Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
jond said:
There are no such thing as potential selves. That is a construct of yours and yours alone. And yet, despite the number of times this has been pointed out to you, you continue to ignore it.
Click to expand...

Jond,
- See below.

Jabba said:
- Trying to re-group and present my premises for your objections:

1. There is such a ‘thing’ (process?) as consciousness.
2. Consciousness naturally brings with it a “self” (or, “sense of self”).
3. “Self” being the experience that reincarnationists believe returns to life.

4. There is such a thing as a potential selves – before we are conceived, we are potential selves.5. There must be an infinity of potential selves.
6. Scientifically speaking, each self can have only one finite life -- at most.

7. Scientifically speaking, the likelihood of my current existence must be about 7 billion over infinity (there being about 7 billion humans currently existing on the earth).
8. In other words, the likelihood of my current existence – given the scientific hypothesis -- is virtually zero…
9. My current existence is therefore evidence that the scientific hypothesis is wrong.

10. But that’s actually quite simplistic…
11. What if other things -- or empty space -- have/has consciousness? What if there are more universes or dimensions? What if time isn’t what we think it is? What if science is only at the beginning?
12. My current existence seems pretty fertile in light of what we know and don’t know.
13. I’ll be back. I’ve got a lot of spaces to fill and miles to go.

- I'm trying to develop a map.
Click to expand...
 
Argumemnon said:
You don't actually address points, jabba. You do everything in your power to grind the debate to a halt so that you never have to admit to being wrong.

We actually see through your tactics, you know.
Click to expand...
Argumemnon,
- Give me a point now, and I'll try to address it.
 
Jabba said:
Theoretically, you'll be able to post that on the map for 'all' the neutrals to see.
Click to expand...

Why can't he post it here -- as he already has -- for all the "neutrals" to see, and have you address it without all the hemming and hawing? Why the need to move the discussion to a forum you control?
 
Jabba said:
Argumemnon,
- Give me a point now, and I'll try to address it.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I'm refering to your behaviour in the Shroud thread where you claimed to only read and address the first point of each post, which was clearly a ploy to ignore as much stuff as possible.

Jabba said:
- What potential thing is there?
Click to expand...

There are actual things, jabba. Stop trying to derail the discussion.

- Give me one.
Click to expand...

No. Go back and read the posts people write for you.
 
JayUtah said:
No. I told you enough times that you should remember, that I don't repeat arguments I've already put to you. Go back over the last three pages or so and pick up any of the points you haven't yet addressed. I will not participate in your stonewalling.
Click to expand...
- So, I'll try harder to ignore you.
 
Argumemnon said:
What are you talking about? I'm refering to your behaviour in the Shroud thread where you claimed to only read and address the first point of each post, which was clearly a ploy to ignore as much stuff as possible.



There are actual things, jabba. Stop trying to derail the discussion.



No. Go back and read the posts people write for you.
Click to expand...
- No.
 
Argumemnon said:
I thought you said you were friendly.

Gee, you seem to have a lot of time to post right now. How about you use it to learn something instead of acting like a jerk?
Click to expand...
- I'm friendly to anyone who is somewhat friendly to me. I just try to ignore people who aren't.
 
Jabba said:
- Yeah.
Click to expand...

If you were to read the thread, you'd see plenty of examples of people telling you how and when you're putting words in their mouths. Your unwillingness to read the thread does not compel people to constantly remind you of them. You and only you are responsible for how much of this thread you read and absorb. It's high time you stopped blaming everyone else for your shortcomings.

As to the matter of insults, I seem to recall Loss Leader recently having engaged you on a point. He has asked you a number of times to continue that engagement, and you have patently refused. If, as you say, you so do because the posts written to you are insulting, you should be able to go back and produce the post of his that you claim is insulting and which, according to you, would absolve you of the responsibility to answer it.

Will you do that? Will you take it upon yourself to accuse one of the moderations of insulting you? Or can we leave this silly straw man of an excuse behind?
 
Jabba said:
- I'm friendly to anyone who is somewhat friendly to me. I just try to ignore people who aren't.
Click to expand...

JayUtah has been EXCEPTIONALLY patient with you, addressing your points and claims with an ENORMOUS amount of poise and detail over the years, only to be RUDELY ignored by you at every turn. Your threat of ignoring him now rings hollow, since you've done nothing but that for years.

Jay's been your best option for learning something in all of your threads, and you've done nothing but being insulting by dismissing his best efforts to educate you as to the nature of your errors. You don't get to call him unfriendly.
 
Argumemnon said:
Well at least now we have a pretty clear admission from you that you have no intention of participating in this thread honestly. Took you long enough.
Click to expand...
- Lately, I've been responding to all your posts. Give me a post about the subject of this thread, and I'll try to answer it too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom