The Afterlife more than likely exists

PrologueThanks for the response. I will now refute accordingly.ConsciousnessThere argument does not pertain to the resolution. It is a red herring. Albeit, it touches upon a soul however, there is no empirical evidence to affirm that a soul exists. For this reason, there is no need for me to attack the veracity of the argument, since it is irrelevant.Near Death ExperiencesPro's argument takes assumes the following logical argument:P1: Near death experiences happenP2: People say they have "possessed consciousness"P3: They were either lying, mistaken, or telling the truthP4: After thousands of cases, the probability of one case of them telling the truth would be very highC: Therefore, it is likely at least one person was telling the truthNevertheless, there are numerous inconsistencies regarding this argument. I commend Pro to define "possessed consciousness", as this might not necessarily pertain to their "soul leaving their body". For this argument to be permissible, Pro must fulfill the burden of proof to provide sufficient evidence to support the assertion that they are actually "forwarding to the afterlife". It is applicable to attack the veracity of this argument - it is "near death experiences", they are not actually dead - they did not travel to this afterlife, then return again. It appears rather illogical that only 40% of the people make the claim... Why wouldn't it be 100%? I mean, if there is an afterlife, why would the majority not experience what the others did? Unless, Pro is postulating that this afterlife is resembles a metaphysical sanctuary like Heaven..."So it is highly probable that some were telling the truth."Even if some were telling the truth, it does not mean that their experience is them transferring into the afterlife.Pro then provides an anecdotal case of one person who apparently went to "the other side" and came back again. Despite this committing the anecdotal fallacy, his experience was debunked with: "It is not so easy, however, to dismiss neurological processes. Dr. Alexander presents himself as emerging from his coma suddenly: “My eyes opened … my brain … had just kicked back to life.” But one almost always emerges gradually from coma; there are intermediate stages of consciousness. It is in these transitional stages, where consciousness of a sort has returned, but not yet fully lucid consciousness, that NDEs [near-death experiences] tend to occur."(1)In fact, many OBEs are debunked and many NDEs are explainable by science.As far as OBEs go, studies show that multi-sensory conflict is a key mechanism underlying out-of-body experiences. (2)(3)Even if we were to accept everything that Pro has said with undoubted cogency, it still does not suffice. OBEs does not infer an afterlife. The patients do not match the defintion that you proposed... So, even if OBEs were deductively proven, it does not fulfill your burden of proof.ConclusionPro has not provided tangible, inductive evidence to defend the veracity of the resolution; OBEs do not necessarily pertain to an afterlife, since the people who experience it do not match the denotation provided for "dead". The definition of life, proves problematic... These OBEs implies a state of non-matter. And the definition provided conveys that matter can only have life. In fact, there can be no eye-witness accounts for this debate. Since, the definition of death provided infers permanent death. Ergo, life after permanent death. So, let's say Pro can link OBEs with a metaphysical sanctuary of some sort, the anecdotals are not credible, because they did not fulfill permanent cessation. Ergo, they didn't technically die. Over to you Pro.Citations(1) https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...(2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...(3) http://phys.org...