Belz...
Fiend God
Oh, good. I've been waiting for that to ship for weeks!
Proof of Immortality, VII
- Thread starter abaddon
- Start date
- Status
Oh, good. I've been waiting for that to ship for weeks!
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
It means that one's reasoning is so far off base it can't even find a toehold in correct facts or principles. He's telling you what we've all been telling you -- you're not just a little bit wrong, you're all the way wrong.
Keep telling yourself that.
I'm not interested in discussing his contribution or your conspiracy theory regarding it. I've told you what's wrong with your proof, both historically and lately. You simply are unable to form an answer, which means you lose the debate.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You know your critics' answer and the reasoning behind it. Stop trying to reverse the burden of proof. You are the one insisting that your existence is so very unlikely under materialism that literally any other hypothesis must be true. You have yet to present a proof of that claim that doesn't amount to easily-detected bad reasoning and incompetent attempts at mathematics.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You've done that before, and you were told that your proof was incorrect. You -- not surprisingly -- never went back for the promised follow-up. Please give the name of the person you are consulting in his/her professional capacity on this matter, if you plan to enter an endorsement as part of your argument. Naturally you cannot expect your critics to accept your word that some anonymous professor will have endorsed your claim. You have a proven tendency to lie about what others say, so I will be making a phone call to verify anything you claim from a third party not present in this debate.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Please link to where this happened. He was criticized, to be sure, but for reasons having nothing to do with you or your argument.. Attacking your critics is not the same as supporting you, and neither you nor he are some heroic martyr to the cause. Once again your abject detestation of skeptics is starting to leak over into your argument. You might want to look to that.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Did you have trouble reading the answers you've already been given?
Firstly, you haven't really defined either scenario precisely or consistently enough for a meaningful answer to be given. "OOFLam" is, to the extent that a definition can be gleaned from what you have posted about it, a strawman: a scenario in which you have a body and an independently existing soul with a finite lifetime. You don't seem to have defined "reincarnation" beyond "what reincarnationists believe", but your current existence, as observed, would require your body to exist and your soul to somehow occupy it.
For your existence to be observed, both scenarios require your body to exist, and your soul to occupy it. What would make your existence more likely under one than the other?
Secondly, the question is irrelevant to your "proof" because neither hypothesis is the one you need to disprove.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Please link to a post where Caveman supported you, and at least two where he was criticised for supporting you, or withdraw this fantasy.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yes. On average about once a year, Jabba's true colors sneak out from hiding. Those colors indicate does not care for skeptics or skepticism and seems to believe they conspire dishonestly to hide, suppress, or discredit evidence of the spiritual or supernatural. Skeptics, according to him, are limited to "analytical" thinking which clouds their ability to think "holistically" and see the true meaning of that evidence.
Once again Jabba is in over his head mathematically and logically, so he is trotting out all his ham-fisted social engineering ploys.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
No, see, Caveman knows what he's talking about when jabba thinks he agrees with him. Anything he disagrees with, well, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Of course, this means that Caveman can know what he's talking about one minute, and then the very same statement becomes ignorant as soon as jabba finds out that Caveman wasn't actually agreeing with him.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Jabba, you asked a question and got a thpughtful, well reasoned response. It would be extremely rude to ignore this.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Which is one of the several reasons I find it best just to ignore Caveman's participation here altogether. He seems interested only in muddying the waters to make himself look pedantically good. I don't see that he has an interest in either the topic of the thread or in how it comes out for Jabba.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I'm hoping for some closure on the century-vs-now issue. It's been argued vigorously for the past week or so, and I don't think it would be very honest if Jabba just lets it slip into a coma and pretend he never made it.
Jabba wants to convolve two variables that he says are independent uniform random variables reckoned across all time that physics knows about. He purports to take a very tiny slice of one and a very tiny slice of the other and produce a likelihood that they coincide. Arguments have been presented that neither is a uniform random variable. Jabba has acknowledged that one of his variables does not have a uniform distribution, but he has failed subsequently to describe what distribution it does have and why, and how that affects the outcome of his proof. He has thoroughly ignored the rebuttal to his claim that the other variable is uniformly distributed, leading us to conclude this is the point he wishes to equivocate today. Further, he has completely ignored the argument showing that his variables are not independent.
None of these is the mean-spirited attack Jabba seems to imagine himself to be beset with. They are arguments made purely on statistical grounds. It seems Jabba can demonstrate no actual interest in the responses his critics have graciously provided. It seems he's far more interested in pretending to be a victim and in formulating conspiracy theories about other alleged victims. I wonder if that's the argument he'll be presenting to the SUNY faculty.
Jabba wants to convolve two variables that he says are independent uniform random variables reckoned across all time that physics knows about. He purports to take a very tiny slice of one and a very tiny slice of the other and produce a likelihood that they coincide. Arguments have been presented that neither is a uniform random variable. Jabba has acknowledged that one of his variables does not have a uniform distribution, but he has failed subsequently to describe what distribution it does have and why, and how that affects the outcome of his proof. He has thoroughly ignored the rebuttal to his claim that the other variable is uniformly distributed, leading us to conclude this is the point he wishes to equivocate today. Further, he has completely ignored the argument showing that his variables are not independent.
None of these is the mean-spirited attack Jabba seems to imagine himself to be beset with. They are arguments made purely on statistical grounds. It seems Jabba can demonstrate no actual interest in the responses his critics have graciously provided. It seems he's far more interested in pretending to be a victim and in formulating conspiracy theories about other alleged victims. I wonder if that's the argument he'll be presenting to the SUNY faculty.
Belz...
Fiend God
Nah, but Mojo's first line was "rude", so jabba's going to ignore it. See how easy it is? Be as obnoxious and insulting as you can, and when your opponents in the debate lose their cool, use that as an excuse to ignore them.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Haha oh wow.
"Caveman was about to rehabilitate my entire thesis, but he would have gotten banned!"
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
It's known as the Danny Jowenko argument in 9/11 truth circles; if an expert agrees with you, his word is law, but if he disagrees with you, clearly he's got that bit wrong. You can therefore appeal to his authority as an absolute proof of your position even if he disagrees with you most of the time, because on one specific point he agreed with you once.
Dave
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Mojo,
- I think this should be called the "conjunction fallacy fallacy".
- In this case, we are not asking about the probabilities combined -- my current existence is a given, and we're asking about the likelihood of my current existencs -- given two different hypotheses. If reincarnation is correct, my self exists over and over again; whereas, if OOFLam is correct, I only exist once -- for maybe 100 years at most. Under which hypothesis, is my current existence more likely?
- And, this is one of the sub-issues that Caveman kept supporting me on.
Belz...
Fiend God
I see you picked up some lingo from Caveman.
But the two probabilities need to be combined because you have two things. You agreed to it when SOdhner made an analogy with two groups of coloured whatever. You agreed that 1/10 is more likely than 1/100.
Lenght of existence has nothing to do with it. Your "now' argument is nonsense. You simply have no idea how to interpret these facts.
Last edited:
This is made easier by, at some point, the internet up and decided that being snarky or sarcastic is somehow worse than being actually rude or hateful so we have this weird scenarios of:
Bill: *20 page hate filled speech with personal attacks, accusations, and pure vile and vitriol*
Ted: *Says something sarcastic in response*
Passerbys: *Half faint dead away in shock, the other half tear into Ted.*
Last edited:
- Status