• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Proof of Immortality II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mojo said:
Toontown said:
From the beginning of time, there was ever only one brain that could have produced that particular personality. Therefore the target was drawn at the beginning of time.
Click to expand...


Jabba must be much older than I thought he was.
Click to expand...


Textbook Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Just as it has been since the beginning with Jabba.
 
Mojo said:
Jabba must be much older than I thought he was.
Click to expand...

Textbook failure to recognize the difference between the following two statements:

1. The probability that I exist is 1

2. The odds against my existence are immense.

(1.) has no bearing on (2.)

Example:

The odds against rolling a 2 with a pair of standard dice are 35 : 1.

In the unlikely case that you do happen to roll a 2, then the probability that you have in fact rolled a 2 is 1. But that does not mean the odds against rolling a 2 have mysteriously altered. The odds against rolling a 2 remain precisely the same as they were before you rolled it: 35 : 1. You haven't changed or negated the odds by rolling the 2.
 
Last edited:
Toontown said:
Textbook failure to recognize the difference between the following two statements:

1. The probability that I exist is 1

2. The odds against my existence are immense.

(1.) has no bearing on (2.)

Example:

The odds against rolling a 2 with a pair of standard dice are 1/36.

In the unlikely case that you do happen to roll a 2, then the probability that you have in fact rolled a 2 is 1. But that doesn't mean the odds against rolling a 2 have mysteriously altered. The odds against rolling a 2 remain precisely 1/36. You haven't changed or negated the odds by rolling the 2.
Click to expand...


Immortal souls?

Any word yet?
 
Akhenaten said:
Have you come up with that evidence for the existence of immortal souls yet?
Click to expand...

Have you figured out that I'm not trying to prove the existence of immortal souls yet?

Hint: pointing out a few of your cohorts' ludicrous logical errors is in no way related to trying to prove the existence of immortal souls.
 
Toontown said:
In the unlikely case that you do happen to roll a 2, then the probability that you have in fact rolled a 2 is 1. But that does not mean the odds against rolling a 2 have mysteriously altered. The odds against rolling a 2 remain precisely the same as they were before you rolled it: 1/36. You haven't changed or negated the odds by rolling the 2.
Click to expand...
  • The point is 9, and the shooter is a guy wearing a hat.
  • I bet $10 on 54 hopping, so now I have $150.
  • I take the whole $150 and put it on snake eyes. Now I have $4800.
  • After I tip the dealers, that's $4500 in my pocket.
  • The odds of rolling a 2 remain 36:1, and the house edge is still around 8% on silly prop bets like snake eyes.

Now, do you have any evidence for "souls" and that they are immortal?
 
Toon,
- Do you agree that the scientific belief that we each have only one finite life to live (at most) is very likely wrong?
 
carlitos said:
These parenthetical weasel-words don't help your argument, Jabba.
Click to expand...

Those two words in particular are really puzzling. The scientific model doesn't say we each have at most one finite life to life, it says we have exactly one finite life to live - no more, no less.
 
Loss Leader said:
That's very dismissively stated. I think the evidence shows that scientists and skeptics are massively interested in the chain of causation that goes into the production of a single person - from doctors who study obstetrics to biologists who study evolution to chemists who study how complex protein molecules can form to physicists who study the conditions in the universe that allow for life.
Click to expand...

Scientists are not "skeptics". "Skepticism" is an ideology. Scientists are pragmatic - skeptical when appropriate, open-minded when appropriate.

Loss Leader said:
There is a difference between 1) curiosity about life; 2) arguing that a rare event that already happened is somehow logically impossible.
Click to expand...

Imagine my relief that I have not argued that a rare event that already happened is somehow logically impossible. And my consternation that you don't even know I haven't argued that.

Further 'discussion', at this point, seems to offer no prospects except to waste time and induce headaches.
 
Toontown said:
The odds against rolling a 2 with a pair of standard dice are 35 : 1.

In the unlikely case that you do happen to roll a 2, then the probability that you have in fact rolled a 2 is 1. But that does not mean the odds against rolling a 2 have mysteriously altered. The odds against rolling a 2 remain precisely the same as they were before you rolled it: 35 : 1. You haven't changed or negated the odds by rolling the 2.
Click to expand...
The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is that, prior to picking a target number, you role a pair of dice, see a 2 comes up, then decide that 2 was your target after all. You have chosen your target after the event. So we agree that the probability before you throw the dice of getting a 2 is 35:1, but your probability of getting some number between 2 and 12 before you throw a standard pair of dice is near 1. If you chose your hit point as whatever appears on the top of the dice after your throw, your probability of getting your hit point is near 1.

I thought I would try using another of Toontown's analogies to explain this point, but the probability of convincing "him" is hard to determine.

Jabba chose his target, "Jabba" after the event (his conception and development). Or perhaps you can explain how Jabba's "specifications" were determined from the beginning of time (on gold leafs, perhaps) as you indicated? Many of his specifications were genetic in origin, but Jabba appears to think that an important component of his "identity" is not physical at all, but is a soul that will continue after his death. Do you agree?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom