Proof of Immortality III

[Jabba]

So we have:
Prior probability of Jabba existing given Jabba's model of OOFLam, including an immaterial self = virtually zero.

Prior probability of Jabba existing given the scientific model of one finite life, with no immaterial selves being part of the model - xxx. How do you suggest we calculate this, Jabba? And will it be more or less likely than your model?

Agatha,
- This stuff is hard to verbalize effectively.
- I claim that the likelihood of ME currently existing given OOFLam is virtually zero.
- Further, I claim that OOFLam has to assume that there is no immaterial self.
- OOFLam assumes that Dualism is not possible.

 

[godless dave]

Agatha,
- This stuff is hard to verbalize effectively.
- I claim that the likelihood of ME currently existing given OOFLam is virtually zero.
- Further, I claim that OOFLam has to assume that there is no immaterial self.
- OOFLam assumes that Dualism is not possible.

If OOFLam assumes there is no immaterial self, then why is the likelihood of you currently existing given OOFLam virtually zero?

 

[JayUtah]

This stuff is hard to verbalize effectively.

I'm sure I speak for most when I say that this attempt to justify your chronic equivocation has grown very, very tired. No, it's not hard to verbalize effectively. You're just groping for new words to try to sneak the same old fallacies past your critics.

I claim that the likelihood of ME currently existing given OOFLam is virtually zero.

I'm sure I speak for most when I say that constantly repeating your claim has also become tired. You claim you are a special snowflake, and that you can prove this statistically. All you have proven is that you don't understand statistics and aren't especially interested in being taught or corrected by those who do.

The likelihood of you currently existing is 1. Trying to say that it's virtually impossible without a soul is just begging the question.

Further, I claim that OOFLam has to assume that there is no immaterial self.

I'm sure I speak for most when I say that trying to dress up the null hypothesis has grown tired.

You are claiming you can prove immortality. You insinuate that in order to do that, there has to be some "immaterial self." The null hypothesis that arises automatically out of that claim is that there isn't. You must overcome the null hypothesis with evidence.

See how easy that was to verbalize?

 

[Jabba]

If OOFLam assumes there is no immaterial self, then why is the likelihood of you currently existing given OOFLam virtually zero?

Dave,
- Again, I think that I understand your reservation -- and again, I think that this is where effective discussion is almost impossible.
- If you stipulate that you're referring only to material selves, I would agree that we (as material selves) each have only one, finite life -- and, the posterior probability of OOFLam is virtually one.
- Without that stipulation, however, OOFLam is simply claiming that the concept of an immaterial self is wishful thinking -- which makes the likelihood of my current existence virtually zero...

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- Again, I think that I understand your reservation -- and again, I think that this is where effective discussion is almost impossible.
- If you stipulate that you're referring only to material selves, I would agree that we (as material selves) each have only one, finite life -- and, the posterior probability of OOFLam is virtually one.
- Without that stipulation, however, OOFLam is simply claiming that the concept of an immaterial self is wishful thinking -- which makes the likelihood of my current existence virtually zero...

- I already need a serious editing...
- I'll be back (momentarily?).

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- Again, I think that I understand your reservation -- and again, I think that this is where effective discussion is almost impossible.
- If you stipulate that you're referring only to material selves, I would agree that we (as material selves) each have only one, finite life -- and, the posterior probability of OOFLam is virtually one.
- Without that stipulation, however, OOFLam is simply claiming that the concept of an immaterial self is wishful thinking -- which makes the likelihood of my current existence virtually zero...

Except that: 1. You're here;
2. You have no evidence of an immaterial soul; and
3. Almost impossible means"possible. "

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Again, I think that I understand your reservation -- and again, I think that this is where effective discussion is almost impossible.
- If you stipulate that you're referring only to material selves, I would agree that we (as material selves) each have only one, finite life -- and, the posterior probability of OOFLam is virtually one.
- Without that stipulation, however, OOFLam is simply claiming that the concept of an immaterial self is wishful thinking -- which makes the likelihood of my current existence virtually zero...

"Given OOFLam" means we are using the OOFLam model. And as you stated above, the OOFLam model only includes material selves. So obviously when we say "given OOFLam", we're only referring to material selves.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- Again, I think that I understand your reservation -- and again, I think that this is where effective discussion is almost impossible.
- If you stipulate that you're referring only to material selves, I would agree that we (as material selves) each have only one, finite life -- and, the posterior probability of OOFLam is virtually one.
- Without that stipulation, however, OOFLam is simply claiming that the concept of an immaterial self is wishful thinking -- which makes the likelihood of my current existence virtually zero...

- I already need a serious editing...
- I'll be back (momentarily?).

- To repeat, Without that stipulation, however, OOFLam is simply claiming that the concept of an immaterial self is wishful thinking.
- This could be like a hidden case of "double question" -- like, "Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes, or no?"
- Here, it's implied that I have already accepted that there is no immaterial self -- which I haven't, and which I totally reject...
- Hopefully, I won't need more editing.
-

 

[godless dave]

- To repeat, Without that stipulation, however, OOFLam is simply claiming that the concept of an immaterial self is wishful thinking.
- This could be like a hidden case of "double question" -- like, "Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes, or no?"
- Here, it's implied that I have already accepted that there is no immaterial self -- which I haven't, and which I totally reject...
- Hopefully, I won't need more editing.
-

I'm not saying you've accepted that there is no immaterial self. I'm saying that you've accepted that there is no material self in the OOFLam model. You can't use the givens of a model to calculate the likelihood of something existing that that model doesn't include.

 

[jond]

I'm not saying you've accepted that there is no immaterial self. I'm saying that you've accepted that there is no material self in the OOFLam model. You can't use the givens of a model to calculate the likelihood of something existing that that model doesn't include.

Jabba, this really isn't hard to understand.

 

[jt512]

Do you always automatically grab for the first fallacy that you think might be forcibly hammered into what you always automatically assume is a fallacy slot?

No.

I don't know what you mean by your "lottery fallacy" call.

Obviously.

 

[JayUtah]

...and again, I think that this is where effective discussion is almost impossible.

Effective discussion is impossible when you simply keep repeating the same claims over and over again with absolutely no indication that you're paying attention to any of your critics.

If you stipulate that you're referring only to material selves, I would agree that we (as material selves) each have only one, finite life -- and, the posterior probability of OOFLam is virtually one.

Without that stipulation, however, OOFLam is simply claiming that the concept of an immaterial self is wishful thinking -- which makes the likelihood of my current existence virtually zero...

This simply restates your hypothesis, restates the null hypothesis that arises from it, and declares your hypothesis true by fiat. Do you understand that simply stating a belief over and over again does not prove it?

 

[Loss Leader]

- To repeat, Without that stipulation, however, OOFLam is simply claiming that the concept of an immaterial self is wishful thinking.
- This could be like a hidden case of "double question" -- like, "Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes, or no?"
- Here, it's implied that I have already accepted that there is no immaterial self -- which I haven't, and which I totally reject...
- Hopefully, I won't need more editing.
-

What? The materialistic model does not include a concept of an immaterial self, full stop.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- I see your point, but this is one of the wheres where probability can become so confusing...

- If OOFLam stipulated material selves, who would argue?
- But since
1) it doesn’t, and
2) many of us sense, or imagine, an immaterial self, and
3) there are no natural laws governing the who of an immaterial self,
- if there is an immaterial "who" to be born, science has no idea who it will be.
- And, the likelihood of any particular current immaterial who -- given OOFLam -- would be infinitesimal. Virtually zero.

...
Your premise #2 suggests that what you really believe boils down to "I think I have an immortal soul, therefore I do," and the rest of your argument is merely an elaborate attempt to convince yourself that there's more to it than that.

jt,
- Maybe what I should have said is, "There is reason to believe that there may be an immaterial self."
- If you wish, I'll try again to support that claim.

 

[JayUtah]

This could be like a hidden case of "double question" -- like, "Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes, or no?"

No, there is no hidden premise that must be accepted in order to answer the question either way.

Here, it's implied that I have already accepted that there is no immaterial self -- which I haven't, and which I totally reject...

No. As Dave says, if you are going to prove the existence of an immortal soul, you must accept that the null hypothesis you are trying to overcome to do it cannot include the notion of an immortal soul. It doesn't matter whether you or I or anyone else believes (by whatever means) that one exists. It matters only that you understand this is the essential nature of the null hypothesis.

This is a chronic problem in every question you have argued on this forum. You do not know how to formulate the question correctly, and as such you trip over begged questions and fall into false dilemmas. This is exactly the same problem you had in the circumstantial evidence thread distinguishing between cat and not-dog.

Until you realize and acknowledge that you are doing this, there can be no effective discussion.

 

[jt512]

What you should be surprised about would be to find that you, specifically, have become a member of said group. That is where the improbability lies.

Right (for once). But despite the improbability of the event, and your surprisal by it, you should realize that you won the lottery by chance, not by having an immortal lottery soul.

 

[JayUtah]

Maybe what I should have said is, "There is reason to believe that there may be an immaterial self."

Asked and answered, many times. The abstract possibility that a soul exists is inherent to any attempt to prove it does. If it is utterly, in all respects, impossible for something to exist, then there is no point to attempting to prove that it does. Your critics already stipulate this abstract possibility.

But you always want to elevate that abstract possibility to the level of a rational possibility, and that requires evidence and sound reasoning -- neither of which you have. And you have attempted this same equivocation several times in this debate; by now you should realize it does you no good.

 

[jt512]

jt,
- Maybe what I should have said is, "There is reason to believe that there may be an immaterial self."

There isn't.

- If you wish, I'll try again to support that claim.

I do not wish it.

 

[Loss Leader]

jt,
- Maybe what I should have said is, "There is reason to believe that there may be an immaterial self."
- If you wish, I'll try again to support that claim.

What are those reasons? No math, no silly fake made up probabilities, no assuming the consequent. Just state the evidence supporting this reason.

 

[John Jones]

jt,
- Maybe what I should have said is, "There is reason to believe that there may be an immaterial self."
- If you wish, I'll try again to support that claim.

I seriously doubt that.