Mojo
Mostly harmless
Doesn't answer the question. Do you agree with Caveman's assessment of your maths as not being "above the "not-even-wrong" level"? Or his statement that you had failed to support your argument?
Proof of Immortality, VII
- Thread starter abaddon
- Start date
- Status
Doesn't answer the question. Do you agree with Caveman's assessment of your maths as not being "above the "not-even-wrong" level"? Or his statement that you had failed to support your argument?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
If you would kindly follow the link and read the article, it is all spelled out in good detail of what the author means by "particles" and so on.
It's been a while, has it? I must say, you don't look a day over 200 million.
Nashed potatoes
All strength fails
Unto the grave;
Worms shall feed
On Jabba brave.
Ash
Shall close e'en Jabba's eye.
Is he unwell?
Then he shall die.
Or is he well?
Yet die he must
And pay what's due
From dust to dust.
All strength fails
Unto the grave;
Worms shall feed
On Jabba brave.
Ash
Shall close e'en Jabba's eye.
Is he unwell?
Then he shall die.
Or is he well?
Yet die he must
And pay what's due
From dust to dust.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Mojo,
- I don't know what "not even wrong level" means, but if Caveman had supported me more than he did, he would have been totally blackballed.
- I think that the following was the critical question he couldn't afford to answer.
- "I currently exist. Under which hypothesis -- OOFLam or reincarnation -- is my current existence more likely?"
- What is your answer to that question?
Belz...
Fiend God
He didn't support you _at all_.
The former, given that the latter requires two things to exist, one of which is the same as the former requires.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong Do you agree with Caveman's application of this derogatory term to your maths?
No, he wasn't suspended for supporting you, and wouldn't have been even if he had, since it isn't against the membership agreement.
See Caveman's description of your maths.
Last edited:
Well a 2 second Google search would fix that, but we all know you won't do that and would just totally misrepresent what it means anyway.
It means what you are saying does not have enough intellectual context to it to be even wrong. You aren't wrong, you're totally nonsensical. 1+2 = 4 is wrong. 1+2 = A potato is "Not even wrong."
You are "Not even wrong." You'd have to increase the logic of your statements by a factor of 100 to even get to "wrong."
Belz...
Fiend God
I would say 10100, myself.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
It means that it's not even well enough rooted in any kind of logic to be considered merely wrong; it's simply incoherent.
Ah, we're getting into conspiracy theorist territory here; when someone who supports your position is sanctioned for their behaviour, clearly it's because they're not toeing the party line rather than because they've repeatedly broken the rules of the forum. And anyone who disagrees with you is doing so out of social pressure rather than conviction. This is classic denialism in action.
I think there are two reasonable answers to that question. One, which I'm sure caveman1917 would agree to, is that there is insufficient data on either side to even begin to estimate on what basis one could formulate an answer. The other is that, since you have clearly stated that your reincarnation hypothesis requires all the elements required for what you term "OOFLam" and in addition that a specific soul be chosen from many, then your current existence can only be less likely or equally likely under your reincarnation hypothesis than under what you term "OOFLam".
Since your entire argument is based on the insistence that your existence is overwhelmingly more probable under reincarnation, a result that is either demonstrably incorrect or at best unknowable, this leads to the conclusion that your argument is not even coherent enough to be considered merely a flawed form of a potentially sound argument, but is in fact utterly nonsensival. Hence, "not even wrong."
Hope this helps.
Dave
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- I didn't say he was. He was continually criticized for supporting me a little.
Belz...
Fiend God
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Actually, he was criticized for his rude and insulting posting style by people who aren't you.
You've criticized only those people who challenge your faulty arguments claiming that they are insulting you by finding those fatal flaws.
You agree with me that your hypocrisy is blatant in that respect?
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Your existence is more likely under OOFlam, since it does not require the addition of a "soul".
Hans
Belz...
Fiend God
I told you, if we accept any randomness at all, materialism, because you only need one entity for you to exist, not two. But there is no randomness, and we're after the fact, so the question is moot. This has been explained hundreds of times to you.
The bishop is in the mailbox. It's a nice day for pontooning. The spotted cuckoo bird is flying backwards. Purple monkey dishwasher.
We think your question is meaningless gibberish. We do not think it is intelligent, coherent, meaningful or honest enough to answer.
Stop asking us if we've stopped beating our wives.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Do you mean materialism versus souls? Occam's Razor says it's materialism. Souls add an extra layer of complexity that doesn't answer any question.
What is your answer to Occam's Razor?
- Status