The difficult word here is “evidence”. I suppose some might also speculate about “survive” but given that you only have 45 minutes, I would tackle “evidence”.
Consider possibly the work of Richard Swinburne who on the subject of religious experience offers a principle of credulity and a principle of sufficient testimony. Using these to principles it might be possible for a believer and an atheist to come to very different conclusions about the subject of life after death.
There are those who would say there is no evidence.
Life after death is wishful thinking or an emotivist response to death. Antony Flew and Bertrand Russell point out that the concept is illogical.
Quite a different line is taken by Richard Dawkins who approaches the matter in a more scientific way, but reaches the same conclusion.
The opposite point of view is supported mainly by religious people, but one must be careful to categorize their uderstanding carefully.
Christianity bases its belief upon Jesus and his resurrection. There is though speculation about whether his resurrection was a spiritual or a bodily event. While officially the teaching of the church is towards monism, most Chritians seem to have a smattering of unthinking dualism tucked in to their personal faith.
Hindusim is unashamedly dualistic. The soul rises in the smoke of the funeral pyre to be judged by the Gods and if possible to attain moksha, or be returned to yet another cycle of samsara or reincarnation.
By all means include Plato in the list of dualists.
John Hick with his “replica” theory is another exmple of a monist viewpoint. Hick, with a strong religious link builds on the theology of St Paul and his earthly and heavenly body.
It may be worth mentioning Spiritualism. Some may feel this is dualistic where the spirits communicate with a medium. Others feel that there are bodily appearances and they too might follow the Pauline idea mentioned above.
Near death experiences. Always worth a mention. One could have a quick debate as to whether or not they are evidence of life after death. I would however hesitate to reach a conclusion.
The problem with those who deny life after death is what they don’t say. They reduce “evidence” to that which is scientifically or logically verifiable. For most people though life, even life after death, is about more than being scientific of logical.
The problem with those who accept life after death is what they do say. Monists contradict dualists. Christians fall out with each other about the nature of resurrection. The Hindu religion is just so unspecific and varied. And the philosopher John Hick seems unbelievable, especially the way in which he explains his idea.
