Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
LL,
- I recognize what you're saying. So far, I think these different unknowns complement each other towards weakening H.
Click to expand...


Would you be kind enough to explain how?

If there's a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance of some life form existing somewhere at some time that was conscious enough to question its mortality - and - if there have been 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 universes outside of our own, doesn't that bring the chance of a mortal, material being that lives and dies in one of those universes close to 1?
 
Jabba said:
Argumemnon,
- I won't quote Hokulele if he doesn't want me to, but I do want to present the other side, so I'll paraphrase whoever is appropriate. I won't identify said person if he or she doesn't want me to.
- Also, remember how slow I am. My map might be a straw man.
Click to expand...

My Dear Mr. Savage:

None of us want you to misquote our arguments, as is your wont. Were you in the demonstrated habit of honest disputation, this would not be an issue...

As with the CIQ threads, it would really be better if you simply addressed the issue here, instead of recrafting the "debate" on the forum you control.

I remain, unparticipatingly yours &ct.
 
Jabba said:
I would like to quote so as to present a non-neutered version.
Click to expand...


Your habit of putting words into your opponents mouths in this forum, not to mention what happened last time you claimed you were presenting their arguments on your own website, robs this statement of any credibility.
 
Jabba,

So wait what's kept you going this long is the belief that there is some... unseen "silent majority"-esque group of people watching the discussion and agreeing you, both with your idea of mathematically probablye immortality and your poorly hidden subtext of skeptics being big meanie poopie heads who don't take your meaningless, evidenceless assertions at face value.

Wow I called this thread a passion play earlier. Might have been more on the head then I thought.

So basically

- You start a thread on a skeptics website claiming you can prove an impossibility via an absurdity.
- You demand we have this discussion under your inane "Rules of Effective Debate" which seem to boil down to "I get to say anything I want and everyone has to agree with me."
- You then take out of context quotes from this thread and post them on your website as proof that skeptics are big meanie heads.

Wow. Just wow.
 
Do not quote me on your web site, if you were inclined to do so. You may however quote this: You have previously distorted the opinions of your interlocutors on your blog to the point of reporting lies.
 
JoeBentley said:
So wait what's kept you going this long is the belief that there is some... unseen "silent majority"-esque group of people watching the discussion and agreeing you...
Click to expand...

Most people who are losing a debate propose that the lurkers are secretly persuaded. A bold few will invite lurkers to weigh in. When they de-lurk, inevitably the vote is the same: the claimant has lost the debate.

Jabba claimed in the Shroud thread that unnamed other web sites and forums would appreciate his arguments more. And in this thread he's suggested his superior form of thought made his arguments more appealing. He has, to my knowledge, never mounted an argument that did not include the component that his critics were in some way inept, dishonest, or biased. All the failures in his arguments get somehow attributed to his critics for not being sufficiently open-minded, not being able to understand his brilliant claims, or (as a last resort) not being friendly enough.

You then take out of context quotes from this thread and post them on your website as proof that skeptics are big meanie heads.

Wow. Just wow.
Click to expand...

This is how Jabba goes about losing a debate. When he admitted in the Shroud debate that he had lost on the merits, he spent years trying to show that he had only appeared to lose, and only because his critics were biased and unfair. That culminated in his Shroud debate "map" that basically rewrote the debate to make it look like he was winning. Jabba refused to post a link back to the original debate -- that all but admits his edits and omissions were intended to change how the debate was perceived.

Now here he's admitted he can't prevail on the merits, but he still thinks he's right. That's Jabba-speke for accusing his critics, once again, of some kind of dirty pool. He's convinced he's right, therefore his inability to win a debate must be someone else's fault. He told me one of the reasons he was here was to advocate the merits of Effective Debate. He clearly fancies himself a teacher of debate methods, and therefore supposedly a master at it. And master debaters don't lose debates. If it appears he's losing one, he has to recreate it in a walled garden so that it can look the way he imagined it should have gone.
 
Jabba,

If you have the tiniest shred of intellectual honesty or integrity you will directly and honestly, without any games, answer this question.

Do you feel that your opponents in this thread are only winning because they are being dishonest, misrepresenting your arguments, or otherwise "cheating?"
 
Loss Leader said:
Would you be kind enough to explain how?

If there's a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance of some life form existing somewhere at some time that was conscious enough to question its mortality - and - if there have been 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 universes outside of our own, doesn't that bring the chance of a mortal, material being that lives and dies in one of those universes close to 1?
Click to expand...

Some sentient organism. Not one specific sentient organism. This is your blind spot. You fail to distinguish between the general and the specific. You argue as if the prior probability of your specific existence is equal to the probability of some random sentient organism existing somewhere in some random universe.

It makes no difference how many universes exist, or how many sentient organisms they produce. A particular organism remains a singular, incomprehensibly complex organization of mass and energy, occurring in one particular universe, at one particular set of x,y,z,t coordinates in that universe.

As a result of a specific, incomprehensibly complex chain of events, beginning with indeterministic quantum chaos and then propagating across billions of years. Punctuated by occasional indeterministic quantum events.
 
Toontown said:
Some sentient organism. Not one specific sentient organism. This is your blind spot. You fail to distinguish between the general and the specific. You argue as if the prior probability of your specific existence is equal to the probability of some random sentient organism existing somewhere in some random universe.

It makes no difference how many universes exist, or how many sentient organisms they produce. A particular organism remains a singular, incomprehensibly complex organization of mass and energy, occurring in one particular universe, at one particular set of x,y,z,t coordinates in that universe.

As a result of a specific, incomprehensibly complex chain of events, beginning with indeterministic quantum chaos and then propagating across billions of years. Punctuated by occasional indeterministic quantum events.
Click to expand...

And what is the specific difference between the general and the specific, other than the application of texas sharpshooter fallacy?

The 'specific' can only be pointed to AFTER it occurs. Then it becomes specific and re-interpreted as some sort of 'goal'?

Again, this is like dumping a dumptruck full of sand, then looking at the particular order of the grains and arguing the likelihood of this particular order is so incredibly unlikely that it could not have occurred without design.
 
Mojo said:
Your habit of putting words into your opponents mouths in this forum, not to mention what happened last time you claimed you were presenting their arguments on your own website, robs this statement of any credibility.
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- What you guys mean by "putting words in your mouth is when I ask you, "Is this what you mean?"
 
JoeBentley said:
Jabba,

If you have the tiniest shred of intellectual honesty or integrity you will directly and honestly, without any games, answer this question.

Do you feel that your opponents in this thread are only winning because they are being dishonest, misrepresenting your arguments, or otherwise "cheating?"
Click to expand...
Joe,
- I don't think you're winning.
 
Jabba said:
I don't think you're winning.
Click to expand...

Untrue. You admitted not more than a few weeks ago, before your brief hiatus, that you were unable to prevail. That means your opponent is winning. You said you still thought you were right, but as far as the debate goes, you all but admitted defeat.
 
JayUtah said:
Untrue. You admitted not more than a few weeks ago, before your brief hiatus, that you were unable to prevail. That means your opponent is winning. You said you still thought you were right, but as far as the debate goes, you all but admitted defeat.
Click to expand...


I imagine that "being right" and "winning" are not the same thing when it comes to Truly Effective DebateTM...
 
godless dave said:
Do you think skipping things that make you uncomfortable is conducive to reaching the truth?
Click to expand...
Dave,
- As a matter of fact...
- Though, I don't really expect to reach the truth here.

- So much of what I face here is insulting. And insults do not foster an open mind. Then I'm told that by trying to ignore the insults, I'm the one who's being rude.
- Do you realize how non-objective we humans are? And 95% of the participants here are dedicated materialists.
- And as always, I only have so much time, and I'm slow anyway...
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- As a matter of fact...
- Though, I don't really expect to reach the truth here.

- So much of what I face here is insulting. And insults do not foster an open mind. Then I'm told that by trying to ignore the insults, I'm the one who's being rude.
- Do you realize how non-objective we humans are? And 95% of the participants here are dedicated materialists.
- And as always, I only have so much time, and I'm slow anyway...
Click to expand...

It's not the insults we're accusing you of ignoring. Insults are against the forum rules. If you report them the mods will act.

I was thinking more about non-insulting posts like this:

Mojo said:
Anyway, Jabba, back to the question that you have conspicuously failed to answer.

Why do you think there would be a difference between you and a perfect copy of you, and what would that difference be?
Click to expand...

And this:


godless dave said:
So which is it? Are you referring to the experience of a sense of self, or to some immaterial self that is somehow capable of looking out of two sets of eyes?

We accept the existence of the former. We don't accept the existence of the latter. Which one are you talking about?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom