This site created by philosopher David Staume apparently accesses the arguments for an afterlife v.s the arguments against one. I found that the rating he gave many of arguments for the afterlife were low except the geometry which i never heard of until now. He rates that one as 6/10, well others as the television analogy for the mind and brain relationship as a 2/10.
Here is his site
His rating system goes as this
0- Not a reality
4- Less than an even bet
5- An even bet
6- Better than an even bet
The arguments against an afterlife he mentions that "Brain Activity parellels Mind Activity", he rates it 8/10, true that if their is no evidence for an afterlife, psi phenomena and no alternative model of the mind and brain relationship then it's easy to accept that mind is a produced of the brain.
Nonetheless i recommend his site because it gives food for thought, and of course his evaluation like everyone else's is pure subjective evaluation. So i do disagree with his current conclusion that there is far more evidence that life is extinguished at death and that it doesn't continue in another form in an afterlife. I like to point out in my view their is far more evidence that life continues on after bodily death.
He doesn't bring some arguments that i would bring on there such as the reincarntion past life evidence from Ian Stevenson, also the evidence from the pye record experiment on electronic voice phenomena, neither the powerful case of a medium breaking the Houdini Code or experiments done on instrumental transcommunication etc. But i can understand why to him he takes what he thinks as the 10 arguments that can stand on it's own two feet against the arguments against an afterlife. He mentions about how telepathic messages are a more valid explanation for apparition phenomena. I disagree, because apparitions are not simply just visions of the deceased but that these deceased people show many characteristics of actually being really there.
He also asks this question
What evidence would prove that the brain and the mind are the same?
What would prove it is too show that the function that is going on is productive not transmissive or permissive functioning. This is what has been said clearly by Sir William James 50 years ago. Also science doesn't deal with fact it deals with probability. For example their is always that small chance that the sun won't rise tommorrow morning, but their is a high probability that it will.
Vonnegut on writing
1 week ago