The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Life After Death is Probable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,111 times Debate No: 36522
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




It is the position of the pro that life after death is not only plausible but probable. The goal of the con will be to prove otherwise. There will be 5 rounds. The con will simply have to declare he accepts for the first round. He/she may provide an introduction if necessary.


life after death cannot be scientifically proved by any living creature with any kinds of methods and stuff.
Saying something about life after life is like talking about how looks like Uranus that no one ever visited.

For my first point, let me state that there is no proof that life after death actually exist. Every religions in earth describes what the hell or heaven looks like but there is no reasonable proof. If you want to register your name on the board of "South pole visitor", it is mandatory to prove your visit in there. But if you just describe or arguing there without any evidences, it is not acceptable.

Secondly, many clergies and monks have had cheated the general public to make fortune.
Look at the example of indulgence in middle age. It was very common way to habitually extort money and goods from unenlightened people at that time. Is it different now? No. They still have been raking in money by threat.
Debate Round No. 1


I'd like to thank the Con for accepting and providing a few points (even though it wasn't necessary as I had said earlier). I will start with my main points. I hope to have a healthy and fruitful discourse.

The concept of an afterlife has existed since the very founding of the first major world religions. One of the oldest being Zoroastrianism. Since Zoroastrianism's debut many major world religions have followed suit with an impressive gargantuan following. It seems that the idea of an afterlife is not only a set of beliefs but also of a distinct set of cultural values that have permeated humanities existence throughout different times and nations. Here I will point towards three primary examples of how the afterlife or life after death (LaD) is a probable concept relating towards human existence.

The Problem of Consciousness:

Even with the advent of modern medicine and psychology science is still baffled as to what consciousness exactly is. There are murky scientific explanations as to how consciousness works but it's at best purely speculation. Science does not understand how the mind works . There is no mechanism for how the brain can generate thoughts let alone how consciousness could come about. Brain cells have not been shown to give us thoughts and consciousness to any identifiable level. Since science is currently incapable of giving us a definite answer we can approach this predicament from a philosophical perspective.

There is no actual direct evidence against an afterlife - only arguments refuting the specific examples of evidence for life after death as not being sufficient proof. Although it can easily be argued that not having direct knowledge of an afterlife constitutes evidence against life after death. Life after death cannot be disproven; only the evidence in its favor can be scrutinized and rational non-believers are left to make the conclusion that life after death cannot be proven.

Furthermore why life? There is no scientific reason for the existence of life. The universe doesn't care if there is life in it - it does not benefit from it. Yet life, and especially more advanced life with consciousness like us humans, came about. A 'driving force' in the universe behind it that made it all happen would make some sense of it all. Many would call such a driving force, God.

Near Death Experiences:

Dr. Raymond Moody coined the term "near-death experience" in his 1975 book, "Life After Life." Many credit Moody's work with bringing the­e concept of the near-death experience to the public's attention, but reports of such experiences have occurred throughout history. Plato's "Republic," written in 360 B.C.E., contains the tale of a soldier named Er who had an NDE after being killed in battle. Er described his soul leaving his body, being judged along with other souls and seeing heaven.

A near-death experience is any experience in which someone close to death or suffering from some trauma or disease that might lead to death perceives events that seem to be impossible, unusual or supernatural. While there are many questions about NDEs, one thing is certain -- they do exist. Thousands of people have actually perceived similar sensations while close to death. The debate is over whether or not they actually experienced what they perceived. [1]

Limitations of Science:

Science rests on three primary philosophical assumptions.

1. Reality is testable.
2. The universe is observable.
3. Existence is empirical.

The very notion of these assumptions relies on the fact that there is an objective reality that can observed through law and factual empirical evidence. Although science is our primary tool for the understanding of life and the universe, it cannot possibly, nor should it be expected to, answer all of our questions - especially those of a non-empirical nature. Sometimes we just have to rationalize and look beyond the limited scope of science, though only when we have no other choice in the pursuit of knowledge and truth.

Science only believes what it can measure, replicate, and understand the physical mechanism of (if it cannot do all of these, it simply dismisses the data). It is only one way of seeking answers, and by no means a be all and end all. It is not all encompassing. There are many questions it cannot and will never be able to answer. For example, we do not call on it to explain art, history, morality, ethics, human nature, philosophy, etc...




THEK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Well it seems the con has forfeited.

My points move onto the next round.


THEK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Sigh I was hoping for an actual debate.

Oh well my points are still standing regardless.


THEK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Vote pro.


THEK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF