Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- In Dave's terms, the copy would be identical, but not the same.
Click to expand...


Nope. The copy would be identical, but identical. Look up the definition of the word "identical".

You claim that a physically and chemically perfect copy of you would somehow be different from you. How would it be different, and why, under materialism, would it be different?

Answer the question, please.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Monza,
- I accept all of that -- except that about the copy not being wrong. The copy would be wrong about being the original, but without witnesses to what just happened, no one could tell which one was which.
- In Dave's terms, the copy would be identical, but not the same.
Click to expand...

How would the original or the copy know which one they were?
 
Jabba said:
- In Dave's terms, the copy would be identical, but not the same.
Click to expand...
You keep equivocating on the meaning of the word 'same' and it's continually pointed out to you, yet you continue doing it.

I'm going to assume you mean 'distinct' when you mean 'not the same', so the 2 copies would be 'identical but distinct'.

Okay. So what? :confused:
 
JesseCuster said:
You keep equivocating on the meaning of the word 'same' and it's continually pointed out to you, yet you continue doing it.

I'm going to assume you mean 'distinct' when you mean 'not the same', so the 2 copies would be 'identical but distinct'.

Okay. So what? :confused:
Click to expand...


[Jabba]If they weren't the same one they would be 'identical but different'.[/Jabba]
 
This is pointless.

No matter what distinction we make Jabba is just going to make vague allusions to something "different" that's totally not a soul.
 
JoeBentley said:
This is pointless.

No matter what distinction we make Jabba is just going to make vague allusions to something "different" that's totally not a soul.
Click to expand...


But remember: it's Jabba who is trying to prove something here; the longer he delays, the longer he fails to prove it.
 
Mojo said:
But remember: it's Jabba who is trying to prove something here; the longer he delays, the longer he fails to prove it.
Click to expand...
He doesn't come across as someone who's trying to prove something. More like someone who's resigned himself to arguing pointless minutiae instead of trying to argue an actual case for immortality.
 
JesseCuster said:
He doesn't come across as someone who's trying to prove something. More like someone who's resigned himself to arguing pointless minutiae instead of trying to argue an actual case for immortality.
Click to expand...


Well, yes, it does look as if he's just trying to prolong the discussion so it looks as if there's actually something to discuss.

He's playing for a draw.
 
Jabba said:
jond,
- They wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Then what's the problem? If they both think they're Jabba, what is different between them. Only the physical space they occupy.

ETA: just like two identical VWs, or blades of grass.
 
Last edited:
Here's one that I can't figure and Jabba has never quite been clear on:

Jabba, suppose that you are correct that souls exist and can continue on without a body, even moving from body to body. Why does that mean they're immortal? Why can't they last 10,000 years. That's well more than 10 lives and a huge increase in the chance they'd exist right now. But it's not immortality. How do you get to immortality?
 
Loss Leader said:
Here's one that I can't figure and Jabba has never quite been clear on:

Jabba, suppose that you are correct that souls exist and can continue on without a body, even moving from body to body. Why does that mean they're immortal? Why can't they last 10,000 years. That's well more than 10 lives and a huge increase in the chance they'd exist right now. But it's not immortality. How do you get to immortality?
Click to expand...
Loss Leader,
- Immortality just seems to make the most sense. If I have only one finite life (at most), my current existence is extremely unlikely. That being the case, my current existence is evidence that I have more than one finite life. The most likely conclusion of my current existence is that I always exist...
 
Jabba said:
Loss Leader,
- Immortality just seems to make the most sense. If I have only one finite life (at most), my current existence is extremely unlikely. That being the case, my current existence is evidence that I have more than one finite life. The most likely conclusion of my current existence is that I always exist...
Click to expand...

Except that you've agreed that having a soul is far less likely than the materialistic explanation.
 
Jabba said:
Loss Leader,
- Immortality just seems to make the most sense. If I have only one finite life (at most), my current existence is extremely unlikely. That being the case, my current existence is evidence that I have more than one finite life. The most likely conclusion of my current existence is that I always exist...
Click to expand...

You just keep repeating this. Then when pressed on the details, you attempt to engage for a while, until you are backed into a corner of your own making. Then, you re-assert your original claim again and repeat the whole exercise.
 
Jabba said:
Immortality just seems to make the most sense.
Click to expand...

You missed his point entirely. Let's say for the sake of argument that something persists after death. How do you go from "persisting after death" to "will exist forever?" That's a big leap.

If I have only one finite life (at most), my current existence is extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...

That's what you're trying to prove, but so far you have been unsuccessful.
 
Jabba said:
Loss Leader,
- Immortality just seems to make the most sense. If I have only one finite life (at most), my current existence is extremely unlikely. That being the case, my current existence is evidence that I have more than one finite life. The most likely conclusion of my current existence is that I always exist...
Click to expand...


"Seems like" is a terrible argument. The sun "seems like" it goes around the earth, for example. In addition, as has been noted numerous times, if your current existence is unlikely, so is everything else, and yet you claim this argument only works for people. How inconsistent...
 
The Sparrow said:
You just keep repeating this. Then when pressed on the details, you attempt to engage for a while, until you are backed into a corner of your own making. Then, you re-assert your original claim again and repeat the whole exercise.
Click to expand...

Yes. The now daily fringe reset.
 
Jabba said:
Loss Leader,
- Immortality just seems to make the most sense. If I have only one finite life (at most), my current existence is extremely unlikely. That being the case, my current existence is evidence that I have more than one finite life. The most likely conclusion of my current existence is that I always exist...
Click to expand...


Your existence, as an observable event, requires your body to exist.

Under H that is all it requires; under the hypothesis that you have a soul, it requires your body to exist, your soul to exist, and your soul to occupy your body. This means that it impossible for your existence to be more likely under the hypothesis that you have a soul than it is under H.

You claim that there is an infinite number of souls and they are randomly allocated to bodies. This means that your current observable existence is impossible if souls exist.

You exist.

You argument, if it is valid, proves that souls don't exist.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom