Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
-From Chp V, #3198, Jay is in red:
Fatal flaw 3: You don't know what the parts of a statistical inference are, how to formulate them, or what they do in an inference.

Quote:
It is evidence similar to “opportunity” in a murder trial in that it can be totally meaningless if other conditions are not met.
This is the concept of circumstantial evidence that you introduced as part of your Shroud thread. We conducted an entirely separate thread to investigate the nature of circumstantial evidence, in which your theory of it was entirely refuted. And further, as we discussed in relation to your rigged-lottery example, you don't understand the fundamental difference between possibility and evidence.

- I'll skip this one, as evidence for flaw is just claimed -- it is not provided.
 
Jabba, how does adding a soul increase the likelihood of your body existing?
 
Jabba said:
-From Chp V, #3198, Jay is in red:
Fatal flaw 3: You don't know what the parts of a statistical inference are, how to formulate them, or what they do in an inference.

Quote:
It is evidence similar to “opportunity” in a murder trial in that it can be totally meaningless if other conditions are not met.
This is the concept of circumstantial evidence that you introduced as part of your Shroud thread. We conducted an entirely separate thread to investigate the nature of circumstantial evidence, in which your theory of it was entirely refuted. And further, as we discussed in relation to your rigged-lottery example, you don't understand the fundamental difference between possibility and evidence.

- I'll skip this one, as evidence for flaw is just claimed -- it is not provided.
Click to expand...

Jabba, you are not following instructions. Your answer is incomplete.
 
Jabba said:
-From Chp V, #3198, Jay is in red:
Fatal flaw 3: You don't know what the parts of a statistical inference are, how to formulate them, or what they do in an inference.

Quote:
It is evidence similar to “opportunity” in a murder trial in that it can be totally meaningless if other conditions are not met.
This is the concept of circumstantial evidence that you introduced as part of your Shroud thread. We conducted an entirely separate thread to investigate the nature of circumstantial evidence, in which your theory of it was entirely refuted. And further, as we discussed in relation to your rigged-lottery example, you don't understand the fundamental difference between possibility and evidence.

- I'll skip this one, as evidence for flaw is just claimed -- it is not provided.
Click to expand...

Pardon me for interjecting: If you would learn to QUOTE PROPERLY, you wouldn't have to cite post numbers (which change) and chapters -- which are meaningless to all but your long-suffering critics. You also wouldn't need to colorize your headache-inducing replies.
 
Last edited:
JoeBentley said:
To Jabba it does.

You see again Jabba's whole routine is that he's trying to trick us into admitting we know we all have souls in our true heart of hearts while simultaneously getting us to talk ourselves into a "Gotcha" where we admit our cold, hard science thinks it's impossible so therefore something has to be able to make sense of that... and that thing... could it be... just could it be.... God? *Dramatic gasp, inspirational music, and then the whole bus cheered.*

Jabba's argument not making sense is a feature, not a bug. The end game is so many contradiction we have to turn to an all powerful God to make sense of them.
Click to expand...

OK, is it your claim that Jabba could be going the pre-suppositionalist route?

I could sorta buy that.
 
John Jones said:
Pardon me for interjecting: If you would learn to QUOTE PROPERLY, you wouldn't have to cite post numbers (which change) and chapters -- which are meaningless to all but your long-suffering critics. You also wouldn't need to colorize your headache-inducing replies.
Click to expand...
Oh that is just a tactical matter. The aim is to make it as difficult to track down actual quotes as humanly possible. It has been posted out to Jabba many times that citing post numbers is useless. It has been further pointed out that the correct method is to cite links to posts directly. It would seem that Jabba cares not.

So be it. It is not a good look for Jabba, but he wears it like a Shroud.
 
John Jones said:
Jabba, I hope you are paying attention. (It could happen!)
Click to expand...



I am developing a theory that there are more pink unicorns than blue ones. I’m finding Jabba’s argument style and mathematics are a perfect fit for advancing the claim. I am confident that I can reappropriate his tactics to argue my thesis even more convincingly that Jabba has argued his.
 
Fatal flaw 4: You don't understand what evidence is.

Quote:
For one thing, the hypothesis in question does need to have a ‘reasonable’ bit of doubt as to its truth.
And as with all fringe theorists, you try to drive a speculative wedge into the inductive gap in order to shift the burden of proof. You have explicitly said that all you need is a "reasonable alternative" to hold by default after you've purported to claim the prevailing theory is so unlikely as to be all but impossible.

- What's wrong with that claim?
 
caveman1917 said:
No you only get to skip 5, 8, 9 and 10. You're still required to address the others as per the instructions.
Click to expand...
- There is no 10. And, whatever the instructions, Jay just makes the claims. He should have the burden to support those claims.
 
Jabba said:
- There is no 10. And, whatever the instructions, Jay just makes the claims. He should have the burden to support those claims.
Click to expand...

Why do your opponents have to support their claims while you have yet to support a single statement in over 5 years?

Why are you so dishonest that you have to maintain double standards?
 
Jabba said:
Fatal flaw 4: You don't understand what evidence is.

Quote:
For one thing, the hypothesis in question does need to have a ‘reasonable’ bit of doubt as to its truth.
And as with all fringe theorists, you try to drive a speculative wedge into the inductive gap in order to shift the burden of proof. You have explicitly said that all you need is a "reasonable alternative" to hold by default after you've purported to claim the prevailing theory is so unlikely as to be all but impossible.

- What's wrong with that claim?
Click to expand...


If it applies to the model you are trying to disprove, it also applies to your "reasonable alternative", under which your existence is at least as unlikely.
 
Jabba said:
- There is no 10. And, whatever the instructions, Jay just makes the claims. He should have the burden to support those claims.
Click to expand...

:dl:

Jabba, you were the one who claimed you could <insert weasel words> prove immortality. You have failed to do so.
 
Jabba said:
- There is no 10. And, whatever the instructions, Jay just makes the claims. He should have the burden to support those claims.
Click to expand...

Do not reverse the burden of proof. It looks like you're scrambling for excuses not to have to address the flaws in your argument. You asked people to list objections to your claims, and that you would get to them. Apparently that is a lie.

On a different note, the list of fatal flaws is not by any means my entire contribution to this thread. Since you freely admit not reading most of any of my posts, you are not an authority on whether I have provided supporting material for my objections.
 
Last edited:
Fatal flaw 6: Your argument commits the fallacy of converting the conditional.
Quote:
If it were true, I shouldn’t be here right now. But, here I am…
No, you simply beg the question that your existence is improbable.
- No. This is not converting -- or commuting -- the conditional. In Bayesian inference, we accept that the likelihood of an event -- given a particular hypothesis -- can be evidence for, or against, the hypothesis. Here, this event seems to be strong enough evidence against the hypothesis as to virtually disprove the hypothesis.
 
Mojo said:
If it applies to the model you are trying to disprove, it also applies to your "reasonable alternative", under which your existence is at least as unlikely.
Click to expand...
- No, it doesn't. Under my alternative, my current existence is much more likely. Why do you think it isn't?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom