• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Dave,

1. The word "self" has multiple meanings.
2. The meaning that I wish to address is the particular self that reincarnationists believe returns to life.
3. Even if the reincarnationists are wrong in their belief, they are referring to something real.

- So far, so good?
Click to expand...


The definition is fine, but point 3 is completely wrong. The soul hasn't been shown to be real under H.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,

1. The word "self" has multiple meanings.
2. The meaning that I wish to address is the particular self that reincarnationists believe returns to life.
3. Even if the reincarnationists are wrong in their belief, they are referring to something real.
Click to expand...

And under H, that "something real" is entirely physical. It's part of the brain.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,

1. The word "self" has multiple meanings.
2. The meaning that I wish to address is the particular self that reincarnationists believe returns to life.
3. Even if the reincarnationists are wrong in their belief, they are referring to something real.

- So far, so good?
Click to expand...

" Even if the reincarnationists are wrong in their belief, they are referring to something real."

How so, just by assertion?
 
And here's today's morning reset.

Jabba said:
1. The word "self" has multiple meanings.
Click to expand...

Yes, but not all of them are appropriate in all contexts. If you're evaluating the conditional P(E|H) you must use the meaning of "self" that pertains to that hypothesis H. It doesn't matter that some other hypothesis K might formulate the self differently, or that you don't believe in H. You must evaluate the probability as if H were true. The real H, not your straw man.

2. The meaning that I wish to address is the particular self that reincarnationists believe returns to life.
Click to expand...

You're free to "address" your concept of a soul all you want. What you cannot do is pretend the reincarnationists' concept of a soul is what is meant by the "self" in H for the purposes of evaluating P(E|H).

3. Even if the reincarnationists are wrong in their belief, they are referring to something real.
Click to expand...

Meaningless twaddle. The reincarnationists are referring to something they believe exists. If it were real in any useful sense of the word, they could prove it exists. But they cannot, so it remains a hypothesis. It is a "real" hypothesis, but that's not an equivocation that works here.

But more importantly, if we assign K to be the reincarnationists' hypothesis for the self, what they call the self under K is absolutely irrelevant to what materialism formulates as the self under H. When you get around to reckoning P(E|K) you can "address" that formulation of the soul all you want. But you don't get to paste it also onto H as a post-justification for saying P(E|H) must be small.

So far, so good?
Click to expand...

It's insulting for you even to ask. You're not even engaging anymore. Every day you do absolutely nothing but repeat the same claims you did the day before and ignore all the responses, even godless dave's. So my question stands: why should a thinking person take you the slightest bit seriously?
 
JayUtah said:
... So my question stands: why should a thinking person take you the slightest bit seriously?
Click to expand...


I have been running under the assumption that the vast majority of the respondents do not take Jabba seriously, but enjoy responding to something that takes very little intellectual exercise to effectively rebut.

A little bit of a light entertainment, rather than any sort of mental heavy lifting, if you will.
 
Hokulele said:
I have been running under the assumption that the vast majority of the respondents do not take Jabba seriously, but enjoy responding to something that takes very little intellectual exercise to effectively rebut.

A little bit of a light entertainment, rather than any sort of mental heavy lifting, if you will.
Click to expand...

I would look like kind of a jerk if I admitted you were right in my case.

But I'd be lying if I said you were wrong.
 
Hokulele said:
I have been running under the assumption that the vast majority of the respondents do not take Jabba seriously, but enjoy responding to something that takes very little intellectual exercise to effectively rebut.
Click to expand...

No doubt some consider Jabba merely a chew toy, and that's as may be. But Jabba purports a desire to be taken seriously. Therefore I'm asking what about his argument would convince someone to engage him as anything other than a chew toy? Arguments that attract serious respondents must display certain properties. They must move. They must involve concession of untenable points. They must, obviously, require the claimant to acknowledge what other people say. Jabba's argument fails on all these counts. So if I'm wrong about what constitutes an Effective Debate that would attract serious participants, what would Jabba say is right about his argument, that it should be so attractive?
 
JayUtah said:
No doubt some consider Jabba merely a chew toy, and that's as may be. But Jabba purports a desire to be taken seriously. Therefore I'm asking what about his argument would convince someone to engage him as anything other than a chew toy? Arguments that attract serious respondents must display certain properties. They must move. They must involve concession of untenable points. They must, obviously, require the claimant to acknowledge what other people say. Jabba's argument fails on all these counts. So if I'm wrong about what constitutes an Effective Debate that would attract serious participants, what would Jabba say is right about his argument, that it should be so attractive?
Click to expand...


To willfully put words in his mouth, what makes his argument correct and compelling is the simple fact that he must be right!
 
Jabba said:
Dave,

1. The word "self" has multiple meanings.
2. The meaning that I wish to address is the particular self that reincarnationists believe returns to life.
3. Even if the reincarnationists are wrong in their belief, they are referring to something real.

- So far, so good?
Click to expand...

After nearly five years: So far, so bad.
 
Hokulele said:
To willfully put words in his mouth, what makes his argument correct and compelling is the simple fact that he must be right!
Click to expand...

Oh, sure. But I can still make a poor, distasteful, illogical argument in favor of a true fact. And I can make a compelling argument for a false allegation of fact. (So can any lawyer worth his retainer. :D) But what makes an argument attractive -- regardless of how truthfully it's aimed -- is something else altogether.

A novel line of reasoning, a connection among hitherto unrelated facts, a felicity or economy of expression, a fresh perspective, a lively repartee -- these are all things that might attract someone to read and join a debate, regardless of the merits of either side. We see none of that here -- at least from Jabba. The reasoning is patently fallacious, the facts are non-existent, the writing is tedious and repetitive, and Jabba argues as if his ears were stuffed with cotton. The only thing I can think of is the recollection that he told others he was coming here to teach those godless atheists a lesson, and his occasional declaration that he's winning the debate (or at least losing in a way that seems unfair). Thus I have to conclude he doesn't want a thinking opponent; he wants an approbational audience.
 
Jabba said:
2. The meaning that I wish to address is the particular self that reincarnationists believe returns to life.
3. Even if the reincarnationists are wrong in their belief, they are referring to something real.
Click to expand...


And what exactly is that, Jabba? What are the characteristics of this "self"? Does it include memories, likes, hatreds, or what? If it's real, then define its characteristics.
 
JayUtah said:
Oh, sure. But I can still make a poor, distasteful, illogical argument in favor of a true fact. And I can make a compelling argument for a false allegation of fact. (So can any lawyer worth his retainer. :D) But what makes an argument attractive -- regardless of how truthfully it's aimed -- is something else altogether.

A novel line of reasoning, a connection among hitherto unrelated facts, a felicity or economy of expression, a fresh perspective, a lively repartee -- these are all things that might attract someone to read and join a debate, regardless of the merits of either side. We see none of that here -- at least from Jabba. The reasoning is patently fallacious, the facts are non-existent, the writing is tedious and repetitive, and Jabba argues as if his ears were stuffed with cotton. The only thing I can think of is the recollection that he told others he was coming here to teach those godless atheists a lesson, and his occasional declaration that he's winning the debate (or at least losing in a way that seems unfair).
Click to expand...


Very true.

Thus I have to conclude he doesn't want a thinking opponent; he wants an approbational audience.
Click to expand...


I believe the one thing he keeps hoping for is a participant who will make just one concession to any part of his argument, that he can then use as evidence elsewhere that his critics agree with him after all. It doesn't matter whether or not that participant is an actual "opponent", or that acceptance of one portion of the claim is not actually equivalent to complete agreement, but that Jabba can make the claim in the future that his scintillating debate skills show results.
 
Hokulele said:
...but that Jabba can make the claim in the future that his scintillating debate skills show results.
Click to expand...

Indeed, such a tactic seems formulated to drive the observation of the debate toward one of two extremes. On the one hand, the slightest agreement can be made to look like victory: "My critics agreed with me, therefore I won the debate." On the other hand, concerted disagreement can be written off: "I clearly made good points, but my critics are so entrenched that they wouldn't budge." Attractive debate is notably devoid of such rhetorical shenanigans. As is Effective Debate. A debate that effectively tests a proposition isn't concerned with hollow victories or sour-grapes defeats.
 
Jabba: Now might be a good time to actually read the many responses you've had to this question every time you've asked it. It's been dealt with, extensively both by Godless Dave, and by many other people. Your refusal to actually read and understand those responses, and then continually ask the same question is simply dishonest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom