Once again, I wasn't careful enough about my wording...
Once again, trying lawyer your way out doesn't fix the fundamental problems with your arguments.
One of the ways for the self to be "immortal" is for it to exist even when a body carrying the self does not.
That's the only way for you to be immortal. You've already conceded that the natural world, i.e., the materialist hypothesis, does not allow for immortality. Hence you need to prove the existence of something immaterial before you can argue that one of the properties of this immaterial self is that its temporal extent is separate from that of the physical body that incarnates it. That immaterial self is called the soul, although you assiduously prefer to obfuscate the concept in order to try to make it sound more sciency.
You need to prove the existence of a soul, and then go on to prove this soul is immortal. You know you cannot do this. We know you know you cannot do this. You have tried to do it by means of a poorly-formulated statistical argument that hides a whole raft of assumptions. You claim your model makes it statistically unlikely that any person exists currently unless he has a soul. The many problems with this model have been brought to your attention and roundly ignored by you.
In that case, there would need to be at least two states of existence for us selves.
That would have to follow from the premises you need to prove. Or rather, your desired hypothesis mandates that the soul would need to have a different lifespan than the body, hence there would need to exist a mechanism for that to occur. Since the act of incarnation is the event in your model, you would have to contemplate the possibility a soul has both an incarnated and non-incarnated form. This is not earth-shattering. It is, in fact, rather mundane Christian theology. Proving the existence of such a mechanism as Christian theology of the soul describes has been shown to be beyond your capability. Indeed it was beyond the capability of all the great philosophers of antiquity.
My claim so far is that the prior probability that our selves are immortal -- in that sense -- is at least .01 (which we can argue about later).
No, let's argue about it now, since this is one of your fundamental errors. All your attempts in this forum to construct a model for statistical inference involve you simply inventing all the numbers that go into it. You do not understand the concept of degrees of freedom in such models, and from my experience you are entirely uninterested in learning. The 0.01 figure is merely one of many such made-up numbers.
Does that resolve this objection?
The objection is the same as it has been for five years. You are profoundly ignorant when it comes to statistical reasoning, and you are not interested in learning how your model fails, but you have convinced yourself you're some sort of unsung genius and are now asking people to contribute to that fantasy. The objection is, and has always been, to your construction of the alleged spaces among which your inferences and observations are expected to take place.
