Proof of Immortality II

[godless dave]

- Unless you want to explain why none of my evidence provided any reasonable doubt,

What evidence? You made a vague reference to out of body experiences.

I'm happy just to say that I disagree, and to claim that most natural scientists would also disagree.

I doubt that very much.

 

[Giordano]

- Unless you want to explain why none of my evidence provided any reasonable doubt...

I've got good news for you: it's already been done! You can just read (or re-read) the many posts already here that answer your request! No need for anyone to post reiterations of these. Just read them. Some of them have very clear explanations and discuss this issue in many different ways so that someone even without a background in statistics, unlike yourself, can understand.


If you finally feel like you must resort to actually providing evidence for your claim, please do so now. Thanks!

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

Do you recall that just a few days ago you reported a startling revelation that seriously damaged your world view? Yet you have quickly returned to your pet theory, and have never mentioned this revelation again. Would you be interested in discussing this revelation more, and how it proves or disproves your theory of reincarnation?

 

[Loss Leader]

I'm happy just to say that I disagree, and to claim that most natural scientists would also disagree.

Name two.

 

[HighRiser]

- Unless you want to explain why none of my evidence provided any reasonable doubt, I'm happy just to say that I disagree, and to claim that most natural scientists would also disagree.

That's easy; You've presented no substantial evidence.

You haven't even defined or justified the terms contained in your premise, Jabba.

I suppose you'll be another few months sending e-mail off to university natural science departments, hopefully awaiting responses from downtrodden religious zealots whose scientific proofs of supernatural intervention have been suppressed by the vast atheist conspiracy.

 

[John Jones]

Closer: you disagree or believe otherwise. I can accept that. But it is your claim that most natural scientists would also disagree: what evidence do you have that indicates that? From my own experience, I would say the exact opposite. Do you mean that most natural scientists think that the advance probability of obtaining Jabba in particular is small? I can believe that. But most natural scientists think that there was a very good chance of your parents producing someone, anyone (A is almost 1, if my understanding of your last definition of "A" is correct), and recognize that some of these people might retrospectively commit a Texas Sharpshooter error and think that they were a pre-destined, special target.

I should point out that there are a lot of natural scientists on this thread, all of whom appear to disagree with you. I am one of them. You have simply ignored their posted concerns for two years. We must be an non-representative sample if we have not accepted your claim, right?...

Me too.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Unless you want to explain why none of my evidence provided any reasonable doubt, I'm happy just to say that I disagree, and to claim that most natural scientists would also disagree.

What support do you offer for this silly claim?

Why not just start with the evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Me too.

If Natural Science teachers count, me, three.

 

[jond]

If Natural Science teachers count, me, three.

I am not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV. But I'm also calling BS, and request documentation to support the claim "that most natural scientists would also disagree."

 

[Jabba]

You still haven't given us any reason to think you are a special case.

- Again, I think that I have.

- in the following attempt at a syllogism, Numbers 1, 2 and 3 are the best I can do at expressing why I think that I am special, or that I should be set apart, and deserve such a small likelihood of existing. For now, that's probably the best that I can do.

1. I, in one form or the other (thing, process or illusion), am the only thing that I know exists.
2. Also, I am the only eyes on the universe that I have.
3. Consequently, if I never existed it would be as if nothing ever existed...

- I'm still trying to clarify the logic here, but for now, that's still the best that I can do.

 

[godless dave]

- Again, I think that I have.
- I'm still trying to clarify the logic here, but for now, that's still the best that I can do.

In what way does that mean you are a special case?

All of those things are only true after you exist, and only true from your perspective.

 

[Giordano]

- Again, I think that I have.
- I'm still trying to clarify the logic here, but for now, that's still the best that I can do.

We are all special. And our kids are too. As you have already admitted. How glorious!

 

[Giordano]

...but for now, that's still the best that I can do.

I believe that.

 

[Giordano]

If Natural Science teachers count, me, three.

Dear Jabba: that's three that have already spent the time to indicate that they disagree with you, and it is still before noon. So perhaps you are wrong even in your argument based on popularity. Very wrong.

But as we know, the number of people in agreement with you are irrelevant (or you would be in even worse trouble). Perhaps if you provided some evidence (any evidence) that might help sway people in your favor?

 

[Giordano]

3. Consequently, if I never existed it would be as if nothing ever existed...
I am still working on understanding this part. "I am, therefore you are?" I understand the subjective part (if I never was, I would never have become aware of all this stuff that I am aware of now). But even so, if you were blind would that mean that nothing emits or reflects light? Do you really propose that I, or the 7 billon other people on the planet. would not have been created if you never were? (I'm omitting your own children from this question, of course).

 

[John Jones]

- Again, I think that I have.
- I'm still trying to clarify the logic here, but for now, that's still the best that I can do.

There's no logic there.

 

[Mojo]

You still haven't given us any reason to think you are a special case.

- Again, I think that I have.

- in the following attempt at a syllogism, Numbers 1, 2 and 3 are the best I can do at expressing why I think that I am special, or that I should be set apart, and deserve such a small likelihood of existing. For now, that's probably the best that I can do.

1. I, in one form or the other (thing, process or illusion), am the only thing that I know exists.
2. Also, I am the only eyes on the universe that I have.
3. Consequently, if I never existed it would be as if nothing ever existed...

- I'm still trying to clarify the logic here, but for now, that's still the best that I can do.

Again, that doesn't make you any different from any other person, actual or potential. Perhaps I didn't spell this out clearly enough last time I reponded to this point, so here goes: being just like everyone else doesn't make you special.

 

[Jabba]

Again, that doesn't make you any different from any other person, actual or potential. Perhaps I didn't spell this out clearly enough last time I reponded to this point, so here goes: being just like everyone else doesn't make you special.

Mojo,
- I've said over and over that we are all special.
- If you are conscious, you are special. All things, processes or "illusions" that are conscious are special.
- We take our own consciousness for granted, but we shouldn't. We are all EXTREMELY lucky -- if the scientific model is correct.
- I'm still trying to explain why the fact that it would be as if nothing ever existed, if I never existed (and the fact that my likelihood of ever existing -- given the scientific model -- is only 1/10⁸⁰!) makes me (and you, if you are conscious) special.

- I'm claiming that the above saves us from the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy -- but so far, I haven't been able to explain my claim...
- I'll be back.

 

[Jabba]

In what way does that mean you are a special case?

All of those things are only true after you exist, and only true from your perspective.

- I know what you're saying, and I accept that it seems to undermine my claim...
- And again, I'll be back.

 

[Akhenaten]

Mojo,
- I've said over and over that we are all special.

Apparently we need to add "special" to the list of words you've decided to redefine.

- If you are conscious, you are special. All things, processes or "illusions" that are conscious are special.

What about all things bright and beautiful? Aren't emeralds special? Comets?

What about The Eiffel Tower? After all there's only one of them. How is that not special?

- We take our own consciousness for granted, but we shouldn't. We are all EXTREMELY lucky -- if the scientific model is correct.

This is what some of us used to call spherical reasoning when DOC did it.

Our consciousness exists as a direct result of the evolution of our brains. There's no luck involved and no reason not to take that which enables us to think in the first place as anything other than 'granted'.

- I'm still trying to explain why the fact that it would be as if nothing ever existed, if I never existed . . .

Only for you.

This is both trivial and irrelevant to your claim of immortality.

. . . (and the fact that my likelihood of ever existing -- given the scientific model -- is only 1/10⁸⁰!) makes me (and you, if you are conscious) special.

No it doesn't make us special at all.

Especially since that number you're clinging to so tenaciously is just one that somebody made up for you and has no merit at all in terms of this scientific model that you keep trying to invoke.

- I'm claiming that the above saves us from the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy -- but so far, I haven't been able to explain my claim...

That's because your completely, unequivocally and terminally wrong.

- I'll be back.

You don't appear to be all that sure that you were ever here in the first place.