• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
- Here's my presentation to the hoped for jury so far.

1. According to modern science, we each should have only one finite life to live, at most -- "OOFLam."
__1.1.*We each have exactly one finite life. Hypothetical people who never existed are not part of "we".
__1.2. (See 3.1. below)
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.
__3.2. *Did you*have*to exist?
__3.3. No. And if I didn't exist, I wouldn't have a sense of self, so I wouldn't be part of the "we each" that has one finite life.
__3.4.*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.
__3.5.*"I" wouldn't be part of anything because there would be no "I". Dave wouldn't even exist as an abstract concept.
__3.6.**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.
__3.7. (1617-Dave)*It's about as meaningful as The Sparrow's [another respondent's] potential bridge in Brooklyn and the 500 million potential dollars I'm willing to pay for it.
__3.8. (1633)Dave,
-I'll leave this sub-issue to whatever mixed jury we can drum up.

.
__3.9.(Mojo) *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?
__4.0.*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.
[The "prosecution" has further arguments re this particular sub-issue (#3). * To review them, please go to *http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=320890&page=41.]
 
Jabba said:
- Here's my presentation to the hoped for jury so far.

1. According to modern science, we each should have only one finite life to live, at most -- "OOFLam."
[...]
]
Click to expand...

Would you stop beating this into the ground? Every point has been refuted a dozen times.

Move along and start providing either evidence or mathematical proof for immortality.
 
John Jones said:
Jabba,
If I were in your position, I would be asking for written permission (if not absolution) to quote JayUtah. Loss Leader. Godless Dave, Mojo. and many, many others on that abomination of a website you call your 'map'.
You may quote the above.
Click to expand...


Jabba, you do not have my permission, written or otherwise, to quote me anywhere other than on the International Skeptics forum.
 
Jabba said:
- Here's my presentation to the hoped for jury so far.

1. According to modern science, we each should have only one finite life to live, at most -- "OOFLam."
__1.1.*We each have exactly one finite life. Hypothetical people who never existed are not part of "we".
__1.2. (See 3.1. below)
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.
__3.2. *Did you*have*to exist?
__3.3. No. And if I didn't exist, I wouldn't have a sense of self, so I wouldn't be part of the "we each" that has one finite life.
__3.4.*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.
__3.5.*"I" wouldn't be part of anything because there would be no "I". Dave wouldn't even exist as an abstract concept.
__3.6.**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.
__3.7. (1617-Dave)*It's about as meaningful as The Sparrow's [another respondent's] potential bridge in Brooklyn and the 500 million potential dollars I'm willing to pay for it.
__3.8. (1633)Dave,
-I'll leave this sub-issue to whatever mixed jury we can drum up.

.
__3.9.(Mojo) *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?
__4.0.*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.
[The "prosecution" has further arguments re this particular sub-issue (#3). * To review them, please go to *http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=320890&page=41.]
Click to expand...

Fortunately, the jury can still read all the responses that you have chosen to ignore.
 
Also, Jabba: why do you reference what scientists think when you have acknowledged that the model you're basing all of this on is NOT the scientific model?
 
Argumemnon said:
And what happens to your theory if in fact we have exactly thirteen lives each?
Click to expand...


Please don't mention any of the infinite possibilities in Jabba's excluded middle. He can't separate the chance that the materialistic model isn't true from the chance that his single one is.
 
Jabba said:
Here's my presentation to the hoped for jury so far.
Click to expand...

There is no "jury." Whatever you may decide to do elsewhere is your business. But while you are at ISF you are expected to defend your claims in the face of the findings of your critics. If you have no intention of answering your critics here, please have the courtesy to say so, so that your would-be critics won't waste their time on you and so the moderators can accurately evaluate whether your use of this forum is within the bounds of your agreement.

Here is a summary of what's wrong with your case. It was presented here months ago, after one of your earlier attempts to create a "map." You presented your case here. I answered it here. You are expected to continue the debate here. For each of the fatal flaws, please write a few sentences explaining how you plan to address or overcome the flaw. If you cannot do so, we are within reason to consider you in "contempt of court."

Please correct your behavior so that it is no longer a distraction in the test of your proof in this thread.
 
Dave and others,
- Moving right along...
- My next set of sub-issues. All comments welcome. I'll send any of my viewers (if and when I get any) over here to read whatever comments I don't publish.

4. Under that hypothesis [OOFLam], my current existence is*EXTREMELY*unlikely.
5. But here I am!
6. Given the "right" conditions, the fact that I do currently exist is*EXTREMELY*strong evidence that OOFLam is wrong.
7. Often, however,*all*of the alternative possible results/events produced by the particular situation are extremely unlikely -- in such a case, the unlikelihood of the particular event produced is*not*evidence against the hypothesis.
8. In such a case, in order to be evidence against the hypothesis, the particular event needs to be "set apart" from most of the other possible results in a way that is meaningful to the particular hypothesis. A good example is when a lottery is won by the second cousin of the lottery controller.
9. Consequently, in order for my current existence to be evidence against OOFLam, I need to be set apart in a way meaningful to OOFLam.
10. That is the case.
 
This is just recycled nonsense. It's been posted several times by you, and you rarely if ever address the many comments on this or your other posts.

OOFLam is not what 'science' says. OOFLam is your made-up mish-mash of bits of science and bits of religion. Until you fix that, there really is no point in addressing any of your further arguments, no matter how prettily you number them.
 
Jabba said:
4. Under that hypothesis [OOFLam], my current existence is*EXTREMELY*unlikely.
Click to expand...

You have yet to do more than simply assert that your current existence is any more likely under any other hypothesis. In fact, as I have pointed out, under many other hypotheses your existence is infinitely unlikely. I can justify this with theological arguments if you're interested.

Jabba said:
9. Consequently, in order for my current existence to be evidence against OOFLam, I need to be set apart in a way meaningful to OOFLam.
10. That is the case.
Click to expand...

Bare assertion fallacy, as usual. You have not set yourself apart on any other criterion than mere existence, which is the condition you're seeking to analyse. Hence, you are still committing the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

So there are two more exposures of fatal flaws in your argument for you to pretend you can't see.

Dave
 
Jabba said:
I'll send any of my viewers (if and when I get any) over here to read whatever comments I don't publish.
Click to expand...

We don't care about any phantom audience of sycophants you are trying to draw elsewhere. We care about whether you will address the errors and flaws your critics have identified in your arguments. So far you don't seem the least interested. Ironically your other web audience -- ostensibly impartial -- drew the same conclusion as we have here: You're only interested in hearing yourself talk and not whether your ideas have any actual merit.

Unless you correct your behavior, you will have provided plenty of evidence that talking to you is simply not worth the effort.

4. ...
Click to expand...

All this has already been presented and refuted many times before. Please address the refutations and stop spamming the thread.
 
Jabba said:
Dave and others,
- Moving right along...
- My next set of sub-issues. All comments welcome. I'll send any of my viewers (if and when I get any) over here to read whatever comments I don't publish.

4. Under that hypothesis [OOFLam], my current existence is*EXTREMELY*unlikely.
5. But here I am!
6. Given the "right" conditions, the fact that I do currently exist is*EXTREMELY*strong evidence that OOFLam is wrong.
7. Often, however,*all*of the alternative possible results/events produced by the particular situation are extremely unlikely -- in such a case, the unlikelihood of the particular event produced is*not*evidence against the hypothesis.
8. In such a case, in order to be evidence against the hypothesis, the particular event needs to be "set apart" from most of the other possible results in a way that is meaningful to the particular hypothesis. A good example is when a lottery is won by the second cousin of the lottery controller.
9. Consequently, in order for my current existence to be evidence against OOFLam, I need to be set apart in a way meaningful to OOFLam.
10. That is the case.
Click to expand...


Reported for rule 6
 
Jabba said:
Dave and others,
- Moving right along...
Click to expand...

Of stop it. Stop dismissing all the criticism of your gibberish with a curt, rude "Moving right along."

My next set of sub-issues.
Click to expand...

NO MORE SUB-ISSUES! No more split hairs. No more stalling.

GET ON WITH IT!

All comments welcome.
Click to expand...

You've ignored every single thing said in response to your silliness. Stop acting like you have the argumentative high ground here. You are not graciously letting us in your little debate Jabba.

4. Under that hypothesis [OOFLam], my current existence is*EXTREMELY*unlikely.
5. But here I am!
6. Given the "right" conditions, the fact that I do currently exist is*EXTREMELY*strong evidence that OOFLam is wrong.
7. Often, however,*all*of the alternative possible results/events produced by the particular situation are extremely unlikely -- in such a case, the unlikelihood of the particular event produced is*not*evidence against the hypothesis.
8. In such a case, in order to be evidence against the hypothesis, the particular event needs to be "set apart" from most of the other possible results in a way that is meaningful to the particular hypothesis. A good example is when a lottery is won by the second cousin of the lottery controller.
9. Consequently, in order for my current existence to be evidence against OOFLam, I need to be set apart in a way meaningful to OOFLam.
10. That is the case.
Click to expand...

All nonsense. Why it is nonsense has already been explained multiple times.
 
Jabba said:
Dave and others,
- Moving right along...
- My next set of sub-issues. All comments welcome. I'll send any of my viewers (if and when I get any) over here to read whatever comments I don't publish.

4. Under that hypothesis [OOFLam], my current existence is*EXTREMELY*unlikely.
5. But here I am!
Click to expand...


It would be charitable to call this English.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom