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

Deconstruction of the Con Case.Near death experiences.There are several competing theories for why near death experiences exist and why we seem to think they point to the existence of an afterlife. I was actually silently hoping Con wouldn't bring this up specifically because there is no consensus. However, there are still two problems with this point, that of actual explanation and the fact that the scientific explanation for NDE's is stronger than an afterlife.1. The first problem has to do with the fact that there's no reason to prefer the afterlife explanation to more scientific theories such as the lack of oxygen thesis. In fact, the seeming universality of NDE's is evidence for both theories. "These similarities however, can also be interpreted as evidence in support of the involvement of human physiology, neurochemistry, and psychology. The visual cortex, temporal lobes, and limbic system are structurally and functionally common to everyone. Consequently neurological activity associated with stress or oxygen deprivation may be similar across many different individuals."[1] So my question for my opponent is, why prefer the afterlife explanation when the evidence he precedes such an explanation on similarly point to different explanations.DMT.Con is mistaking the effects of false perception with some sort of actual metaphysical reality. Just because people, when under the effects of DMT, cease to perceive time doesn't mean any part of them actually lives eternally. This is akin to saying that just because someone under the influence of LSD thinks they can smell colors, that colors *actually* have some odor quality which we could just never measure.Consciousness.Con is correct that some explanation of consciousness is in order. However, he is mistaken as to the degree required. It would be fallacious to assume that I needed a fully complete explanation for how consciousness works. However, given the evidence available, one would be lead to believe that no such consciousness exists besides that which exists when we are physically alive. This is supported by two lines of evidence: the fact that physical effects seem to effects every other aspect of consciousness. When we lose conscious for various reasons it's owing to purely physical stimuli, when we're under the influence of drugs many aspects of our consciousness shift, etc. All available evidence points to a physical basis for consciousness tied to the body.Defense of the Pro case.Skepticism.1. I never claimed that we couldn't conceive of the existence of an afterlife. The mere fact that we're debating this right now proves otherwise. However, in order to justify the existence of something, we need recourse to experience. And since nothing in experience lends itself towards the existence of an afterlife, one ought to side on the negation of the resolution. 2. My opponent is correct that this is purely a negative argument. We can't know 100% which side the truth falls on. However, Con is operating under a faulty conception of justification. Just because we are ultimately agnostic as to the existence of an afterlife doesn't mean we can't weigh the evidence for and against. The evidence against an afterlife as I have shown is from the fact that all or most of the claims made by the existence of an afterlife i.e., dualism of the body and mind, relevant experience to draw one's conclusions off of, etc. point in the opposite direction. To take a trivial example, imagine I came up to you and claimed to be the President of the United States. When pressed for evidence I make a variety of claims, each of which eventually turns out to be shown false. Now just because we haven't verified that I'm not the POTUS doesn't mean the claim hasn't been falsified i.e, certain things would be a certain way if you were President (or more specifically if an afterlife existed). These things are not that way, therefore there's reason supporting the negation as opposed to the affirmation of such a claim.Dualism.See my point regarding DMT for refutation.Interaction.Con is still burdened with providing some sort of explanatory answer to interaction between the body and soul. As evidence suggests, our memories most likely reside in our physical consciousness (see above for my explanation for physicality as the most supported option). Therefore, if one is to say that one's "soul" carries on anything related to one's "self" in the afterlife, one is burdened to explain how those memories would actually transfer into one's soul. Memories aren't the only problem though as this would include things like aspirations, preferences, values, etc. Con ha failed to successfully bypass this problem, therefore the refutation stands.Note: I only had 7 minutes to finish this debate. Close call, I thought for sure I missed the deadline.===Sources===[1] http://psychology.jrank.org...