The Jehovah's Witness view on death and resurrection is false.

This has been a quick debate. Thanks to MadCornishBiker for such speedy responses. Apparently we both had some free time today.I agreed not to make any new arguments for my position in this last round, but I do want to respond to the new arguments Con made in the previous round. And if there's room, I'll summarize.First argumentCon attempts to refute my argument by claiming the laws of logic do not apply to organic life. He made no attempt to substantiate that claim, but he says it's the "only problem that I can see with Pro's argumentation." If that's my only problem, and it turns out not to be a problem at all, then Con should agree that I've won this debate.The laws of logic are universal necessary truths. They are true in all possible worlds. In fact, they are what determines what is possible and what it not possible. So the laws of logic apply just as well to organic life as they do to the rest of reality.Second argumentCon attempts to refute my argument by claiming the hypothetical scenarios would be immoral, and God is not immoral. But this is just a failure to understand a thought experiment. It's irrelevant whether God would actually create multiple copies of people or not.Moreover, the arguments did not stop merely with hypothetical scenarios. The first scenario showed that if Jehovah waits until you are dead before creating an exact duplicate, the duplicate would not for that reason actually be you. And that is what JWs think will happen--Jehovah will wait until after you are dead before creating a person from his memory.The second scenario showed that if Jehovah only creates one person at the resurrection, the person would not for that reason actually be the original person who died. And that is what JWs think will happen--Jehovah will only bring one version of you into existence at the resurrection. So Con is mistaken when he says my scenarios "bear no relation to the Jehovah's Witness view of death and resurrection."Con has objected to my argument on an irrelevant basis--that because Jehovah is moral, it would be morally impossible for him to create multiple versions of people.Third argumentEcclesiastes 9:5-6 confirms the JW view of death. Recall that the JW view on death is that we cease to exist when we die. But Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 only says that we will not be conscious. People who lose consciousness by falling asleep or falling into a coma do not cease to exist. If it's true that we are not conscious once we're dead, it doesn't follow that we cease to exist. Con is reading something into this passage that isn't there.Also, Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 says that those who die will "have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun." Doesn't that exclude a future resurrection? If not, then Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 cannot be taken at face value. If taken at face value it does exclude resurrection.One more point about Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 that will apply equally to other scriptural arguments Con makes is that if it turns out the scriptures actually teach the JW position, that would only serve to prove that the scriptures are wrong. It would not refute my arguments.Fourth argumentCon's argument here is a little confusing, and I suspect it's because he doesn't really understand my argument and what I mean by "personal identity" or "replica," etc.Con argues that although the scriptures promise that the dead will be raised, it doesn't promise that they will remain the same. I have nowhere claimed that people remain the same in the sense that they don't change their properties. Of course a piece of wax can change from being a cube to being a sphere, but it remains the same piece of wax. In the same way, a human can change their minds, change their physical appearance, etc., but they remain the same person through these changes. You don't literally become a different person just because something changes about you. Saying that a person has changed presupposes that it's the same person before and after the change. Otherwise, we wouldn't say the person changed, but that the person ceased to exist and a new person took their place.I fully grant that the Bible teaches that the person who rises is the same person as the one who died, and I fully acknowledge that JWs believe that the person who rises will be the same person as the one who died. What I am arguing is that given the JW view on death, that is impossible. Either it's false that people will be raised from the dead, or it's false that people cease to exist when they die, or they're both false. In any case, the JW view on death and resurrection is false.Con's comments about how we will change with time are irrelevant to my argument since the issue isn't about a continuously existing person undergoing changes, but about continuity of personal identity when there is a gap in their existence. Continuity of personal identity is not the same thing as continuity of traits or properties.ConclusionI think I have made a pretty solid argument against the Jehovah's Witness view on death and resurrection. I think the only difficulty with this argument is getting people to understand it. I do wish Con would think carefully about the arguments before giving his final response.Since it is impossible for a person to cease to exist, then come back into existence, then either we do continue to exist in a disembodied state between death and resurrection, or else we have no hope for a resurrection at all. Either way, nobody should give much thought to whether they should become Jehovah's Witnesses or not. If you decide they are wrong about death, then you can't convert anyway. If you decide they are right about death, then you have no hope beyond the grave, and therefore nothing to gain by converting.Thank you, reader, for your time. Please vote.And thank you once again, MadCornishBiker. Maybe we can debate something else in the future that's a little less esoteric.