A clear description

Death is just an ideal. In Western culture we portray it either as a junction before which one enters Heaven or Hell, in which case it is a societal if not religious control mechanism, or it is an eternal resting peace. Disregarding the former case for its lack of tact and target audience of the malignantly ignorant and blind law-abiding denizens, the latter case presents a categorical impossibility. The idea of death as an everlasting, unconscious peace is idealistic at best, and horribly misleading at worst.

Life is hard. There are too many toils and civil responsabilities, (which are nothing more than normative), which societal mores and norms project onto us as a populace. From these stressful facts and angst-rampant indivduals blooms the unreality that it's all going to be alright. Death is the obvious answer, for with it lies an infinite degree of freedom and liberation from the antagonizing forces active in the world. Unfortunately, such a perfect justification exists without a shred of supporting evidence. If death is indeed an eternal nothingness, than verily there would be no lasting peace of mind, for there would be nothing. The mind fails to exist following the moment of death. And by that, I do not mean when one would be declared medically dead. Clearly this diagnostic term is flawed, for if it were valid, no person would be able to return to life once pronounced dead. It being the case that on more than one occasion such a pronouncement was proved wrong, the diagnosis of the moment of death must be flawed. The defining characteristic of this diagnosis is the flatline, the cessation of the beating of the heart. It being the case that individuals have lived after being pronounced dead, it can be deduced that the defining characteristics of deathness are not a flatline and the cessation of the beating of the heart. Given that some individuals who were pronounced medically dead return to life with an out of body, joyous, comforting experience, it follows that death is not an entry to infinite nothingness, but instead has some sort of substance inherent in it, even if it is ephemeral or ethereal.

From this I present the Argument from Death:

1. Death exists so much as it is some concept that follows waking life.
2. Some individuals pronounced medically dead have returned to life within minutes of being declared dead.
3. Some of the individuals have reported ephemeral, ethereal experiences accompanying their unconscious time when they were "dead."
4. If (1), (2), and (3), then death is not an experience of nothingness, but in fact consists of some untestable substance.

Critique:

One might argue that not everyone who comes back from the dead has these experiences and because of the lack of universal applicability the argument is deemed unsound. However, given the fallability of man, one cannot assume that both a) the individual retains memory of this unconscious experience, just as one does not always remember dreams and b) that the individual chose to report his experience. After all, the chemical DMT is found to be released in a high quantity at the moment of death. This chemical is also present in our brains when we sleep. It being the case that the counter-evidence is unreliable as far as can be demonstrated by the potential fallability of the memory leading to a lack of testimony, it seems more likely that the post-mortem experience is indeed an experience, rather than a void of eternal nothingness.