I'll ask you this, if a person is thrown into a volcano and their body is completely destroyed, where does there consciousness go and how does it get there? Explain theoretically how that would work.

>I think the empiricist's fallacy is to think that something cannot exist simply because there is not evidence.

'Cannot' is a strong word, and I although I agree in a very select few cases, i find it be mostly rubbish. If someone wants to prove that something exist, usually they try to gather whatever evidence they can to push it forward, they don't say 'well, technically you can't be 100% sure my Ferrari doesn't exist, it could be invisible & only seen by me & not measurable in any way, I mean there could be evidence that supports my belief that you just aren't seeing and can't be currently tested because of x/y/z"(then what currently leads you to think it's plausible?) It seems wormy and slippery. Is it a fallacy on my part to say vampires and hobbits cannot exist because there is no evidence?

I'll not trying to 'getcha' but I'm genuinely curious, do you believe in a soul, an afterlife for that soul, and God? If so, what makes you believe that?