Okay, but he doesn't resolve the other issues. See my previous post.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Proof of Immortality, the IV league
- Thread starter Mojo
- Start date
- Status
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
Here's another. Actually heard a right wing radio host use this as 'evidence'.
It went something like:
60% of people wearing seat belts in highway traffic accidents died, 40% of people wearing seat belts in highway traffic accidents survived. Therefore, according to the host, seat belts cause more fatalities than they prevent.
Couldn't get through the phone line to 'explain' to the host that he was failing to consider those in traffic accidents who were NOT wearing seat belts.
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,551
I'm going to suggest that the right-wing radio host was being deliberately obtuse because it met his agenda. Even if you had managed to ring in, I suspect you would have been "screened" out.
Just like Jabba screens the responses he receives in this thread
Just like Jabba screens the responses he receives in this thread
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Annnnoid, Fudbucker, sphenisc, jt512, caveman 1917, Nick Terry, and Dani,
- Is it possible that OOFLam is wrong?
- If none of you guys answer me, I will assume that your answers are, "Yes."
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,551
Ladies and gentlemen, honest Effective Debate there
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
If none of these people will dispute your straw man, you will assume it's false. What will that get you? Is this a pathetic strategy or what?
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Jabba, are you a hedgehog? If you either answer me or don't answer me, I will assume that your answer is "yes".
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,213
Jabba is speaking fro the Nyah-nyah-tole-ya-so School of Convoluted Rhetoric & Pointless Blather™
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You almost never answer my questions. Do I then get to assume that your answers are favorable to my position?
Sheesh, Jabba. Your desperation is way too transparent.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
This demonstrates the same issue I have with your use of that book of anecdotes to support the idea of life after death. You assume that just because you, personally, do not see dissent, the answer must agree with you.
Someday you might learn that life isn't fair, and a non-answer is simply that, a lack of response.
Belz...
Fiend God
Why?
How about, if you do not provide evidence for your claim right now, we assume that your claim is wrong and debunked?
Done.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
True. How silly of us not to employ this tack before. Good to know what effective debate entails.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
A new low.
Not so fast, fellers. "Silence implies consent," according to anglo-'merican law.
So Jabba really is a hedgehog, & all those people agree w/ him.
& since he won't respond to this post, I manifestly don't exist.
My head hurts.
So Jabba really is a hedgehog, & all those people agree w/ him.
& since he won't respond to this post, I manifestly don't exist.
My head hurts.
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
Hahaha. Negative option billing. Its actually illegal.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Annnnoid, Fudbucker, sphenisc, jt512, caveman 1917, Nick Terry, and Dani,
- For now, I'll assume that you guys agree with me that OOFLam may be wrong. I'll figure that your sense of the prior probability that OOFLam is wrong is at least .001.
- But, even if the prior probability that OOFLam is wrong is no greater than .001, Bayes would have me winning the formula since the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam is so much smaller.
Belz...
Fiend God
Hey, you. Yeah, you. Open your eyes and listen to what people are telling you. Stop *********** around with us: you can't assume that silence means agreement. At best you can assume that silence means lack of argument or interest, but surely not agreement, especially after all this time of people telling you how wrong you are.
A bit of honesty on your part would be refreshing.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
No, it wouldn't, because you never justified your value for P(E|H). You gave 7 billion over infinity and based that on H including immaterial selves, which it doesn't.
And you don't compare P(E|H) with the prior probability of ~H, you compare it with P(E|~H).
Last edited:
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
Completely pathetic attempt at dredging up any amount of support for your nonsense aside, this has already been rebutted in the discussion with jt512.
"If you cheat, your likelihood of drawing a royal flush is much greater than your likelihood of drawing one by playing fair" is true, but is not evidence that any given royal flush is actually the result of cheating.
"If you could use probability-altering magic to guarantee that you drew a royal flush, you would have a much higher chance of doing so than if you played fair" is also true, but is not even evidence that probability-altering magic exists, let alone that you actually used it.
You still have absolutely no evidence for anything you have attempted to argue throughout this entire thread.
- Status