JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
During your first meeting he mentioned that he disagreed with your approach. Do you think you have given him any reason to change his mind?
Proof of Immortality III
- Thread starter Humots
- Start date
- Status
During your first meeting he mentioned that he disagreed with your approach. Do you think you have given him any reason to change his mind?
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,366
Maybe he was a little disconcerted when you got up to go to the toilet halfway through the meal and then "Sally arrived a few minutes later, explaining that "Jabba" had been called away, and then finishing "Jabba's" meal for him.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Dave,
- Here's what I think.
1) In order to compare Rainier to ME, we need an analogous "given" for Rainier.
2) For ME, the given is OOFLam; analogous for Rainier would be the natural laws governing geology.
- Would you agree with either?
I Am The Scum
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,807
"Only one finite life" has nothing to do with origins. Sorry.
You could have 12 lives and the scientific model of origins is still accurate.
The scientific model of origins might be completely wrong and you still only have one life.
They're not the slightest bit related.
You could have 12 lives and the scientific model of origins is still accurate.
The scientific model of origins might be completely wrong and you still only have one life.
They're not the slightest bit related.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
The given would be the natural laws of biology. OOFLam is a consequence of the given.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
They're the same physical laws. The exact same.
Nothing is analogous. That's what everyone has been trying to tell you. The laws that govern the physical body are the same laws that govern the creation of a mountain. You may think cell division and tectonics are different, but they're just different applications of the same basic laws: atoms, molecules, inertia, etc.
n.b. i don't know how much magnitism has to do with mountains or people. I assume it's in there somewhere.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
The governing principle in both cases is the laws of nature. That they are complex and thus are capable of producing a variety of outcomes does not place any meaningful probabilistic expectation on one individual set of outcomes in either case.
Once again your attempt to prove that the properties of life somehow transcend nature require you to assume that life transcends nature. Your starting principles can't possibly be any less analogous.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Nope. The "given" analogous for Rainier would be that Mount Rainier exists only once, for a finite period of time.
You have presented just as much evidence that you have an immortal soul as you have that Mount Rainier has an immortal soul.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Dave,
- You seem to accept (agree with) #1. Is that correct?
- I ask that because I think that whatever we can pen down is helpful in debate.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
We've already pinned down the inauthenticity of the CIQ
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- Actually, I'd like to respond to each of you guys -- but, if I did, I'd next need to respond to 17 (or so) new responses. If I did that, I'd next need to respond to 50 new responses -- and, so on.
- You guys will laugh -- but I needed to reiterate. It isn't easy debating with 20 opponents at once.
- You guys are just as biased as me, and there are 20 (or so) of you.
- You guys will laugh -- but I needed to reiterate. It isn't easy debating with 20 opponents at once.
- You guys are just as biased as me, and there are 20 (or so) of you.
Last edited:
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
I take offense at that. I've worked hard to remove all bias from my thinking. All I ask for is evidence and that conclusions be necessarily true. It doesn't matter to whom you respond because nearly everyone is saying the same thing.
In the most recent example, you separated geological laws from biological. Several people said the same thing: there's only one fundamental set of rules and they cover all matter, living or not.
You then ignored all of that to pretend that someone agreed to some extent that biology is separate from geology. Nobody did. You just picked the response that you thought most favored you. If you addressed the main charges leveled against your ideas, you'd answer everyone at once. Isn't that more efficient?
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Jabba, the number is not your problem. Basically, we all say the same.
Bias is not the problem. All that counts is evidence.
A given for Mt. Rainier or for you is not the problem. The problem is that the a priori probability does not prove anything.
Hans
I answered before you added the final sentence, Jabba; I don't agree that your interlocutors here are biased, unless you class requiring evidence before accepting something as true as a 'bias'. Recent posts to you have all said the same thing - that the fundamental laws that govern the universe apply equally to living and non-living things. You only need to make one reply either acknowledging this, or refuting it with evidence.
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
20 or so minus 1, at least. My last post was a wonderful closure for me, but even better for you might be this excellent reference regarding OOFLam. It deals with a message from the brain to consciousness. Apparently the twain shall never part!!
Last edited:
ComfySlippers
Banned
Others will be forced to be very polite in their replies to this bollocks.
Unfortunately, because of the rules, I'm also not allowed to state the bleedin' obvious.
You are very well aware of these limitations.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Agatha,
- They do not apply to immaterial things -- which would seem to be a requirement if OOFLam is not true -- and specifically, we have no idea what physical laws determine a specific immaterial self. If we were able to recreate a specific DNA, would the same self appear?
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
We've been through that already in the last go round. The self is not an entity. It is a process. The DNA is the starting point, but every experience continually alters the sense of self. Every experience, including all the posts you skim but think you ignore, helps shape and determine your sense of self. Just as the wind continually alters the face of Mt. Rainer and a large tectonic shift will dramatically alter it's shape (as it did to it's sister just south of it in 1980!)
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I won't laugh, but I will give you the same answer I give every time you raise this "poor, poor me" excuse. You chose the venue. You say at other venues your ideas would be better appreciated. Yet for years you've kept coming back to this one. So complaints about the purported unfairness of the venue fall on deaf ears. In fact, for your Shroud thread you also chose to spend time keeping a parallel blog of cherry-picked quotes. You clearly have enough time; you just choose to spend it saving face instead of making an argument.
So no, I don't accept your excuse. Quit whining.
No, your crtitics not angry or biased. You may be outnumbered, but that's just a natural consequence of your chosen beliefs and the place you choose to debate them. Your ongoing failure to prove your point has nothing to do with the imaginary sins of your critics, so you'll have to find some other way to soothe your bruised ego.
- Status