I've certainly tried to explain this lack of morphing.
No, you simply insist it hasn't occurred despite the many demonstrations showing you it has.
The basic idea is that the argument for ~OOFLam is contained in, is part of, the argument for immortality.
Asked and answered several times.
First, you still appear confused about the difference between necessity and sufficiency in an argument. And frankly I've grown tired of trying to explain it to someone who's emotionally entrenched in an opposite belief.
Second, that "contained in" part doesn't let you reason statistically as you're attempting to because you have partitioned the hypothesis set incorrectly for immortality, or even for that matter, immateriality (although you still don't get to move that goalpost without consequences to your argument). jt512 explained this, as did caveman1917. That explanation had to be brought to your attention several times, and you sidestepped it by saying you "didn't understand."
So we're back to the same dilemma of figuring out whether you're feigning incomprehension in order to protect your cherished belief, or whether you're not sufficiently competent to undertake the kind of proof you've set for yourself. There is no possibility that you're correct, so pick one of the other two explanations for continuing to be wrong.
The claim of immortality just requires more argument.
No, it requires a different argument. You're trying the same thing you do in all your threads. You try to prove a belief, but you soon realize you can't. So then you try to show that some other belief is improbable, and you style it as the only other alternative. This is a false dilemma.
And in the larger sense it's the same as every other fringe claimant. They can't prove the farfetched claim, so they try to disprove the common alternative in hopes their belief will then hold by default. UFOs "must" be alien ships because no earthly possibility explains the observation. Someone else "must" have killed Kennedy because it was unlikely Oswald could have succeeded acting alone. The moon landings "must" be a hoax because it's improbable they could have done it using 1960s technology. And in your case, we "must" be immortal for similar reasons.
