First, my argument applies to you and everyone else on this forum that isn't an android...
Asked and answered. You equivocate your wording of the sample space between -- as in this case -- a universal proposition, and then elsewhere some preselected individual when you need to cobble up a rationale for the supposed improbability of yours (or anyone else's) existence.
Since you've already faced up to the analogy that demonstrates this error, it would be less rude to your critics if you kindly quit making it repeatedly.
And then, please forget about the immortality part.
Asked and answered. You told us you thought you could prove immortality mathematically. When you figured out you couldn't, in order to save face you tried to move the goalposts as you often do to soften what you think you need to prove. You even tipped your hand that once you had done that, you'd snap it back to full strength as you typically do in order to curry false agreement, and you're doing so again vigorously in this post.
No, your critics are under no obligation to let you try to prove a lesser claim, especially when you haven't revised your argument in critical places to account for that lesser claim. If you want to prove something other than immortality, admit here that you can't and start a new thread with a new rationale and a new goal. Because otherwise you're
very blatantly changing horses.
Maybe a better analogy is that I haven't changed horses at all, I've just moved my crossing back up the river...
Pure, deceptive equivocation. In the parlance of debate, "Changing horses" means changing what you're going to prove, while in the middle of the argument to prove it. That's exactly what you're trying to do. And now you're just pleading to redefine the idiom to disguise the attempt.
How dishonest, Jabba. After four years do you really think your critics aren't wise to this perfidy?
IOW, I'm claiming that my argument so far applies to both immortality and ~OOFLam;
But it doesn't because you don't know how to properly partition the hypothesis set. Specifically you don't know how to keep the need for a soul on one side and the brain-only proposition on the other. This leads you to inadvertently require a soul for the one-finite-life case computation, which is not something your opponents accept as a proper characterization of their position.
And of course we've been over and over and over this. Many times. As I've asked you many times before, if your plan is simply to repeat your claims over and over again with few if any changes and ignore what nearly everyone else says to you, why would you think a rational person would engage you? Why wouldn't a rational person instead conclude that this "debate" isn't just a self-gratifying attempt to post-justify a belief you've already admitted cannot be shaken and would be emotionally devastating to you if you didn't believe it had objective strength?
Answer, please.
