Proof of Immortality III

[Mojo]

- If the prior probability of immaterial selves is .001, and the likelihood of ME, given no immaterial selves, is unimaginably small, since I do currently exist, there must be immaterial selves.

I'll accept that this is valid once you have proved that 0.001=1.

 

[Mojo]

- If you look up Evidence for reincarnation, Evidence for life after death, Evidence for immortality, Evidence for ghosts, you'll find all sorts of studies that support the existence of immaterial selves.

I've looked it up; it was rubbish.

 

[godless dave]

- If the prior probability of immaterial selves is .001, and the likelihood of ME, given no immaterial selves, is unimaginably small, since I do currently exist, there must be immaterial selves.
- Put those figures into the formula and see what you get.

The likelihood of you given no immaterial selves is not unimaginably small. It's no smaller than the likelihood of Mount Rainier.

If immaterial selves do exist, then we don't know the likelihood of a particular immaterial self existing, because we don't know anything about the processes that result in the existence of an immaterial self.

 

[Mojo]

For that matter, you've never told us how many immaterial souls in waiting there are. If there are eight, then the chance of you being you is 1/8. But couldn't there be ten septillion? Then the chance of you being you goes down to close to zero as well.

I think he bandied around a figure of seven billion at one point, but that might not have been the number of competing souls. I think he was trying to restrict the large numbers to the likelihood of his existing, and arbitrarily leaving them out of the likelihood of his existing and having an immortal soul. On the other hand, he spent a long time trying to argue that the number of potential people is infinite.

Unless you're arguing that God chose your soul for you at this time. But you've never said anything like that.

That is where his argument seems to lead, though. And, of course, there's no reason that a god couldn't have created a Jabba with a finite lifetime.

 

[Jabba]

Can you conceive of human existence without a soul, Jabba? Be honest, at least with yourself. I don't think you can. Your soul concept is so fundamental to your perspective, you don't even see it.

As a result, the very question you should be able to answer for yourself, you cannot understand why it is even a question.

Js,
- I probably still don't understand what you mean...
- I sure think that I have an immaterial self. Is that what you mean by my soul concept being fundamental to my perspective?

 

[JayUtah]

I probably still don't understand what you mean...

He means you're so convinced you have an immortal soul that you are literally incapable of conceiving that it could be otherwise, and thus literally incapable of understanding your critics' rebuttals. When you get that figured out, then maybe you'll see why your argument begs the question and then just runs around in circles.

 

[Loss Leader]

Js,
- I probably still don't understand what you mean...
- I sure think that I have an immaterial self. Is that what you mean by my soul concept being fundamental to my perspective?

Let me rephrase: Is there any chance that you would ever agree that you do not have a soul?

 

[Mojo]

Js,
- I probably still don't understand what you mean...

If the probability that you don't understand what he means is .001, then you can prove that you don't understand it, right?

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- Just look up "evidence for" those different concepts, and decide for your self. Some will be more credible than others.
- I'm not claiming proof; I'm just claiming that there is some reasonable evidence for immateriality -- we can't just dismiss it out of hand.

- And, try this: http://messiahornot.com/Magic.php

We've looked. Your 'evidence' is all crap. Your websites are all crap. Your arguments are nothing but crap warmed-over. No exceptions!

Why is this still a mystery to you after all these many years? You must be quite desperate indeed.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- Just look up "evidence for" those different concepts, and decide for your self. Some will be more credible than others.
- I'm not claiming proof; I'm just claiming that there is some reasonable evidence for immateriality -- we can't just dismiss it out of hand.
[...]

Intellectual honesty demands that we do no less. You haven't been able to present an iota of reasonable doubt in your favor after 5 years of utterly useless attempts.

Present some evidence and logical arguments first before you tell your logical and intellectual interlocutors what they can and can't dismiss.

 

[fibbermcgee]

Jabba, I must admit that I am confused. I thought your soul was the thing that got you into heaven. Is that a different kind of soul? Is this like Hinduism where you must live many lives before becoming one with the divine?

 

[Mojo]

Present some evidence and logical arguments...

He can't, because that would slow him down and prevent him presenting his evidence and logical arguments.

That's some catch, that Catch-22. It's the best there is.

 

[JayUtah]

He can't, because that would slow him down and prevent him presenting his evidence and logical arguments.

Essentially yes. He's driven to compel someone to agree with him, by rhetorical shenanigans if necessary, that a reasonable probabilistic argument is possible for the existence of an immortal soul. He doesn't want to be distracted from that shell game by having to produce actual evidence, because he's all but admitted already that he doesn't have any. Not unlike his performance in the Shroud thread where he simply waved his hands vaguely at shroud.com as "scientific" evidence, he is here waving his hands vaguely at the cesspool of Internet woo as "studies" to prove the existence of a soul.

 

[John Jones]

Essentially yes. He's driven to compel someone to agree with him, by rhetorical shenanigans if necessary, that a reasonable probabilistic argument is possible for the existence of an immortal soul. He doesn't want to be distracted from that shell game by having to produce actual evidence, because he's all but admitted already that he doesn't have any. Not unlike his performance in the Shroud thread where he simply waved his hands vaguely at shroud.com as "scientific" evidence, he is here waving his hands vaguely at the cesspool of Internet woo as "studies" to prove the existence of a soul.

Well spake, sir.

 

[Jabba]

- If the prior probability of immaterial selves is .001, and the likelihood of ME, given no immaterial selves, is unimaginably small, since I do currently exist, there must be immaterial selves.
- Put those figures into the formula and see what you get.

Why do you think that?

I have a grape. We can discuss the likelihoods of the grape being purple, or seedless, or Concord, or whatever. And given new information about the grape (perhaps its color), we can adjust our likelihood estimates.

You'd agree with that, right?

Ok, so what is the likelihood it is a grape?

js,
- I think that you're suggesting that in your scenario, having a grape is analogous to one of the variables in my scenario. If I'm right, which of my variables is the analogous one?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Jabba, I must admit that I am confused. I thought your soul was the thing that got you into heaven. Is that a different kind of soul? Is this like Hinduism where you must live many lives before becoming one with the divine?

I repeat: Jabba does not believe in the type of immortality he is trying to prove, he admitted this years ago

 

[JayUtah]

js,
- I think that you're suggesting that in your scenario, having a grape is analogous to one of the variables in my scenario. If I'm right, which of my variables is the analogous one?

The part where you just flat-out demand that in order for you to probably exist, you must have an immortal soul. In other words, once again you're trying to say that the likelihood of your existing as-is, without a soul, must be virtually zero, when in fact the likelihood that you exist as-is, is 1. If you want to show that a soul is connected to that, you can't simply make up numbers that you believe describe your likely existence without it.

 

[JayUtah]

I repeat: Jabba does not believe in the type of immortality he is trying to prove, he admitted this years ago

That much is clear, just by observation. As many have noted, Jabba wants to lump together all possible modes of non-mortality, whether or not they are compatible. This is why he cannot and will not define the exact parameters of his notion of immortality, the one he thinks he can prove. He won't identify the target he's aiming at. That's so that he can say that because it's improbable for his arrow to have landed in the grass -- so he says -- it must have hit some target somewhere.

 

[jsfisher]

js,
- I think that you're suggesting that in your scenario, having a grape is analogous to one of the variables in my scenario. If I'm right, which of my variables is the analogous one?

No. The analogy was addressing you assigning probabilities to your existence. The analogy started with "I have a grape" and ended with the question "what is the likelihood I have a grape?" The answer is 1, of course, since the grape was a given.

You scenario starts with you, an existing human.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I repeat: Jabba does not believe in the type of immortality he is trying to prove, he admitted this years ago

He might have "said" such a thing at some point in the nigh-infinite series of nesting ramblings that has transpired over the last few years, but it's ludicrous to suggest this isn't desperate justification of a personal desire.

And "not believe in something you are trying to prove?" How the hell would that even work?

Again none of use are stupid. We learned this game long ago. Jabba thinks that if we can shoehorn any concept of "immortality" into any gap he can create and get us to agree on any level in any way via any linguistic circus act with anything he says for even a split second he's justified in believing nonsense.