I think that you guys disagree with all three (four?) claims.
It's painfully obvious that we don't agree with your premises, and we have given you copious reasons behind that disagreement -- reasons which you assiduously refuse to address. Simply restating your beliefs over and over again does not establish them. We know what your argument is. Now address the rebuttals to it.
They are:
One of my basic/critical claims is that there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct.
You have been singularly unable to show any consequent that would require the self to persist or extend beyond a biological cause. Moreover, you have proffered a number of desperate theories and accusations for how such consequents could exist and have gone unnoticed, up to an including broad unsupported accusations of ideologically motivated malfeasance from the scientific community. You also tried telling us that such a self wouldn't have any characteristics from which a consequent may arise, thus shooting your argument squarely in the foot.
Finally, you insinuated that you had rigorous evidence ("studies") for such persistence. When asked to provide it, you sidestepped your burden of proof and simply told people to Google for what amounts to anecdotes and speculation.
Another basic/critical claim is that the likelihood of my current existence is unimaginably small...
No. I listed above, a few posts back, several of the comically varied reasons you have given for why you think your chances of existing without a soul are small. They were all rebutted and have not been rejoined. Hence we can reject this premise out of hand.
My next claim is that if those two claims are true, OOFLam is surely incorrect -- insert the appropriate numbers into the formula...
No. You do not understand how Bayesian analysis works, and you may not simply put made-up numbers into Bayes' Theorem, apply no new information, and profess that what comes out the other end is that made-up prior probability somehow rendered into fact. You are misusing Bayesian inference in exactly the same way as every fringe theorist does when compensating for his lack of fact, and the experts whom you consulted have told you as much. You may not conjure into certainty a thing which you simply believe to exist, via a magic wand that you believe lets you set a dial to quantify subjective propositions.
If there is no such thing as an immaterial self, OOFLam is surely correct.
No, that's backwards at best and irrelevant at worst. In order to prove immortality, you must show there is some substantial aspect of existence that transcends biological life. Any hypothesis that a thing exists engenders the null hypothesis that it does not. Your hypothesis engenders the null hypothesis that no substantial aspect of existence transcends biological life. You must overcome that null with evidence. It is absolutely irrelevant whether anyone actually believes the null, has asserted some other hypothesis for which your null would be a premise, or give that hypothesis an acronym.
So badly do you misunderstand how to structure an argument that you actually had the key factor (immaterial self) on both sides of it! You had to backpedal with the ludicrous statement that the hypothesis you were trying to falsify actually did contain the key premise but that its adherents simply didn't believe it.
I claim, however, that if there is even a reasonable possibility of an immaterial self, my current existence -- plus Bayesian statistics -- virtually proves that OOFLam is not correct.
No. You're simply trying the same old ploy that has been refuted several times already. Bayesian inference does not allow you to combine an abstract possibility with a personal religious belief and arrive at a fact.
Besides, there is nothing about having proved the existence of an immaterial component of the self that then goes on to prove immortality. Once again you can't grasp the difference between a premise being necessary to an proposition but not sufficient to establish it. And so you're stuck in the same false dilemma you always are: simply proving what you think your critics are saying is wrong does not prove that you are right.
And keep in mind that in order to extend the premise of an immaterial self to the notion that some form of immortality exists, you will have to start attributing characteristics to that self you assured us had no characteristics. Specifically, you will have to characterize that immaterial self as being inexorably connected to biological life. And in your mad scramble to insist that such a self must be beyond the ken of science, you assured us such a self had no characteristics of any kind.
So once again we see that your argument is just a rambling stream of unrelated, contradictory,
ad hoc knee jerks.
PS -- I met with the SUNYA professor I was referred to, and he didn't agree with me either...
How many people must tell you that you are wrong before you consider the reasonable possibility that you might be wrong? That is not a rhetorical question.
You haven't even started. All you've done is to state and restate your claims as if they were self-evident. Please stop wasting everyone's time with question-begging and endless resets.
