Proof of Immortality III

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
NO. DO NOT SIMPLY KEEP REPEATING YOUR CLAIMS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
Click to expand...

Hell him actually repeating his claims over and over would be a massive improvement over yet another "I'm gonna reset back to zero and claim I'm gonna make my claims soon" post.

I've been in conversations that are like watching paint dry but at least in those you start with wet paint and end with dry paint.

This isn't like watching paint dry. It's like just watching paint.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- This is our Mount Rainier issue, and -- I think -- the critical issue. That is, is the likelihood of my particular existence an appropriate entry for P(E|H)?
Click to expand...

I'm really asking why you think P(E|H) being a very small number brings H into doubt.

Jabba said:
So far, I still think that my estimates for P(H), P(~H) and P(E|~H) are above repute
Click to expand...

Despite not justifying either?
 
The Sparrow said:
Mr. Jabba, if you are SO AFRAID of having your belief in immortality taken away, why on earth would you come here to post?
Click to expand...

To pretend to have submitted his belief to hard-core skeptics and have them be unable to defeat it. At least that's what he desperately wants to happen, and what he imagines is happening. This is actually fairly common among fringe theorists. They engage with skeptics with one of three outcomes in mind. They can prevail in debate, or at least delude themselves into thinking they have. Or they can gimmick the debate so it makes it seem like skeptics are closed-minded, hard-hearted fools for rejecting such an obviously well-made argument. Or they can work very hard to be banned from skeptic forums, thus creating the illusion of being shunned for their maverick beliefs. I guess the last two are somewhat synonymous.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- This is our Mount Rainier issue, and -- I think -- the critical issue. That is, is the likelihood of my particular existence an appropriate entry for P(E|H)? So far, I still think that my estimates for P(H), P(~H) and P(E|~H) are above repute -- though, P(E|~H) is pretty complicated and might be slightly off the mark.
- You and I have discussed this issue through numerous posts, and are probably at a stale mate. In my next post to you, I'll try to summarize my argument for my particular existence being an appropriate entry for P(E|H).
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
I'm really asking why you think P(E|H) being a very small number brings H into doubt...
Click to expand...
Dave,
- If you accepted my other entries, would you accept that P(E|H) being a very small number brings H into doubt?
 
Jabba said:
If you accepted my other entries, would you accept that P(E|H) being a very small number brings H into doubt?
Click to expand...

What an incredibly dishonest stunt, Jabba.

You're blatantly begging the question. You're asking your critics to agree that if, for the sake of argument, all your made-up numbers were put into a formula, a "doubtful" outcome for H -- P(H|E) -- would emerge. It's equivalent to asking, "If you agree that the outcome I've assumed is correct, would you agree that I have proved the desired outcome?"

Where to begin?

First, you've already been shown why you cannot simply pull both P(H) and P(E|H) out of your sphincter and have the result be any sort of valid Bayesian analysis. You simply don't care, and you're determined to do it anyway. You say you don't understand the analysis that disallows your approach. Too bad; that only means you're not competent to have this discussion.

Second, it has already been explained to you that P(H|E) can be as small as you like, but it doesn't mean P(~H|E) is necessarily larger or smaller than it. You only want to work the part of the problem that seems to confirm your deeply held emotional belief, so that you don't have to face the unconscionable fear that would somehow, according to you, arise from failing to confirm your subjective beliefs mathematically.

Third, you're trying to shift the problem to be one of pure arithmetic rather than the glaring problem of you simply pulling numbers out of your arse and pretending they mean something. We know where P(E|~H) comes from. You stated it already: it's your fervent and unshakable faith, based on fear, that you must have an immortal soul. Let's not pretend the rationale is anything but that. Now you're dishonestly baiting your critics into putting the cart before the horse.

This is the same deceptive crap you proffered in your Shroud thread, where you tried to get all your critics to agree that your math was correct before you would proceed with an evidentiary showing, even though then as now your math was applied to purely made-up numbers for which you admitted having zero evidence. It's insulting that you continue to believe your critics can't see these red herrings, and insulting that you think you can play these same rhetorical games and believe you've achieved a stalemate.

Knock off these perfidious attempts to beg agreement. You have been told the fatal flaws in your arguments. Address those, and nothing else.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- This is our Mount Rainier issue, and -- I think -- the critical issue. That is, is the likelihood of my particular existence an appropriate entry for P(E|H)? So far, I still think that my estimates for P(H), P(~H) and P(E|~H) are above repute -- though, P(E|~H) is pretty complicated and might be slightly off the mark.
- You and I have discussed this issue through numerous posts, and are probably at a stale mate. In my next post to you, I'll try to summarize my argument for my particular existence being an appropriate entry for P(E|H).
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
I'm really asking why you think P(E|H) being a very small number brings H into doubt...
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Dave,
- If you accepted my other entries, would you accept that P(E|H) being a very small number brings H into doubt?
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
No.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- I think that if you did accept my other entries -- and, the appropriateness of my particular likelihood of existence being an appropriate entry for P(E|H) in our Bayes formula -- you would understand why P(E|H) being a very small number would bring H into doubt.
- Consequently, it still seems to me that my particular likelihood of existence being an appropriate entry for P(E|H) in our Bayes formula is the critical issue -- and, the real source of your objection/reservation...
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I think that if you did accept my other entries -- and, the appropriateness of my particular likelihood of existence being an appropriate entry for P(E|H) in our Bayes formula -- you would understand why P(E|H) being a very small number would bring H into doubt.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.

Jabba said:
- Consequently, it still seems to me that my particular likelihood of existence being an appropriate entry for P(E|H) in our Bayes formula is the critical issue -- and, the real source of your objection/reservation...
Click to expand...

That is only one of my reservations.

I object to the idea that a particular event being unlikely given a hypothesis casts any doubt on that hypothesis. Last night we had a thunderstorm, one that meteorologists had predicted in advance. They successfully predicted the thunderstorm, but did not attempt to predict where each particular lightning bolt would strike. They would not have been able to make such a prediction with any kind of accuracy. Each particular location in the area of the storm has a very small chance of being struck by lightning. Lightning struck some of those places. Does that mean the science describing why thunderstorms happen is wrong?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
I think that if you did accept my other entries...
Click to expand...

Do not simply double-down on your dishonest and misleading request, Jabba. You asked a question, and Dave gave you his answer. You were caught pulling the same stunt here as in your Shroud thread. It didn't work there and it won't work here.

Move on.

Consequently, it still seems to me that my particular likelihood of existence being an appropriate entry for P(E|H) in our Bayes formula is the critical issue...
Click to expand...

Straw man. Do not pretend the objections are anything other than what has been stated. You may not simultaneously make up numbers for both P(H) and P(E|H). Until you fix this and the other fatal errors that have been plainly described to you, nothing else matters.

...and, the real source of your objection/reservation...
Click to expand...

Do not attempt to put words in your critics mouths to make it seem like they want you to continue with your same-old-same-old nonsense. The objections to your claims have been plainly stated. Address them. Do not simply find excuses to prolong a debate you've clearly lost.
 
Jabba said:
- If you accepted my other entries, would you accept that P(E|H) being a very small number brings H into doubt?
Click to expand...


Jabba,

I have noticed that while your H has morphed from "the scientific model" into "only one life...", your justification for P(E|H) has not.

You have been using E, your existence, to mean your sense of existence. This is how you were able to claim E has some independence of your body under ~H. Your current H has the same characteristic.

You need to re-figure P(E|H).
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I think that if you did accept my other entries -- and, the appropriateness of my particular likelihood of existence being an appropriate entry for P(E|H) in our Bayes formula -- you would understand why P(E|H) being a very small number would bring H into doubt.
- Consequently, it still seems to me that my particular likelihood of existence being an appropriate entry for P(E|H) in our Bayes formula is the critical issue -- and, the real source of your objection/reservation...
Click to expand...

He doesn't accept your unfounded notion, and he just said so! Nor does any other reasonably sound-minded person with sense enough to not blindly lap up whatever hogwash is slopped down in front of them without having a close look at it first.


Why do you habitually not address the faults of your syllogistic non-argument, and obtusely bully your way past every criticism that's ever been raised of them?

I think I know why, but I'd get a lot of satisfaction out of seeing you print it.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- If you accepted my other entries, would you accept that P(E|H) being a very small number brings H into doubt?
Click to expand...

Stop it. Stop demanding we agree with you before we agree with you. You've been told this multiple times.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I think that if you did accept my other entries -- and, the appropriateness of my particular likelihood of existence being an appropriate entry for P(E|H) in our Bayes formula -- you would understand why P(E|H) being a very small number would bring H into doubt.
Click to expand...


Jabba -

First, asking someone a question, getting an answer and then ignoring that answer is exceptionally rude. You just disregarded godless dave's "No" for the reason that ... you didn't like it, I guess?

I do not believe that the happening of an event with very low odds calls that event into question. Events with equally low or lower odds occur every day. It would be interesting if such an event were predicted ahead of time and then came to pass. But that doesn't fit this discussion.

Once again: The system, as we understand it, produces people through a combination of low odds events. Why would the exact output we were expecting cause us to question the system.

The Lotto is designed to be won rarely. It is won rarely. Poker is designed to deliver a straight flush rarely. It deals a straight flush rarely. Why would expected results cause us to question the results?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom