Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeBentley said:
No. You don't get to rename your nonsense again in the same sad, transparent attempt to get us to agree with it.
Click to expand...
That's my current fascination with this thread: Jabba seems incapable of simply defining his term, and then proceeding to advance an argument using that definition. Instead, he keeps substituting terms and references ("what reincarnationists believe", "perceiver", etc.). He hopes that we will supply our own definition by connotation, and that he can hang his argument on whatever definition he imagines we've thus agreed to.

Every time his argument founders on our refusal to simply pretend he's defined his term and we've agreed to it, he circles back and tries another substitution.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
That's my current fascination with this thread: Jabba seems incapable of simply defining his term, and then proceeding to advance an argument using that definition. Instead, he keeps substituting terms and references ("what reincarnationists believe", "perceiver", etc.). He hopes that we will supply our own definition by connotation, and that he can hang his argument on whatever definition he imagines we've thus agreed to.

Every time his argument founders on our refusal to simply pretend he's defined his term and we've agreed to it, he circles back and tries another substitution.
Click to expand...


Whatever term he uses, he means "soul". He has admitted this, and apparently believes that calling it something else will mean that he is not begging the question when he inserts it into his premises.

As usual, he's wrong.
 
Mojo said:
Whatever term he uses, he means "soul". He has admitted this, and apparently believes that calling it something else will mean that he is not begging the question when he inserts it into his premises.

As usual, he's wrong.
Click to expand...


The funny thing is, this thread (way back when) was moved from the Science forum into the Religion forum. It was done precisely because Jabba kept referring to a soul but wouldn't use the word. Now that we are here in Religion and Philosophy, there is no impediment to using the word 'soul'. Yet Jabba, bless his perceiver, still refuses to do so.
 
Monza said:
The funny thing is, this thread (way back when) was moved from the Science forum into the Religion forum. It was done precisely because Jabba kept referring to a soul but wouldn't use the word. Now that we are here in Religion and Philosophy, there is no impediment to using the word 'soul'. Yet Jabba, bless his perceiver, still refuses to do so.
Click to expand...

It's because he knows that as soon as uses "soul" he loses, as his argument no longer has any connection to H. So he tries to obfuscate, not realising perhaps that calling it a different name doesn't fool anyone here. He still loses.
 
theprestige said:
That's my current fascination with this thread: Jabba seems incapable of simply defining his term, and then proceeding to advance an argument using that definition. Instead, he keeps substituting terms and references ("what reincarnationists believe", "perceiver", etc.). He hopes that we will supply our own definition by connotation, and that he can hang his argument on whatever definition he imagines we've thus agreed to.

Every time his argument founders on our refusal to simply pretend he's defined his term and we've agreed to it, he circles back and tries another substitution.
Click to expand...

It's just a guy doing stuff in a discussion thread. They're doing stuff like that all over the place.
 
Argumemnon said:
It's because he knows that as soon as uses "soul" he loses, as his argument no longer has any connection to H. So he tries to obfuscate, not realising perhaps that calling it a different name doesn't fool anyone here. He still loses.
Click to expand...

But...I thought he already lost...
 
Well done, Hellbound! Here's my attempt...


Effective debate was the goal.
Or was it merely to troll?
Regardless of name,
It's all just the same.
Everyone knows it's a soul.
 
Hellbound said:
There once was a man with a theorem
"Through two sets of eyes, I would peer 'em!"
To his opposite poles
he kept adding a soul
Betting no one was able to hear 'em.
Click to expand...

The Sparrow said:
Bravo!
Click to expand...

Seriously?

T'was a man who would not desist
Because the odds said he shouldn't exist
But no one believed him
And claimed he'd deceived them
"It's the sharpshooter fallacy!", they hissed

"I've drawn no target!" he insisted
But they said he should be blacklisted
For just happening to be here
Just like Mount Rainier
And claiming that "H" must be twisted

"Depends on perspective" was my line
Which made the objectivists whine
But Rainier ain't got nary
And yours is arbitrary
So I'll just be sticking with mine
 
Dave,
- What would you like to add as responses to the following?
Others,
- If you want to add your responses to this beginning of the map, let me know what they were, or are, and I'll try to add them to the official map.

1. According to modern science, we each should have Only One Finite Life (at most) – “OOFLam.”
2. The "we each" to which I refer is the sense of self that we all, apparently, have.
3. Most scientists would include "at most" because they don't think that any of us ever had to exist.
3.1. "At most" is redundant.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- What would you like to add as responses to the following?
Others,
- If you want to add your responses to this beginning of the map, let me know what they were, or are, and I'll try to add them to the official map.
Click to expand...

There's an official map?

Where is it?
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- What would you like to add as responses to the following?
Others,
- If you want to add your responses to this beginning of the map, let me know what they were, or are, and I'll try to add them to the official map.

1. According to modern science, we each should have Only One Finite Life (at most) – “OOFLam.”
2. The "we each" to which I refer is the sense of self that we all, apparently, have.
3. Most scientists would include "at most" because they don't think that any of us ever had to exist.
3.1. "At most" is redundant.
Click to expand...

Numerous posts have given you the answers. Now might be a good time to actually read them. You're not going to, of course, because you don't like their responses.

But since you've already declared that your H bears no relationship to what scientific understanding is, why do you continue this charade?
 
Jabba said:
If you want to add your responses to this beginning of the map...
Click to expand...

No, not another "map." If memory serves, you were told not to use this thread to solicit or co-opt members' participation here for your own purposes elsewhere. Moderation aside, what you're proposing to do is dishonest and rude, and you know it. Please stop insulting your critics. You proposed your proof here. You agreed to debate it here. Stop trying to pretend elsewhere that you're winning. We are not merely pawns in your fantasy world.

Here is the list of individually fatal flaws in your argument. I asked you to provide, for each one, a few sentences describing how you would overcome these flaws. You know this post exists. You tried to make it into your "map" before, following your last fringe reset. But you have yet to actually address it, leading a reasonable person to conclude you have no desire actually to participate in this debate, but only mine it for a self-indulgent fantasy.

I specifically withhold permission for you to use that post, or any of my posts here, in anything you write outside this forum. Conversely, I expect you to stick to your promise to debate your proof here.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- What would you like to add as responses to the following?
Others,
- If you want to add your responses to this beginning of the map, let me know what they were, or are, and I'll try to add them to the official map.

1. According to modern science, we each should have Only One Finite Life (at most) – “OOFLam.”
2. The "we each" to which I refer is the sense of self that we all, apparently, have.
3. Most scientists would include "at most" because they don't think that any of us ever had to exist.
3.1. "At most" is redundant.
Click to expand...

We each have exactly one finite life. Hypothetical people who never existed are not part of "we".
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- What would you like to add as responses to the following?
Others,
- If you want to add your responses to this beginning of the map, let me know what they were, or are, and I'll try to add them to the official map.

1. According to modern science, we each should have Only One Finite Life (at most) – “OOFLam.”
2. The "we each" to which I refer is the sense of self that we all, apparently, have.
3. Most scientists would include "at most" because they don't think that any of us ever had to exist.
3.1. "At most" is redundant.
Click to expand...

Already addressed. You are being rude by just repeating yourself.
 
Jabba said:
- If you want to add your responses to this beginning of the map, let me know what they were, or are, and I'll try to add them to the official map.
Click to expand...

No one wants to participate in your map, jabba. Get on with the demonstration of your claim. No more definitions. No more requests for agreement or clarification. Just get on with it before we all die of old age.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- What would you like to add as responses to the following?
Others,
- If you want to add your responses to this beginning of the map, let me know what they were, or are, and I'll try to add them to the official map.

1. According to modern science, we each should have Only One Finite Life (at most) – “OOFLam.”
2. The "we each" to which I refer is the sense of self that we all, apparently, have.
3. Most scientists would include "at most" because they don't think that any of us ever had to exist.
3.1. "At most" is redundant.
Click to expand...

You don't have a clue what most scientists would include, and you may not post anything of mine outside this forum.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom