Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Sparrow said:
You are trying to speak of a potential thing as if it is an actual thing.
Click to expand...

Indeed, to get his Big Denominator he alludes to some abstract principle of potentiality he's invented specifically for this purpose. If something can exist but doesn't, he still gets to slap a number on it and count it. Does this apply to bananas and Volkswagens, or to anything else that could exist but doesn't? No, only to people -- because only people have souls.

The glaring circularity in that reasoning doesn't seem to faze him.
 
I predict another 5+ years of Jabba's equivocation about the word have. Correct me if I'm wrong, if any of us live that long.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- Agreed. You would never have a sense of self, and you wouldn't be part of the "we each" that has one finite life; but, you would be part of the "we each" that has one finite life at most. The combination of your particular sperm cell and ovum that never occurred would still represent a "potential" self -- a potential self that never actualized.
Click to expand...

A "POTENTIAL" THING IS NOT A THING! THAT IS WHAT "POTENTIAL" MEANS! WHAT PART OF THAT COULD YOU POSSIBLY NOT GET!?

Stop talking gibberish!
 
Jabba said:
- Agreed. You would never have a sense of self, and you wouldn't be part of the "we each" that has one finite life; but, you would be part of the "we each" that has one finite life at most. The combination of your particular sperm cell and ovum that never occurred would still represent a "potential" self -- a potential self that never actualized.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
"I" wouldn't be part of anything because there would be no "I". Godless Dave wouldn't even exist as an abstract concept.
Click to expand...
- How about as a theoretical potential? YOU would be part of the theoretical potential that never came to physically exist. That is an abstract concept.
 
JayUtah said:
Indeed, to get his Big Denominator he alludes to some abstract principle of potentiality he's invented specifically for this purpose. If something can exist but doesn't, he still gets to slap a number on it and count it. Does this apply to bananas and Volkswagens, or to anything else that could exist but doesn't? No, only to people -- because only people have souls.

The glaring circularity in that reasoning doesn't seem to faze him.
Click to expand...


He has also failed to explain why his Big Denominator should apply to a hypothesis in which immaterial "selves" don't exist but not to one in which they do.
 
Mojo said:
Or how about as a possible theoretical potential? How many words do you think you need to add to change the concept you are using them to describe?
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- My basic claim here is that there are, indeed, potential combinations of sperm and ovum, and each of those represents a potential person/self. Take it, or leave it. I'll leave it to the jury.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- My basic claim here is that there are, indeed, potential combinations of sperm and ovum, and each of those represents a potential person/self.
Click to expand...


Yes, I know. So does everyone else who has been following the thread who is capable of basic comprehension, because you have repeatedly restated this.

What you haven't done is addressed all the reasoned arguments against it that have been presented, and which the "jury" will also be able to see unless you dishonestly omit them from your "map". Why not do the thing you haven't done instead of repeating the one you have?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- My basic claim here is that there are, indeed, potential combinations of sperm and ovum, and each of those represents a potential person/self. Take it, or leave it. I'll leave it to the jury.
Click to expand...

The casual observer knows what you claim, because you keep repeating it like a parrot. This jury rejects it.
 
Jabba said:
My basic claim here is that there are, indeed, potential combinations of sperm and ovum, and each of those represents a potential person/self.
Click to expand...

That's like arguing with a pit boss in Vegas that you won the hand because the deck has a "potential" Royal Flush in it.

POTENTIAL THINGS ARE NOT THINGS! AN INFANT CAN UNDERSTAND THIS CONCEPT.

You've already made this argument multiple times. It's already been refuted multiple times. You are being rude by repeating it.

Take it, or leave it.
Click to expand...
We did. We "left it." We dismissed it as meaningless, poorly and rudely argued gibberish 5 years ago. You're the one pretending otherwise.

I'll leave it to the jury.
Click to expand...

WHAT JURY? Who are you talking to? There's no "jury." There's no mythological "neutral audience" of silent observers who are watching this trainwreck and nodding in approval at you anywhere but in the fantasy world you've created in your head.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- My basic claim here is that there are, indeed, potential combinations of sperm and ovum, and each of those represents a potential person/self. Take it, or leave it. I'll leave it to the jury.
Click to expand...

Why are there not infinite possible souls that can be created as well? If there are (and to suggest otherwise would suggest that the agency responsible for their creation was not omnipotent, which may not be a road you want to go down), then P(E|~H) becomes zero. There are, however, a finite but very large number of ways in which DNA may be arranged, which implies that P(E|H) is non-zero. You can therefore plug P(E|~H)=0 and P(E|H)>0 into your Bayesian equation and find out that P(~H)=0; again, perhaps not a road you want to go down.

Dave
 
Your #1 premise, the very root of your position, lies seriously damaged from attack while you leave it undefended. Without #1 standing upright, your entire argument is without basis.

Wouldn't this be a good time to shore up your foundation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom