Proof of Immortality, VI

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba,

Why do you constantly try to prove your stances using the very standards you are also trying to disprove?

This game where you try to use science and logic to prove that science "doesn't know as much as it thinks it does" and logically prove that we need to "think holistically" is transparent.

You don't believe in science or logic. You've openly insulted them and spoken at length about your problems with them as basic concepts. Why appeal to them?

 

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post

Have you forgotten how to do multi-quote, again?

 

[Jabba]

In what way do neither of those make sense? Something obviously exists, so if that seems illogical, then at least one of your premises must be wrong.

- That's the problem. Which one is it?

 

[Jabba]

Have you forgotten how to do multi-quote, again?

Zoo,
- No. But this way is easier, and for the most part, I don't see any advantage to the harder way.

 

[godless dave]

- That's the problem. Which one is it?

The premise that something couldn't always have existed. And, if you hold it, the premise that "always" extends infinitely into the past instead of a finite amount of time.

 

[JayUtah]

Zoo,
- No. But this way is easier, and for the most part, I don't see any advantage to the harder way.

Quoting properly is a courtesy to other readers.

 

[Jabba]

The premise that something couldn't always have existed. And, if you hold it, the premise that "always" extends infinitely into the past instead of a finite amount of time.

Dave,
- If I understand what you're saying, time came from nothing...

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- If I understand what you're saying, time came from nothing...

Maybe it did. Or maybe time has existed forever - where "forever" is around 13 billion years so far. There's no evidence there was ever nothing.

 

[JayUtah]

Dave,
- If I understand what you're saying, time came from nothing...

Fascinating how we're back to quibbling about pointless extranea after we had the chance to see whether Jabba really had a complete argument, and whether he could extricate himself from the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. You can easily tell whether someone believes he has a real argument. Those who don't, they keep the discussion embroiled in mystica that can never be answered, as a distraction from their own ongoing failure.

 

[Agatha]

10. And, the thing is, logically speaking, NOTHING should exist.

This is incorrect, and entirely unsupported by you. Clearly, things do exist.

Yes it is. Logically speaking, either something has come from nothing, or something has always existed

This is a false dilemma.

neither of which makes any sense.

Ah, here comes the appeal to personal incredulity. Just because something doesn't 'make sense' to you, doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- If I understand what you're saying, time came from nothing...

Maybe it did. Or maybe time has existed forever - where "forever" is around 13 billion years so far. There's no evidence there was ever nothing.

- So, you're suggesting that "ever" only goes back 13 billion years. Does that really make sense?

 

[godless dave]

- So, you're suggesting that "ever" only goes back 13 billion years. Does that really make sense?

That's what the available evidence suggests. Whether it makes sense to me has no bearing on whether it's true.

 

[JayUtah]

Does that really make sense?

Doesn't matter. It's what the evidence says. If you're going to talk about materialism, and by extension the science that espouses it, that's what you need to be thinking about when you talk about time.

Insinuating that something doesn't make sense to you, and therefore perhaps isn't true, is not an argument. We the species are not limited by your personal incapacity. Earlier you told us you couldn't understand how people could conclude that incarnation wasn't a self-evident fact. Perhaps when you are able to broaden your horizons and consider other theories besides incarnation, you'll be able to discuss intelligently whether you have a viable mathematical proof for immortality. Right now it just seems that you believe in immortality, can't conceive of a universe in which you aren't immortal, and therefore you conclude that there "must" be a viable mathematical proof for such a "fact."

 

[Dancing David]

Dave,
- If I understand what you're saying, time came from nothing...

Space/Time came from 'we don't know', that is different from nothing and a derail to your premise anyhow.

We DO NOT KNOW where spacetime came from. Period.Full stop

 

[Belz...]

Keep in mind that if I'm right, we're all the same re our mortality and I can't set us apart the usual way...

You're not right. Every single step in your reasoning is wrong. You need to completely start over with different arguments. Repeating the old ones can't work.

- Yes it is. Logically speaking, either something has come from nothing, or something has always existed --
neither of which makes any sense.

They both make perfect sense under certain physical realities. Why do they not make sense?

Which one is it?

Probably the latter. So what?

But this way is easier, and for the most part, I don't see any advantage to the harder way.

The advantage is that it would be more respectful to other posters and would show that you're serious about this.

So, you're suggesting that "ever" only goes back 13 billion years. Does that really make sense?

Who cares if it makes sense? It's what the evidence seems to indicate. The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.

 

[Agatha]

Fascinating how we're back to quibbling about pointless extranea after we had the chance to see whether Jabba really had a complete argument, and whether he could extricate himself from the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. You can easily tell whether someone believes he has a real argument. Those who don't, they keep the discussion embroiled in mystica that can never be answered, as a distraction from their own ongoing failure.

Well, he could amend his argument to overcome the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

He could address the point that if he never existed, the universe would still be here doing its universe thing.

He could address the point that the only time he could be existing is now.

He could read and respond to the posts pointing out where his argument fails.

Or he could try to distract people by changing the subject yet again, this time to the origins and age of the universe.

 

[Dancing David]

- So, you're suggesting that "ever" only goes back 13 billion years. Does that really make sense?

It does in the universe as it exists, what was there 'before' the universe , we don't know.

Irrelevant derail

 

[JayUtah]

Or he could try to distract people by changing the subject yet again, ...

Irrelevant derail

Fairly conclusive proof that Jabba has no real interest in the topic at hand. The question then shifts to why anyone should take him seriously.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- It would take me a week or so to address all of Jay's list

It has taken you five years to NOT address any of the fatal flaws in your argument. Why are you so against taking a week to actually address them?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Dave,
- If I understand what you're saying, time came from nothing...

Jabba is your end game going to be "Explain every facet of how the universe works or admit I'm immortal?"