I explained why the deer very likely was the target even though it had not been pre-specified.
Yes, and I explained why that doesn't match your proof for immortality. "Pre-specification" is a straw man. In fact evidence was apparent that informed the conclusion. That evidence points to conditions that existed before the shot was taken -- the identity of the shooter as a farmer. e.g. It doesn't point to conditions suddenly granted significance by the outcome.
My inference, in this case, was not based upon outcome alone
Correct, which is why it's an unsuitable analogy to your proof. In your proof you
do base your inference upon outcome alone. You were asked to cite any additional evidence, such as in your deer-hunting analogy, that your proof provides. You could not; you simply asked us to marvel at what a special snowflake you thought you were. Therefore you are inferring your result from outcome alone, which is unreliable. You simply named as the intended target whatever was hit.
however -- my inference included the probability of other deer being close enough to be hit instead.
No, it didn't. This is the first we've heard of other deer.
Ad hoc revision.
A friend says, "Watch this."...
Which, taken together, is prior information that he is likely going to attempt some noteworthy feat. That information was conveyed before the data were sampled, but without specification we do not know what that feat was meant to be. How do you know his intent was not to make a smiley-face with the bullet holes, and that he failed? How do you know he wasn't trying to shoot a long line of evenly-spaced holes? As usual, you're observing what you think the data mean after the fact and assuming that was the intent.
You really need to get away from these increasingly irrelevant analogies and start talking about your proof, which commits the Texas sharpshooter fallacy without any doubt whatsoever. You still haven't told us what you think that fallacy is, which indicates to me you really don't understand it. And because you don't understand it, you keep committing it and begging your critics to let it slide. That will never happen.
So sure, outcome alone can mean nothing about what the target was -- however, other background information can tilt the scale.
Your proof for immortality provides nothing else to tilt the scale. It is inferred from outcome alone. Further, this prong of your proof is where you attempt to rule that mataerialism is very improbable -- reckoning P(E|H). Therefore all the inferences have to be drawn solely on what materialism provides. Materialism specifically rejects what you're trying to tack onto it. There is no notion whatsoever of "pre-selection" or "pre-specification." This is one of the other fatal flaws you were asked to address, but yet haven't.
And then, certain aspects of the outcome alone can also tilt the scale.
In your most recent example, the "certain aspects" were simply what you assumed about the outcome. It was not data, but assumption. You look at the close shot grouping and
assumed that was the shooter's intent. Similarly your proof for immortality simply observes your presence and assumes there was something pre-ordained about it. You provide no evidence for such pre-ordination and sweep under the rug that the regime in which you have to reckon that explicitly rejects it.
Please at least look up what "begging the question" means before you respond further. And also, please describe the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in your own words. I grow tired of asking.
