Hospers Objection to Disembodiments & Belloff Attributes in the Afterlife Discussion

Hi there! Each question can just be a paragraph, nothing major, thank you!

Supposing Hospers’ objections to disembodiment to be compelling, would they be compelling against re-embodiment (reincarnation) or transmigration (transfer of consciousness to a different body), or bizarre embodiment (such as animism or downloading consciousness or personality to a computer)? Would all those turn out the same way?

Beloff attributes the belief in the afterlife to the impossibility of imagining ones own demise. As in previous readings, he states that it is impossible to “imagine ones own total annihilation,” and this leads us to instead imagine our own immortality – something that is actually possible to think of. Beloff also attributes the afterlife belief to religion, being that each of the three main monotheistic religions believe in the existence of the immortal soul. However with the advancements in science adding to our knowledge, it becomes more and more unbelievable that the soul could exist bodily death. How would scientific findings affect Beloff’s accounts for the belief of the afterlife?

What hurdles would purported evidence for a previous life, or lives – or for an After-Life – have to leap to be compelling?

Why does the Soul Narrative feature reincarnation so prominently as an option?

Why is the geographical location of heaven supposed to be an important issue in the Soul Narrative? Why is that issue such a tough one?

Why would it be a problem that there are “no seals in heaven”