Yolo (You only live once)
I would say there is more evidence to support that people only live one life than there is to support the belief that there is an afterlife (correct me if I am wrong be there is NO evidence infact.)
So this is all we got to live and live a good life.
"There is no evidence that we only live once too."
Yes there is. Absence of evidence, is evidence of absence. Meaning with the lack of evidence there is multiple lifes for one individual, it is safe to assume there is only one until the evidence is given.
The evidence that there is only one life is also the fact that after you die nothing that makes you seems to magically leave the body and go somewhere else is also evidence you only live once.
BTW do not confuse absence of evidence--evidence of absence with an argument from ignorance.
It is valid where if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it should be discovered. In that circumstances it is valid to take absence of evidence that it's occurring as positive evidence that it's not occurring.
For example, when a forensic scientist finds no evidence that a suspect was at a crime, it can be used as positive evidence.
If there is a second life or second world, then we should have evidence that it exist by now. Just like without seeing, feeling, or touching a blackhole science should be able to prove the secondlife is occuring
"Can we see our minds?"
Yes we can actually, because the mind is the product of a brain. It is complex cognition and can be mapped i nthe brain .
We also can't see air, but we have demonstrable evidence it exist like the mind and unlike a second life.
Concluding because we can't see our minds, we don't exist, is a non sequitur. So I do not know why you even brought it up. I also don't see how any of this stuff about the mind is relevant to YOLO.
"Without our minds we our merely a carbon based entity."
Merely carbon based entity? That's like merely being a billionaire. Not much right?
I want to rebuttal this ahead of time because I saw you mention it in the comments.
It is a fallacy of composition. Your matter is what makes you (a part of a whole) but your matter is not you (the whole which includes your identity).
Your matter was also once something else. Would you claim to be a star, a rock, and a singled cell organism all at once since some of your matter was once a part of those things?
Would you also say you were just born since the matter that makes you now is different matter from when you where a baby?
The requirements of a second life
The soul is what is believed to be what makes a person, which is what the mind is. The mind which is full of a persons memories, beliefs, opinions, and other things that form a person's identity is a component of a living brain. At brain death, all functions and components halt permanently. For a soul to be any essence of a person, it has to be apart of the mind, and would be gone at death. There is nothing that forms your identity that exist outside of your biological self which could float off to some different land or new life. And since the soul has to be living in order to go into a second life, it has to be biological.
erost07 forfeited this round.
This has become a 1 round debate.