some kind of weighing mechanism through which to evaluate the resolution. The real questions at hand is how much evidence consistent with reason do we need to determine what is more likely than not to be true, and do we have enough evidence to meet this burden? I submit that the answer is unequivocally no on both counts.I. The case for skepticismTo evaluate things on a rational basis and to determine what is more likely than not necessitates that we evaluate the evidence. The problem with my opponents position, then, is that other than scattered stories from a few children (which I will address later) there simply isn't any evidence for any form of afterlife, or reincarnation. We can each look at what little evidence there is and come to a decision on what we think lies beyond death, and that's fine, but the only rational position to hold is a healthy degree of skepticism regarding the afterlife. No one has verifiably died and returned to life to tell of what secrets the realm beyond the grave holds, so the handful of phenomena we do have are not enough to make any kind of judgement. We each have our subjective judgements of the world, religion, politics, ect. and again while there's nothing wrong with that, the problem this presents to my opponent and to anyone claiming that something regarding the afterlife is more likely than not is that everybody has their own standard for what would convince them something is "more likely than not". Someone who already believes in reincarnation for example would find any argument in favor of it more compelling than someone who is a fiendish critic of the idea of anything after death, so in order to affirm or negate the resolution we need some kind of objective (or at least, something closer to objective than just presenting phenomena and arbitrarily deciding which position they support partially based on our preconceptions) basis on which to judge which explanation best explains certain observations we make about our world. Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present the only concrete methodology we have to determine what is likely to be true and what isn't, the scientific method. And it is from this end where any supporters of any kind of afterlife see their arguments fall to pieces, because in order to determine anything scientifically we need actual evidence such as experiments and widespread observations to decide what is accurate, and when it comes to the afterlife we just do not have it. The scientific method is the best way to which hypotheses are true because of all methods for determining truth it has the greatest safeguards against bias. Either the evidence stacks up to par or it does not, and many a devoted scientist has found out their own hypothesis was wrong using this method.Indeed, anyone making claims about the afterlife beyond speculation is misunderstanding the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory and the evidence needed to support either one. William Tong explains[1]: "The scientific method attempts to explain the natural occurrences (phenomena) of the universe by using a logical, consistent, systematic method of investigation, information (data) collection, data analysis (hypothesis), testing (experiment), and refinement to arrive at a well-tested, well-documented, explanation that is well-supported by evidence, called a theory."A hypothesis is an attempt to explain a phenomena that has yet to undergo serious testing--since it is completely impossible to test any hypothesis regarding the afterlife, we're pretty much stuck with that. Now we can have competing hypotheses and can certainly decide which ones are more plausible--for example, far more plausible that we undergo reincarnation than that what actually happens after you die is that you become a star because we know what stars are-- but to claim that one is more likely than not to be true flies boldly in the face of pretty much all grounded and generally accepted method of decision making. My opponent needs to apply his arguments and examples to this standard, otherwise I could list examples of near death experiences and clinical death that support the Abrahamic version of the afterlife just as easily[2][3][4] and the debate would probably be decided by what the voters initially believed, despite neither of these perspectives mustering up to scientific determination.I'm sure my opponent will object that it's impossible and unethical to experiment on what people see in the afterlife, and I agree completely. The problem here however is that without experimentation we have no basis to determine if a hypothesis is true. Now there are some things that, given widespread and repeated observation, can probably be accepted as fact. For example, I doubt there have been any experiments to determine if it's true that someone's hand hurts when they stick it into a fire, but reincarnation fails to meet this burden for obvious reasons. From this alone the resolution is negated.What this means is not that we cannot hold positions on the afterlife, but rather that we need to accept that it's something we can never be even close to entirely sure about and hence making claims about whether any certain position is more likely than not to be true is absurd, and by far the rational position is the complete truth: we just do not know.II. There is no definite position on the mindThis point ties in nicely with my skepticism argument. Right now there is intense and lively debate both inside the scientific and philosophical communities as well as outside them on what a person actually is/what a mind actually is. To put things in perspective, scientists, philosophers, and laymen alike aren't sure if people have free will or not, if the mind exists outside of the brain or not, what consciousness actually is, among many other things. To claim that it's more likely than not that we not only have some undetectable metaphysical component containing the essence of ourselves called a soul, but that after death this component latches onto a new life form and somehow, despite not retaining our memories (What is our essence, our self, if not the sum of all our experiences?) we are reborn is absurd in light of all the uncertainty regarding the human mind. My opponent has a big mountain to climb to overcome this, there needs to be some compelling evidence offered about why we should believe in a Soul. We will look closer at his arguments in round three, but this was where I found his argument most lacking. The entire idea of our souls being reincarnated hinges on the fact that a Soul exists to begin with, which is something I find impossible to prove conclusively either way. From this it follows that you must vote Con. I greatly anticipate my opponents rebuttal, but until then I urge readers to vote Con.Sources:1. http://www.oakton.edu...2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...3. 23 Minutes in Hell, Bill Weise4. http://en.wikipedia.org...