Okay, you asked for proof of an afterlife and I decided in this post to give it to you. This is a complicated argument and I'm not sure if I'll be able to explain it right or make it make sense to you, but I will try.
I know a man who lost three of his fingers. I'm sure you'd agree that even though he lost three of his fingers he's still a fully capable human being who's equal to the rest of us. Just because someone loses a limb or a body part, doesn't mean they become inferior to the rest of us or even that they can do less things than the rest of us can. They remain the same person they've always been, just with three less fingers. The core, the essence of who they are, doesn't change.
You run under the assumption that we are just physical people. We have no souls, we just have this body. This body is who we are and there's nothing else to us. That's why there's no afterlife because when our bodies die, WE die.
If that's true, then why doesn't losing a finger make someone less of a person? If all we are is our physical body, then didn't they lose a part of themselves by losing a body part? Shouldn't we call crippled and mutilated people inferior because they are less of a human being because their body (which you claim is all their is to a person) doesn't match up to the rest of us? Our bodies our all who make us who we are, according to your logic, so he just lost a part of himself that makes him who he is.
My friend who lost the fingers is named Mike. Let's say (this is gory, but listen) that he was sitting in front of you and in a different area in front of you his severed fingers were also there. Is Mike the guy with the missing fingers or is he the severed fingers themselves? I mean, if we are our physical form, then the severed fingers ARE him. Should Mike keep his severed fingers around him all the time because he IS them or is he fine surviving without them because his essence, who he truly is, isn't his fingers, it's something else? Do you understand what I am saying? Some people may lose body parts, but they still remain the same person, even though they lost a part of their physical selves and you claim the physical world is all there is.
Mike doesn't stop being Mike just because he lost his fingers. He's still the same person, even without them. We're not going to re-name him or give him a birth certificate because he's this new being because his physical form changed.
So what makes Mike, Mike, if it isn't his fingers that make him who he is? I mean, he's still Mike even without the fingers. Where is the essence of Mike if it's not in his pinky? It's somewhere physical on the body, who all of us are, since there is no soul by your definition.
You might say it's his brain. A lot of scientists would agree. That's where someone's personality is stored and that's where people's emotions are stored. It's been proven that people's personality traits can be changed if you destroy parts of their brain.
In that case, what would you call people who went through this surgery?
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/880478.stmThis guy lost HALF HIS BRAIN. He got it operated on and removed. He's still alive and he functions normally everyday. There's more than one of him out there, too (who got half their brain removed.) It's rare, but people do get this surgery and can still live meaningful lives afterwards.
Should I call this guy half a human being? I mean, he only has HALF a brain and that's the essence of who we are, right, our brain? Did half of his being, his essence die when he lost half his brain, or is he still all there, a full, meaningful person.
There's also people who are born with brain disorders, like mental retardation. Are those people less of human beings because their physical body (their brain) was born different than the rest of us? Should we treat them like they are inferior because the essence of who they are (their brain according to scientists) came out wrong? Or are they still full, wonderful people who have bad genetics? It's kind of hard to say they are great people if all they are is their brain, which is damaged.
I know a woman who died and before she died, she had alzheimer's. She was still the same person to me, still happy, still wonderful, her brain was just confused and she couldn't always remember me. Was I misguided when I thought that? Should I have not visited her in the old people's home she was in because she stopped being the person I knew she was because her brain stopped functioning the way it used to and made her personality change? Or did I still love her and visit her because I knew even though her memories were gone that she was still the same person that she was before, just struggling with a brain disease? You have to understand, she lost her ENTIRE personality when that happened. She acted very strangely and different than how I had always known her. There was glimmers of her old behavior occasionally, but a lot of the time she did weird and irrational things. That didn't make her a different person to me though. Should I have screamed when I saw her and called her a crazy old woman stranger? We didn't rename her and give her a new birth certificate just because her brain got messed up and couldn't function and make her have the same personality as before. We called her by the same name and loved her in the same way. She was still the same person, her essence, what makes her who she is was the same, it's just her body was damaged.
We AREN'T our bodies. No matter what part of our bodies we lose, as long as we are still alive, we are still ourselves and no one can claim otherwise. I can't call that guy with half a brain only half of the person he used to be because he's still fully the person he used to be just with half a brain.
Then what makes each of us who we are? Where do we all truly exist if the real us can be there even when the body (and the brain especially) can be damaged and us still be the same person. We age and change and become new people who don't look like the old people we used to be (physically we're different) and yet we claim to be the same person still. Why?
Yes, there's an answer to that question, it's our SOUL. The soul is the essence of who you are. Everyone who believes in a soul believes it's the essence of who you are and that no matter how much damage your body takes, the soul is still there unharmed and making you, you.
If the soul can't be harmed by what happens to the body, then when your body dies, it has no effect on the soul. The soul continues to live on. And if the soul continues to live on, then there is an afterlife because our essence, who we truly are, continues to exist even after our bodies die because it can not be affected by physical damage to our bodies.
I expect at least this much proof on your point that there is no afterlife from you. And NOT just arguing with my thoughts. I want actual, literal proof from you, since you asked me to give you some reasonings as to why I believe the things I do and I did.