I'll bow back in. I'm not in a foul mood now. Which helps.
I like the idea that "the burden of proof is on the positive," else we can easily end up discussing the details of many spurious things that may or may not exist.
This is kind of where I wanted to go in the first place.
For some things, the burden of proof is not on the positive, but rather on the thing that seems to rub common sense the rawest.
Basically, when speaking of a possible afterlife, we have two possibilities. Either there is, or is not existence.
Neither suggestion is openly preposterous.
We can easily compare this to an argument for or against the existence of god, and apply the reasoning that the burden of proof must be on his existence,
but this is only because a very good portion of us see no evidence that he does, or even can exist.
In the case an afterlife, we examine facts for evidence and find different things, namely:
(1 - Life exists elsewhere in the universe. We've found fossilized micro-organisms on space debris. (I am referring to meteorite ALH84001) We do not know the initial cause of life.
(2 - Life has persisted on earth, for a VERY long time, in a number of forms too numerous to mention.
(3 - [And I could be mistaken, but] doesn't one of the laws of physics dictate that information can never be lost? As in, grind me into meal, bake me, and blow me into dust, but it is still possible to divine that my remains were specifically human? The base components of life, being subject to these rules, would also have to persist on some level.
(4 - Taking 3 into account, there are some studies that suggest a corpse weights less at the moment of death.
For a pro #4 read:
For an anti- #4 read:"Blinded by the light" by P McCrory
http://bjsm.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/38/4/381# 3 is, of course, useless if #4 is bunk. And #4 is one of those incredibly difficult things to test. Which I loathe, but must consider if I am to view the topic objectively. (There are tests which suggest the opposite; that creatures die and then
gain weight, which has other implications altogether. Unrelated ones.
)
Now, these bullet points do nothing for the "Heaven" or "Valhalla" arguments for an afterlife. However, the first two at least suggest that life is notsome random occurrence.
If life does not occur at complete random, it becomes feasible that life is somehow, however distantly, a recycled substance. Whether our consciousness ever enters this picture is complete conjecture. I am speaking only of the unique thing we call life.
Without recycled life, one must account for a near infinite supply (existing in an absolutely infinite universe. If your universe is parabolic, round, or donut shaped then the numbers are somewhat lower, but still absurdly plentiful.)