Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
What you have in brackets is not the claim I'm rejecting. What I'm rejecting is this:

2) if so, your current existence is an appropriate E for P(E|H) in the appropriate formula
Click to expand...

I reject the claim that me being "set apart from most everything else" has anything to do with my current existence being an appropriate E for P(E|H).
 
Jabba said:
- So, why wouldn't you accept that your current existence is an appropriate E for P(E\H)?
Click to expand...


It is rude, Jabba, to ask people to repeat themselves for years upon end. Start anywhere in your thread and actually read it and you'll have dave's answers as well as a wealth of others.

The fact that the universe produced something the universe was capable of producing is not magic, it's an expected outcome.
 
Jabba said:
- So, why wouldn't you accept that your current existence is an appropriate E for P(E\H)?
Click to expand...

That's not what you asked. You asked whether a certain premise, if true, would lead to a certain supportable conclusion. Now, as you typically do when you ask a question of that form, you're trying to lay aside the conditional and entrap your critics. I promise you they're not that dumb.

Materialism has no notion of a particular specimen being "set aside." You're trying desperately to paste that notion onto it. And why? Because you've decided on a probabilistic model for your proof, and now you're in a corner because the theory you hope to falsify by it doesn't include your notion -- or any notion -- of any such probabilities or the concepts you're trying to reckon in probability. You don't get to change another person's theory to fit your cobbled-up plan to refute it. That's the definition of a straw-man argument.

In short, we don't accept your proposal because that's not materialism.

As for the rest of it, I covered that already. There is much more than just the formulation of E in your line of reasoning that arrives at P(E|H) being formulated the way you did. And nearly all of it is wrong for reasons that don't relate to E. Even if the E formulation is stipulated (which it isn't) you still don't have a reasonable rationale for P(E|H).

Again, this and many more of your fatal errors were identified here, a post we know you have read but are now choosing to ignore. Before you demand explanations from people about why they have rejected your claims, you should address the reasons they have already given.
 
Jabba said:
- There are a bunch of different issues here. I'll start off with, "What would P(E|H) be if we calculate from before the big bang?"
Click to expand...


Jabba,
- you are talking about calculating P(E|H) where H is the materialist hypothesis. Under this hypothesis you have a body.
- If J is the hypothesis that you have an immaterial soul in addition to your body, can P(E|J) be greater than P(E|H)?
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
According to your argument, there are an infinity of potential outcomes from the big bang, yet we end up in this one whose likelyhood is vanishingly small among the infinity of potential outcomes from the BB.

You are, in fact, supporting creationism. I would not be surprised if you turned out to be a YEC proponent. That is the trajectory you have chosen.
Click to expand...


Well, yes, Jabba's argument does seem to lead to ID rather than immortality. But it doesn't actually lead there either, because of ID's claim that the designer must be more complex than the entities it designs. This means that it is less likely that a designer has spontaneously come into existence than it is that The universe as we see it has spontaneously come into existence.

Invoking ID doesn't get Jabba any nearer to proving immortality either, because there's no reason to assume that a designer would have included immortal souls in the design.
 
godless dave said:
What you have in brackets is not the claim I'm rejecting. What I'm rejecting is this:
I reject the claim that me being "set apart from most everything else" has anything to do with my current existence being an appropriate E for P(E|H).
Click to expand...
Dave,
- Previously, you seemed to be accepting that if I could set myself apart from most of the other possible results -- in a way that is meaningful to the hypothesis being reevaluated (like being second cousin to the lottery controller) -- my current existence would be an appropriate E for P(E|H). Did I misunderstand what you were saying?
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Previously, you seemed to be accepting that if I could set myself apart from most of the other possible results -- in a way that is meaningful to the hypothesis being reevaluated (like being second cousin to the lottery controller) -- my current existence would be an appropriate E for P(E|H).
Click to expand...
If I had some ham I could have ham and eggs, if I had some eggs.

In five years you have never even attempted to "set yourself apart from most of the other possible results -- in a way that is meaningful to the hypothesis being reevaluated (like being second cousin to the lottery controller)", and it's painfully obvious that you have no clue how to do so (which is scarcely surprising, as you are not in fact set apart in any way). What on Earth is the point of discussing such an impossible hypothetical?
 
Jabba even given your history and your admitted ulterior motive you should have advanced your argument beyond "If agree to agree with me you'll have to agree to agree with me" level by accident by now.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Previously, you seemed to be accepting that if I could set myself apart from most of the other possible results -- in a way that is meaningful to the hypothesis being reevaluated (like being second cousin to the lottery controller) -- my current existence would be an appropriate E for P(E|H). Did I misunderstand what you were saying?
Click to expand...

You must have. I never meant to suggest that. I don't think your "set apart" concept is meaningful at all.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Previously, you seemed to be accepting that if I could set myself apart from most of the other possible results -- in a way that is meaningful to the hypothesis being reevaluated (like being second cousin to the lottery controller) -- my current existence would be an appropriate E for P(E|H). Did I misunderstand what you were saying?
Click to expand...


This is like saying: "Jabba, if you would agree that there might not be such thing as a soul, would you say that water is wet? Yes? Well, since you accept water is wet, you must agree that there is no such thing as a soul!"

Your attempt to backdoor in agreement on the existence of your immortal soul would be wonderfully devious, if it weren't so pathetically obvious.
 
At this point "We're immortal because my car is made of pasta" wouldn't be functionally different from any argument Jabba has made.

And it wouldn't even raise to that level. Not enough groveling and hair splitting. At least "We're immortal because my car is made of pasta" is coherent nonsense.
 
Jabba said:
Did I misunderstand what you were saying?
Click to expand...

Yes. And it's hard to see how you could have, considering dave's clear and concise responses. Now quit stalling and get on with it. You told us you were expecting people to post their objections to your claims. Here you go. Can you please at least provide an estimate for when you'll be addressing each of those? They've been around a while waiting for your further attention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom