Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Naw, don't spoil their fun. Let them discover for themselves the special soul that is Jabba. Otherwise Jabba will just complain (as usual) that those pesky skeptics have ruined his presentation and robbed him of the praise his genius should earn.
 
abaddon said:
Their membership would suddenly jump?
Click to expand...



Nah, vivisection of his elementary bovine excrement is too paint-by-numbers at this point to be worth creating an account on another forum to pursue. He’s not entertaining enough to be worth the effort.
 
Jabba said:
I think you're referring to the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. My latest syllogism includes my best attempt at rebutting that claim.
Click to expand...

Jabba,

You seem to be having some trouble understanding the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, since you are pointing to your admission of committing it as if it's proof that you didn't. It's been explained a few (hundred) times by various members, but here's one of the most recent explanations for you, so you don't need to go searching for it:

Pixel42 said:
SOdhner said:
The sharpshooter fallacy is where you pick the target after the shots are fired. In this instance, the "target" is you existing. Since you already existed when you set this target, it is absolutely by definition the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

Picture if we were playing cards. You got four aces, and I got a six of diamonds, a jack of clubs, a three of clubs, and a seven of hearts. Then I pull out some paper and write "RULES: Aces are worthless, and if you have a six of diamonds, a jack of clubs, a three of clubs, and a seven of hearts then you win" on it. Now I say that I get to take all your money, even though I wrote the rules after we already drew our cards. Would you be okay with that? (Note that both our hands have equal likelihood - the only reason to value one over the other is because of the rules we've made up whether that's my newly-written rules or the more common rules of, say, poker.)
Click to expand...
Jabba: read this again, and keep reading it until you understand the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

Your existence is not equivalent to four aces or a royal flush, it is the equivalent to any old random selection of cards.This has been pointed out to you more times than I can count, and your only response has been to say you don't agree, but you can give no sensible reason why not. It is the most fundamental and egregious of the mistakes you are making, and if you cannot address it then your argument immediately fails. So address it, or admit defeat and go away.
Click to expand...

Do you understand it now?

Many people have asked you to explain your understanding of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy to them since you seem to be using some new definition none of us are familiar with. If you still don't understand or agree with the quote above, could you explain what you think the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is?

If you accept that the quote above is accurate but you just don't care, I would LOVE to have you over for a game of cards. Bring your money, I'll bring a pad of paper so I can write down the rules as we play.
 
- Actually, I have a new, and easier, question.
- What is the likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years? I get 1/140,000,000 (at most).
- Does anyone here agree with me?
 
Jabba said:
- Actually, I have a new, and easier, question.
- What is the likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years? I get 1/140,000,000 (at most).
- Does anyone here agree with me?
Click to expand...

You'll have to explain how you get that number first.

Not that the question makes sense, mind you. The likelihood of now is 1, since it's always now. Rephrasing the question will NOT change anything about the reality you're trying to ignore.
 
Jabba said:
- Actually, I have a new, and easier, question.
- What is the likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years? I get 1/140,000,000 (at most).
- Does anyone here agree with me?
Click to expand...

No. JoeMorgue already did such a series I think. Let's use those and YOU tell US why THOSE numbers aren't to your liking.
 
Jabba said:
- Actually, I have a new, and easier, question.
- What is the likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years? I get 1/140,000,000 (at most).
Click to expand...

1. This is the only time you could have been alive, because your life is the result of previous events.
 
Jabba said:
- Actually, I have a new, and easier, question.
- What is the likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years? I get 1/140,000,000 (at most).
- Does anyone here agree with me?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. You won't listen and just lie anyway.
 
Jabba said:
- Actually, I have a new, and easier, question.
- What is the likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years? I get 1/140,000,000 (at most).
- Does anyone here agree with me?
Click to expand...

It's 1. The initial likelihood was the same as anything else, plus or minus, so insignificant.

Based on previous postings, are you seriously asking if anyone agrees, or is that more of a satirical flourish?
 
Jabba said:
- Actually, I have a new, and easier, question.
- What is the likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years? I get 1/140,000,000 (at most).
Click to expand...
That's odd. I come up with 1. Did you calculate the same likelihood for my Volkswagen?

- Does anyone here agree with me?
Click to expand...
Obviously not.

Now, go back and answer the questions that you've already been instructed to answer.
 
Jabba said:
- Actually, I have a new, and easier, question.
- What is the likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years? I get 1/140,000,000 (at most).
...
Click to expand...

I was walking down the street
When I thought I heard this voice say
"Say, ain't we walking down the same street together
On the very same day?"
I said, "Hey, senorita, that's astute"
I said, "Why don't we get together
And call ourselves an institute?"
 
The other night I was driving and a song came on the radio, "Psycho Star" by King Tuff. Here's an excerpt:

King Tuff said:
The universe is mostly made of nothing
Isn't it so beautifully bizarre
That here we are
Click to expand...

This sentiment has been expressed in various art forms for thousands of years. It resonates with me and I can see how it resonates for others.

Jabba seems to be trying to convert that sentiment into a mathematical formula from with to draw conclusions, and that's just not going to work.
 
godless dave said:
The other night I was driving and a song came on the radio, "Psycho Star" by King Tuff. Here's an excerpt:

This sentiment has been expressed in various art forms for thousands of years. It resonates with me and I can see how it resonates for others.
Click to expand...

See, it doesn't resonate with me at all. There's nothing surprising about a bunch of stuff acting like stuff to form other stuff, especially given the scales of space and time involved.
 
Jabba said:
- Actually, I have a new, and easier, question.
- What is the likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years? I get 1/140,000,000 (at most).
- Does anyone here agree with me?
Click to expand...

No.

And you know the reason. You admitted up front that you needed a big denominator to make the numbers come out the way you already decided they should. And for years you've been casting about for some pseudo-statistical justification for any large number you can lay your hands on. And you provide no credible rationale for why that should be the number. This time you've given us no rationale at all. As with your previous guess 10100, you just beg people's agreement. All you care is that it's big and you can divide by it and fool people into thinking you're a genius. There are words that describe people who pay no attention to anything that's said to them and who demand uncritical acceptance and agreement from everyone around them. "Genius" is not among them.

No, we don't agree that this is the probability of you being self-aware under materialism. And that's not because we disagree with your choice of number. We agree with your choice of method. You've been told in agonizing detail all the method-level things that are wrong with your argument, and all the things that are wrong at the purely logical level. These really amount to basic questions of reasoning and don't require any statistical knowledge to see the error. Suggesting that only statistics experts can properly vet your claim is to misrepresent how objectively wrong it is. We've answered all your questions in great depth. You've answered none of ours, and frankly admitted that you can't. From a third-party perspective, who really does have the stronger argument here? Don't you agree that admitting you can't address your critics' objections means you lose the debate?
 
Jabba, how does adding a soul change anything about all the events that had to happen to make your body exist?
 
The only time you could exist is now, because your existence is dependent on your parents' existence, and that of their parents and their parents and so on to the dawn of humanity. You could not exist at any other time.
 
Jabba said:
- Actually, I have a new, and easier, question.
- What is the likelihood of now being during my lifetime -- given OOFLam, the big bang and a lifetime of 100 years? I get 1/140,000,000 (at most).
- Does anyone here agree with me?
Click to expand...
First, the real answer is 1:1, since you are here. But, just to better quantify your question:


Given that homo sapiens sapiens has only been around for 200,000 years or so, you should probably try:

100 year life span / 200,000 years of humans = 1 / 2000.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom