Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII

[abaddon]

Jabba's points here are not about immortality or the Shroud of Turin. They're about painting his critics as closed-minded and dishonest. He doesn't like skeptics and he wants to create the impression that skepticism is a lie. That's all there has ever been to it.

I'm not sure I entirely agree. Surely we have learned that Jabba is terrified that, like everyone else, he is going to die. This is a huge motivating factor for him to find some, any, route to get a work around for the inevitable truth of death. Let's face it, Jabba has endorsed christianity, catholicism, eastern mythology, etc all to "prove" that death is not the end. At this point he is a heretic in so many religions that he has a queue of hells in which to dwell. All of the Abrahamic religions consider him a heretic according to their rules. Were I a buddhist, sikh or hindu, I would be offended by the misrepresentation of those beliefs. That leaves the atheists, Who don't believe a word of it anyway.

No, to me this is simply a tatty EOL scrabble born out of desperation. It is no more than yet another an iteration of Pascal's wager and just as bereft of value.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not sure I entirely agree. Surely we have learned that Jabba is terrified that, like everyone else, he is going to die.

Sure, that may be the case. But he's espoused this notion of immortality and his supposed proof for it since his teenage years. I would suspect that the reality of death breathes harder down your neck when you're 70-something, but the concept as he's presenting it is not something that sprang out of that fear.

Let's face it, Jabba has endorsed christianity, catholicism, eastern mythology, etc all to "prove" that death is not the end. At this point he is a heretic in so many religions that he has a queue of hells in which to dwell.

But he hasn't professed to be a member or serious congregant of any of these. I can certainly take a cafeteria approach to religions, picking and choosing what I think are good points and bad out of each one, and talking about them. I'm not a heretic because I don't believe in any of them.

No, to me this is simply a tatty EOL scrabble born out of desperation. It is no more than yet another an iteration of Pascal's wager and just as bereft of value.

Except that it doesn't take much effort to get the anti-skeptic motivation to leak out. When he gets going, it's not hard to see him vilify science and the scientific method. It's not hard to see him claim skeptics are limited in their thinking, dishonest, irrational. Keep in mind he has a long history at ISF. At Talk Stats he was more brazen about it.

I'm sure Jabba wants to have faith in immortality, however it's formulated. I agree with you on that. I just don't think that's as big a part of his agenda here as you have argued.

 

[JayUtah]

Jabba is indicating he may return to this thread.

He has been over in another part of the forum trying to prove that his method for Effective Debate is sound. He has not been successful, hence he appears to want to break off that debate, come back here, and foist his Effective Debate rules once again. One of the reasons he lost there was the same reason he loses here -- he prefers to delve into niggling details of each point, stripping it of its context, and ignoring his high-level errors. In the sample debate he held there, he claimed victory because he believed he had won a single sub-sub-sub-issue. This is similar to him provisionally claiming victory here because he thinks he can overcome the Texas sharpshooter fallacy and everything else will just fall back into place.

To remind Jabba that his argument here fails at the most fundamental level, here are the individually fatal flaws he has admitted he cannot answer.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11871278&postcount=3198

If he acknowledges this post at all, it will likely be to point out that he needs to apply his now-disproven method to it and thus never get anywhere with it. Naturally I won't allow that. He's well aware of what constitutes an acceptable answer to this comprehensive refutation.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba is indicating he may return to this thread.

He has been over in another part of the forum trying to prove that his method for Effective Debate is sound. He has not been successful, hence he appears to want to break off that debate, come back here, and foist his Effective Debate rules once again. One of the reasons he lost there was the same reason he loses here -- he prefers to delve into niggling details of each point, stripping it of its context, and ignoring his high-level errors. In the sample debate he held there, he claimed victory because he believed he had won a single sub-sub-sub-issue. This is similar to him provisionally claiming victory here because he thinks he can overcome the Texas sharpshooter fallacy and everything else will just fall back into place.

To remind Jabba that his argument here fails at the most fundamental level, here are the individually fatal flaws he has admitted he cannot answer.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11871278&postcount=3198

If he acknowledges this post at all, it will likely be to point out that he needs to apply his now-disproven method to it and thus never get anywhere with it. Naturally I won't allow that. He's well aware of what constitutes an acceptable answer to this comprehensive refutation.

Jay,
- I'm back, again!
- The link above was replaced by another outline of my argument, and I'd prefer to address that later outline.
- I've already tried to answer some of your objections in the earlier outline.
- So, if you allow, I'll go to the later outline and address your objections to it. If you still want me to address the earlier outline, I will...

 

[SOdhner]

The link above was replaced by another outline of my argument, and I'd prefer to address that later outline.

At a glance I don't see any fatal flaws that don't still apply, although the specific quotes Jay listed them with may have changed. But if you really feel you've overcome one of the flaws you could always say that in your reply.

I've already tried to answer some of your objections in the earlier outline.

Jay had a really specific (but fair) request. He wanted you to go through each one in a single post, and say briefly how you intend to counter it. He's not asking that you actually fully refute all of them right away, but just explain in brief what your plan is. Here, I'll give an example (with the fictional case that I'm arguing for some theory wherein I'm a giant sandwich):

FATAL FLAW 1: No part of your body is made of bread.

Response: I intend to show that the chemical makeup of my skin is as close to bread as other non-bread substances that are commonly accepted as forming the outside of a sandwich.

FATAL FLAW 2: Your body is all connected to itself, while a sandwich is made from layered but disconnected parts.

Response: I'm going to demonstrate through quantum physics that the parts of my body are actually not conected at all.

---

See? I responded to each item in a single post, and then gave a quick idea of how I plan to address the flaw. I didn't go into tons of detail, I just gave a high level summary.

That's what Jay has been asking for from you for almost a year. I understand that you may not feel up to doing a larger post like that all at once, so I would suggest you type it into a text editor of your choosing and save it until it is complete, then return. Trying to chop it up or avoid answering is starting to look really bad for you, and it's not like the partial responses are getting you anywhere anyway.

Take your time, as long as you need. Don't bother doing it halfway, just get the whole list done and come back when it is. Post the whole response at once.

 

[Mojo]

Jay,
- I'm back, again!
- The link above was replaced by another outline of my argument, and I'd prefer to address that later outline.
- I've already tried to answer some of your objections in the earlier outline.
- So, if you allow, I'll go to the later outline and address your objections to it. If you still want me to address the earlier outline, I will...

Let me guess: you can’t find the “later outline” and you want someone to link to it.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Jay,
- I'm back, again!
- The link above was replaced by another outline of my argument, and I'd prefer to address that later outline.
- I've already tried to answer some of your objections in the earlier outline.
- So, if you allow, I'll go to the later outline and address your objections to it. If you still want me to address the earlier outline, I will...

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread

 

[Jabba]

At a glance I don't see any fatal flaws that don't still apply, although the specific quotes Jay listed them with may have changed. But if you really feel you've overcome one of the flaws you could always say that in your reply.



Jay had a really specific (but fair) request. He wanted you to go through each one in a single post, and say briefly how you intend to counter it. He's not asking that you actually fully refute all of them right away, but just explain in brief what your plan is. Here, I'll give an example (with the fictional case that I'm arguing for some theory wherein I'm a giant sandwich):

FATAL FLAW 1: No part of your body is made of bread.

Response: I intend to show that the chemical makeup of my skin is as close to bread as other non-bread substances that are commonly accepted as forming the outside of a sandwich.

FATAL FLAW 2: Your body is all connected to itself, while a sandwich is made from layered but disconnected parts.

Response: I'm going to demonstrate through quantum physics that the parts of my body are actually not conected at all.

---

See? I responded to each item in a single post, and then gave a quick idea of how I plan to address the flaw. I didn't go into tons of detail, I just gave a high level summary.

That's what Jay has been asking for from you for almost a year. I understand that you may not feel up to doing a larger post like that all at once, so I would suggest you type it into a text editor of your choosing and save it until it is complete, then return. Trying to chop it up or avoid answering is starting to look really bad for you, and it's not like the partial responses are getting you anywhere anyway.

Take your time, as long as you need. Don't bother doing it halfway, just get the whole list done and come back when it is. Post the whole response at once.

SOdhner,
- I don't think it'ts fair. It just isn't my way of thinking, and might take me an inordinate amount of time -- but, I'll give it a try.

 

[RoboTimbo]

SOdhner,
- I don't think it'ts fair.

It isn't just fair, it's effective debate technique. If you don't understand why, go back and read the reasons JayUtah gave you.

It just isn't my way of thinking,

Your way of thinking involves long screeds of numbered lists which you mindlessly repost and focusing on minutia to avoid facing the big picture fatal flaws in your arguments. We know.

That has been proven to be Ineffective Debate so you will need to abandon it.

and might take me an inordinate amount of time

Like -- five years or more?

but, I'll give it a try.

You'll feel better when you start being honest about it.

 

[abaddon]

SOdhner,
- I don't think it'ts fair. It just isn't my way of thinking, and might take me an inordinate amount of time -- but, I'll give it a try.

Jabba,

It would take a lot less time than all of the content free posts you persist in making.

 

[Mojo]

SOdhner,
- I don't think it'ts fair. It just isn't my way of thinking, and might take me an inordinate amount of time -- but, I'll give it a try.

OK.

Just in case you have forgotten what it was that you just agreed to try to address, here’s the link again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11871278&postcount=3198

 

[JayUtah]

The link above was replaced by another outline of my argument, and I'd prefer to address that later outline.

It has the same flaws. The flaws haven't changed since you first made the argument five years ago. Besides, it's not my fault you have taken nearly a year to get around to this. Don't blame me or anyone else for the consequences of your evasion.

I've already tried to answer some of your objections in the earlier outline.

You tried to turn an exercise I formulated for a specific purpose into your standard time-wasting nonsense. It didn't work, so you lost interest. Your "effective debate" method has been thoroughly debunked, so we won't be using it.

So, if you allow, I'll go to the later outline and address your objections to it. If you still want me to address the earlier outline, I will...

You know exactly what I expect of you with regards to the list of fatal flaws. Stop trying to "organize" or "referee" your debates instead of having them.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't think it'ts fair.

Then you should have addressed the reasons when they were given, and they were given several times. I explained the purpose behind each rule. Specifically, I pointed out each of your objectionable behaviors that was meant to be thwarted by those rules. The rules are specifically intended to keep you from stalling and derailing the debate in the way you've been accustomed to doing it. You have a history of losing interest in a debate when you don't get to foist its rules, so here's where you get to prove you're capable of something else.

It just isn't my way of thinking...

Then your way of thinking doesn't lend itself to rational debate. We spent twenty pages in your other thread examining your way of thinking -- or rather, your approach to written debate. You ignored almost all of that discussion and clearly took nothing away from it. Using your method, you lost a debate in that thread that a high schooler could have won in a few sentences, and you took ten times longer than the high schooler to do it. You were so unsure yourself of your method that you had to start making up new rules on the fly. Your way of thinking is proven not to work.

We aren't going to be using your method here. We aren't going to endlessly defer to your preferences, complaints, and palette of supposed weaknesses. We're going to get to the bottom of your proof this time.

...and might take me an inordinate amount of time...

No, that was one of the rules. If it takes you longer than an hour to do it, you're not doing what I asked. You want to turn every instance of responsibility into a ponderous, laborious task so you can excuse yourself from having to do it. I'm denying you that excuse.

You've had five years to try it your way, and it's obvious it doesn't work. Take an hour to try it my way, and quit whining about how badly you think you're being treated.

 

[JayUtah]

Take your time, as long as you need.

Except I put a time limit of one hour on it. The reason is that the first time Jabba tried to take them one at a time, he was writing paragraphs and pulling in quotes from all over the thread and color-coding everything so that it looked like one of his "maps." It soon became evident that he was trying to show how colossal a task I had set him by padding out his answers. He was trying to make it look like I said he had to put his entire argument into a single post. The one-hour time limit -- five minutes per flaw -- was intended to indicate what extent of an answer I expect at that point of the debate. I'm not going to enable his typical, "But this is so hard for me!" excuse.

Conversely he tried the same complaint with the one-hour time limit. He tried to make it look like I said he had only one hour to make his case. "Waaaah, this is so hard for me!" It's a litany of poorly conceived counter arguments trying to show how unreasonable his critics are. He knows he's lost this debate already. But like he did with the Shroud thread, he's trying to make it look like losing wasn't his fault. My plan is to deny him that avenue of escape this time.

In law, interrogatories and their answers are often limited to a certain number of questions, a certain number of words, or a certain page length. And they must be given by the due dates set by the court. That is meant to limit the amount of work that must be put into them. That's the goal here -- to limit the amount of work Jabba has to put into the summary of his rejoinder, specifically so that he can't wriggle out of having to do it by saying how hard it is for him to do. No, he doesn't have to do it all in one sitting. But the one excuse that is categorically rejected for this exercise is that it's too much to be asked to do and will take too long to do.

 

[abaddon]

Except I put a time limit of one hour on it.

I would be more harsh. In the time Jabba has spent on other rubbish, he could easily have addressed the flaws in minutes.

Jabba is simply refusing to address the flaws en mass, and refusing to address the flaws one at a time.

Where does that leave us all?

 

[SOdhner]

Except I put a time limit of one hour on it.

Sure, but he's a bit over the line on that already - wouldn't you say?

Joking aside, I had forgotten about the time part when I wrote that. You're 100% correct that it SHOULD take less than an hour, and putting that time restriction on is a great precaution to keep Jabba from going off on some long winded rant.

I still say Jabba should take his time in the sense that if he only has, say, ten minutes instead of an hour I'd rather he dedicate those ten minutes to writing down how he plans to address two of the fatal flaws and then not post it but save it until later when he has another ten minutes, or half an hour, or whatever. What I don't want is for him to say "But I can't spend that long all at once!" as an excuse to split it up or not do it at all.

he was writing paragraphs and pulling in quotes from all over the thread and color-coding everything so that it looked like one of his "maps."

Ouch. Jabba, if you read this, remember to refer to the example I gave in my last post. One or maybe two sentences per fatal flaw.

 

[abaddon]

And everyone is now refusing the notion of Least Critical Poster, because everyone knows that this is to invite everyone else going on ignore. We tried that in the other thread. SOdhner got so desperate that he had to invoke a sandwich analogy. (No offence to SOdhner)

Jabba said, "I will have to go check, this is to much work, it will take too long, I'm old and can't keep up, when did you post that?, I didn't read that?, I don't know what my "effective debate is" let me figure it out". 50 years refining it and Jabba does not know what his method is? Really?

Well, no jabba. How many are on my own "ignore" list? Nobody.

My ignore list is empty. Your's is not. That paints a picture.

 

[Toontown]

I would be more harsh. In the time Jabba has spent on other rubbish, he could easily have addressed the flaws in minutes.

Jabba is simply refusing to address the flaws en mass, and refusing to address the flaws one at a time.

Where does that leave us all?

Posting in Jabba's Proof of Immortality thread until you all die, apparently.

Thereby formally disproving immortality. Unless...

Unless you eventually find yourself being the oldest person on the planet, in which case you will only have succeeded in proving "quantum immortality". But only to yourself. So even then, no one else will know. They'll all be dead. And the new batch will just say "Wow. It's weird that you've lived so long. We're kind of scared of you. Want to be king?"

 

[SOdhner]

Thereby formally disproving immortality.

Well remember, Jabba only cares about the physical body when it seems convenient to his argument to do so. He has made a lot of references to "sperm and egg combinations" and stuff, and his current existence as a corporeal being, but then he pulls a bait and switch because the actual type of immortality he's talking about is more like (but not exactly) reincarnation.

With that in mind, if Jabba is right we could waste MULTIPLE lifetimes having this argument because bits of some poorly defined ectoplasm that used to be part of us will later be part of a bunch of other things, and since it doesn't seem to bring along any thoughts, memories, or other aspects of a personality there won't be any little voice in the back of our heads yelling that this question has been answered.

 

[Hokulele]

With that in mind, if Jabba is right we could waste MULTIPLE lifetimes having this argument because bits of some poorly defined ectoplasm that used to be part of us will later be part of a bunch of other things, and since it doesn't seem to bring along any thoughts, memories, or other aspects of a personality there won't be any little voice in the back of our heads yelling that this question has been answered.

The problem is, it isn't even a question, much less an answerable one. The math provided thus far is such nonsensical gibberish, it would be like asking someone to provide the square root of purple.