Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[jond]

Hokulele,
- Remember, my current ~H is that not everything is physical. If we actually have reincarnation, it must surely be that something is non-physical.

And that ~H is far less likely than H, as you well know.

 

[Jabba]

- Unfortunately, I have pressing work to do. But, I'll be back.

 

[Hokulele]

Hokulele,
- Remember, my current ~H is that not everything is physical. If we actually have reincarnation, it must surely be that something is non-physical.

You can have something non-physical without having reincarnation.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- Where has Jay repeated the question/comment I asked for, and I didn't try to answer it?

You didn't try to answer it when he posted it, did you? And you have failed to answer Agatha's question despite it having been repeated several times, by Agatha and by other posters. There isn't even correlation between questions being repeated or not and you answering them or not, let alone causation.

 

[Mojo]

- Unfortunately, I have pressing work to do.

OK, we'll expect to hear from you after you've finished the ironing.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hokulele,
- As you probably suspect, I just disagree.
- If, somehow, we do experience reincarnation, we are surely not entirely physical.

Sorry, but us not being physical is your belief. Not fact.

Hans

 

[Mojo]

Hokulele,
- Remember, my current ~H is that not everything is physical.

That's one of the many problems with your argument. ~H has to be everything that is not H. You can't define it as something else.

If we actually have reincarnation, it must surely be that something is non-physical.

And if we had some bread we could have ham sandwiches, if we had some ham.

 

[JayUtah]

Where has Jay repeated the question/comment I asked for, and I didn't try to answer it?

Why don't you read the thread and see if you can find it. Why is everyone else always somehow on the hook to direct you to things you need to pay attention to?

 

[JayUtah]

Remember, my current ~H is that not everything is physical.

Who gave you permission to change what you were trying to prove? Certainly none of your critics. You're trying to prove immortality, not just "non-physicality."

If we actually have reincarnation, it must surely be that something is non-physical.

Which gets you nothing. You still haven't figured out the difference between necessity and sufficiency in a proof. Proving that there exists something immaterial in no way proves that the immaterial something persists after death. You don't get the change horses and then claim victory.

 

[Belz...]

- My claim is that my current existence supports reincarnation, and essentially disproves H.

That's your claim, but since you are looking at H, you have to keep to H. You have continually shown that you don't understand H, so it's hard for you to disprove it.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Unfortunately, I have pressing work to do. But, I'll be back.

Jabba -

Since you addressed me personally and I took the time to respond to you, I'd be very pleased to hear from you again.

 

[Mojo]

Hokulele,
- Remember, my current ~H is that not everything is physical.

That means that H is that everything is physical.

In which case, all that is needed for your existence if H is true is the physical requirements of your existence, i.e. that your body exists. Under ~H, your existence needs that and also any non-physical requirements. This means that if your existence under ~H has any non-physical aspects your existence is less likely under ~H than it is under H. And if your existence under ~H has no non-physical aspects then under ~H you die with your physical body, just as you do under H.

 

[Mojo]

- Remember, my current ~H is that not everything is physical.

Do you realise that this means that your "current ~H" includes hypotheses under which there are non-physical souls with a finite lifetime, and also hypotheses including anything non-physical other than human souls?

 

[Hokulele]

Do you realise that this means that your "current ~H" includes hypotheses under which there are non-physical souls with a finite lifetime, and also hypotheses including anything non-physical other than human souls?

It also includes pure idealism, where there is nothing physical at all, and yet things still manage to have a finite existence. I don't think Jabba ever really understood his initial formula in the slightest.

 

[Mojo]

Do you realise that this means that your "current ~H" includes hypotheses under which there are non-physical souls with a finite lifetime, and also hypotheses including anything non-physical other than human souls?

That was rhetorical as well, by the way.

 

[JesseCuster]

Hokulele,
- Remember, my current ~H is that not everything is physical. If we actually have reincarnation, it must surely be that something is non-physical.

What do you mean "your current ~H"? H is the position you're arguing against, and ~H means "not H".

~H can only be "not everything is physical" is H is "everything is physical", but "everything is physical" is not the position you're trying to disprove.

H is not something you can redefine on a whim to suit your purposes.

There's no "current ~H" or "your ~H". There's only H and ~H. H does not depend on who you are or when it is.

 

[Belz...]

- Unfortunately, I have pressing work to do.

No you don't.

 

[Mycroft]

LL,
- Which of the following do you disagree with?
1. If I have only one finite life (at most), my current existence is extremely unlikely.

Being the end product of long odds doesn't make you special. The odds of any rock, mouse or blade of grass existing with it's precise location, shape, or genetic makeup (not for the rock, of course) are amazingly small, yet rocks, mice and grass are all very common.

2. That being the case, my current existence is evidence that I have more than one finite life.

No, it's not. It doesn't follow at all.

3. The most likely conclusion of my current existence is that I always exist.

Only if you take the Tralfamadorian point of view, who because they can see forward and backward in time, hold that even when a being dies, it still exists in the times and places where it existed.

 

[Loss Leader]

Only if you take the Tralfamadorian point of view

As an aside, I told my son that I see him like this. He is every age he;s ever been all at once. I'm as likely to dream about him being 1 as 4 as 7 as 9. He had no idea what I was talking about. Then I gave him "the talk:" Every boy will someday read Kurt Vonnegut, but he should only do it when he's old enough to handle the responsibility.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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

How this is an example of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy has already been explained to you countless times.

That being the case, my current existence is evidence that I have more than one finite life.

That makes zero sense. Even if point 1 is valid, which it isn't, why would multiple cases of 1 be more unlikely then a single case of 1?

Oh right because there's a God putting Woo-woo souls in things.

The most likely conclusion of my current existence is that I always exist.

And yet you provably don't. There was a period where you didn't exist and there will be another period where you won't again.

You could pick up any random object or pick any random process and go "Since this exist now it most have always existed and will always exist" and that's wrong.