Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

This answer is incomplete. I gave you a specific set of instructions to follow. I told you what form and content your answers should take. I made if very clear that it should comprise a single post, and should explicitly not contain your typical dialectics. You can't seem to follow simple instructions.

These were not arbitrary instructions or arbitrary requirements. I did not attempt in any way to hide the purpose behind them. They are meant to keep you from manipulating the discussion as you have in the past to bog it down in irrelevant detail. It is meant to force you to actually address the entire argument at once, since you agree that your sub-sub-sub-issue, depth-first approach has failed.

Now please start over and do as I asked.
 
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

This answer is incomplete and is not in the correct form. Please follow the instructions.
 
Jabba said:
- No, it doesn't. Under my alternative, my current existence is much more likely. Why do you think it isn't?
Click to expand...

NO: your alternative also requires the existence of your body, which is what you claim to be so unlikely. And the circumstances under which your body came about don’t change just because you’ve added another unlikely element, in this case a soul. Which means it is impossible for your alternative to be more likely.
 
jond said:
NO: your alternative also requires the existence of your body, which is what you claim to be so unlikely. And the circumstances under which your body came about don’t change just because you’ve added another unlikely element, in this case a soul. Which means it is impossible for your alternative to be more likely.
Click to expand...

More importantly, he simply hasn't explained his alternative. He's banking on deriving P(E|H~H) as 1-P(E|H) without ever having to say what ~H is aside from some vague "immortality."
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- There is no 10.
Click to expand...

WTF? It's right there:
JayUtah said:
Fatal flaw 10: You err in attributing mathematical countability to an abstract concept.
Click to expand...

You can ignore it of course, but it is there.

As always you do gotta love the irony in these though. Not only does mathematical countability obviously apply to an abstract concept (a set, to be precise) but there's even an entire foundational field in mathematics (called set theory) where it wouldn't just apply to an abstract concept but to the abstract concept.

And, whatever the instructions, Jay just makes the claims. He should have the burden to support those claims.
Click to expand...

That is true, he does and, as far as I'm concerned, has met that burden except for FF 5, 8, 9 and 10. Now it's your turn. Furthermore, your presentation must indeed be of the form as instructed.
 
Fatal flaw 7: You beg the question that existence is improbable without immortal souls, and use this begged question as a premise in your argument.

Quote:
I shouldn’t be here right now because there must be an infinity of potential “selves,” and only 7 billion existing selves. So, the odds of me currently existing is 7 billion to infinity – or, virtually zero…
No, and it has been elaborated ad nauseam why not.

- Again, it has been claimed ad nauseam that it's not. Give me just one valid reason why it's not.
 
Jabba said:
Fatal flaw 7: You beg the question that existence is improbable without immortal souls, and use this begged question as a premise in your argument.

Quote:
I shouldn’t be here right now because there must be an infinity of potential “selves,” and only 7 billion existing selves. So, the odds of me currently existing is 7 billion to infinity – or, virtually zero…
No, and it has been elaborated ad nauseam why not.

- Again, it has been claimed ad nauseam that it's not. Give me just one valid reason why it's not.
Click to expand...

This answer is incomplete and is in the incorrect form. Please follow the instructions.
 
From 1365 by Caveman:
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- There is no 10.
WTF? It's right there:
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Fatal flaw 10: You err in attributing mathematical countability to an abstract concept.
You can ignore it of course, but it is there...
- You're right. I had forgotten that Jay entered more claimed fatal flaws after he started with the "dishonest tactics."
 
Jabba said:
From 1365 by Caveman:
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- There is no 10.
WTF? It's right there:
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Fatal flaw 10: You err in attributing mathematical countability to an abstract concept.
You can ignore it of course, but it is there...
- You're right. I had forgotten that Jay entered more claimed fatal flaws after he started with the "dishonest tactics."
Click to expand...

I agree with JoeBentley. The forum provides a quote function which automatically creates a link back to the post you're quoting, so that can be easily referenced. Several posters and at least one moderator has instructed you to use the quote function rather than post numbers that require effort to resolve. I can only conclude that you're being deliberately obtuse in order to forestall scrutiny.

Further, it appears you haven't even read the list of fatal flaws yet in its entirety so as to know how many there are. This casts doubt on your ability to determine whether your critics have substantiated their claims. You argue they have not, but we have seven chapters of proof otherwise -- proof you evidently have not read.
 
Last edited:
JoeBentley said:
JABBA LEARN THE GODDAMN QUOTE FUNCTION.
Click to expand...

What's even more hilarious is that he's quoting the wrong text. He copypastes the fatal flaw and then the text after it. It's the text before each fatal flaw that summarizes the rationale for it. Not only can't Jabba follow simple instructions or simple conventions, he hasn't figured out yet the relevance of his quotes.
 
Jabba said:
From 1365 by Caveman:
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- There is no 10.
WTF? It's right there:
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Fatal flaw 10: You err in attributing mathematical countability to an abstract concept.
You can ignore it of course, but it is there...
- You're right. I had forgotten that Jay entered more claimed fatal flaws after he started with the "dishonest tactics."
Click to expand...

Well then, there you go...
 
Jabba said:
Fatal flaw 7: You beg the question that existence is improbable without immortal souls, and use this begged question as a premise in your argument.

Quote:
I shouldn’t be here right now because there must be an infinity of potential “selves,” and only 7 billion existing selves. So, the odds of me currently existing is 7 billion to infinity – or, virtually zero…
No, and it has been elaborated ad nauseam why not.

- Again, it has been claimed ad nauseam that it's not. Give me just one valid reason why it's not.
Click to expand...

No, that's a lie and you know it. It has been explained repeatedly. Do as you were instructed.
 
Jabba said:
- No, it doesn't. Under my alternative, my current existence is much more likely. Why do you think it isn't?
Click to expand...


For your existence to be an observable event, your body must exist. Under the model you oppose, that is all that is required. The likelihood of your existence under your alternative therefore cannot be greater than it is under the model you oppose.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
From 1365 by Caveman:
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- There is no 10.
WTF? It's right there:
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Fatal flaw 10: You err in attributing mathematical countability to an abstract concept.
You can ignore it of course, but it is there...
- You're right. I had forgotten that Jay entered more claimed fatal flaws after he started with the "dishonest tactics."
Click to expand...


What the frick is wrong with you, that you can't grok the quote function?
 
Jabba said:
Under my alternative, my current existence is much more likely. Why do you think it isn't?
Click to expand...

Because, for one thing, you haven't actually demonstrated that your current existence is any more likely as the result of the entire range of other possible hypotheses than materialism than as a result of materialism (by "demonstrated" I don't mean pulling two numbers out of your nether regions then insisting that there is some significance in the fact that one of your made-up numbers is a hundred, or a thousand, or whatever number you've picked this week, orders of magnitude larger than the other; I mean an actual argument with actual evidence). For another, you haven't actually stated what your alternative is, just hedged around it with weasel words.

Look, we all know you're claiming that you have an immortal soul that was created by God. What we don't see is why it was in any way probable that God created your soul rather than another one very, very slightly different to it; in other words, nobody can see any way in which your hypothesis is any better at threading the eye of the philosophical needle you've constructed than the materialist hypothesis that you're trying to distort to a point where it looks like your construct is relevant. And this, in fact, is the ultimate fatal flaw in your argument; at no point have you actually demonstrated a greater probability for your existence under the complement of materialism than under materialism.

Do you think you might condescend to actually try to do so some time in the next half-decade of this discussion, having so signally failed to do so in the first?

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom