Proof of Immortality III

[sackett]

Jabba, I kinda think you shouldn't use language so loosely. A quick (and depressing) glance at sites pushing immortality, reintarnation, ghosties, etc. doesn't reveal any studies at all, only the same old flat assertions by people with something to sell.

Similarly, you really oughtn't to use terms like concerns or claims for the clear and substantial refutations -- Christ, actual disproofs! -- of your own flat assertions that posters contribute to your threads.

Years go by and nothing you type is ever received with anything but counter-evidence. Your blathers are demolished, every one. (Admittedly, an occasional poor soul comes in for a visit and tries to echo your beliefs, but, funny thing, they never stay long.)

You also encounter ridicule. Lotta jokes at your expense, Jabba -- cheap and easy jokes, as I freely admit, since too many of them have been mine.

So: You're always successfully contradicted, and you occasionally take a ribbing.

Now why would that be, do you think? After all these thousands of words, why is it that you've convinced absolutely nobody?

Including yourself, I rather think.

 

[HighRiser]

- "The theory that we each have only one, finite, life" isn't sufficient? What am I missing?

What you are calling a theory is not a theory at all, sorry. What you have presented is unsupported conjecture, undefined terms, irrational logic, and subjective interpretations of mythological stories that were ancient before written language was developed.

Theories are testable and falsifiable. What you have is not that.

 

[JayUtah]

If you insist, I'll send you the studies and arguments that I find the most impressive...

I insist. If it turns out to have scientific rigor, that would be evidence. That would be infinitely preferred over playing number games you don't understand.

'

...but that will make me even slower.

That is not possible.

And then, I claim that if one first accepts that there is a reasonable possibility (say a probability of .001) for immaterial selves, Bayesian statistics, itself, provides overwhelming indirect evidence for them.

Asked and answered a hundred times. Bayes does not convert guesses into facts.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- If you look up Evidence for reincarnation, Evidence for life after death, Evidence for immortality, Evidence for ghosts, you'll find all sorts of studies that support the existence of immaterial selves. Look up consciousness...
- If you insist, I'll send you the studies and arguments that I find the most impressive, but that will make me even slower...

Are they real studies or half baked secondhand anecdotes?

- And then, I claim that if one first accepts that there is a reasonable possibility (say a probability of .001) for immaterial selves, Bayesian statistics, itself, provides overwhelming indirect evidence for them.

And that makes zero sense.

 

[Loss Leader]

- "The theory that we each have only one, finite, life" isn't sufficient? What am I missing?

A valid definition of "each" and "life." Just by your phrasing, you've made the person into a thing. We are not things. We're not even individuals. Those words are rough approximations of concepts. We are colonies of symbiotic creatures working together for mutual benefit.

Most cells in your body would be very happy anywhere else they could get food. But they've adapted to expand and contract, or release some neurochemical or produce insulin. They found that when they did, they got sugar and oxygen.

The single life you think you're experiencing is an illusion determined a long time ago to be expedient. Accept that.

 

[Mojo]

- And then, I claim that if one first accepts that there is a reasonable possibility (say a probability of .001) for immaterial selves, Bayesian statistics, itself, provides overwhelming indirect evidence for them.

How did you calculate the figure of 0.001?

 

[Jabba]

You are trying (probably not intentionally) to seek in soul via a colloquialism.

"Only one life" implies there is something more to it than just a (rather complex) biochemical process going on. There is nothing special that comes into existence at conception or birth, and there is nothing special that goes out of existence upon death.

This "one life" as you use the term is some sort of non-material entity that couples with a material person until death do they part.

Sorry, I cannot accept your definition for H. It makes nothing identifiable that there is only one of.

js,
- I see. This is the concept that I accept is so difficult to be sure has been effectively conveyed. Do you have a sense of what reincarnationists think keep returning?

 

[Mojo]

js,
- I see. This is the concept that I accept is so difficult to be sure has been effectively conveyed. Do you have a sense of what reincarnationists think keep returning?

Do you? It is central to your argument, after all.

 

[Mojo]

Seriously, Jabba, stop expecting other people to supply you with your own argument.

 

[Mojo]

Do you have a sense of what reincarnationists think keep returning?

Discredited arguments?

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- If you look up Evidence for reincarnation, Evidence for life after death, Evidence for immortality, Evidence for ghosts, you'll find all sorts of studies that support the existence of immaterial selves. Look up consciousness...
- If you insist, I'll send you the studies and arguments that I find the most impressive, but that will make me even slower...

Seriously? You don't want to provide any evidence supporting your claim that immortal souls exist because it will slow down your effort to prove that immortal souls exist?

- And then, I claim that if one first accepts that there is a reasonable possibility (say a probability of .001) for immaterial selves, Bayesian statistics, itself, provides overwhelming indirect evidence for them.

And you fail to provide any support for this claim either.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If you insist, I'll send you the studies and arguments that I find the most impressive, but that will make me even slower.

So after you've spent half decade putting more effort than any human being in history has ever put into anything not explaining anything you refuse to actually make the core of your argument because it will "slow you down."

Jesus man.

And then, I claim that if one first accepts that there is a reasonable possibility (say a probability of .001) for immaterial selves, Bayesian statistics, itself, provides overwhelming indirect evidence for them.

STOP DOING THAT! Stop demanding we all already agree with you before beginning your argument.

 

[John Jones]

So after you've spent half decade putting more effort than any human being in history has ever put into anything not explaining anything you refuse to actually make the core of your argument because it will "slow you down."

Jesus man.



STOP DOING THAT! Stop demanding we already agree with you before beginning your argument.

What JoeBentley said.

 

[jsfisher]

js,
- I see. This is the concept that I accept is so difficult to be sure has been effectively conveyed. Do you have a sense of what reincarnationists think keep returning?

Can you conceive of human existence without a soul, Jabba? Be honest, at least with yourself. I don't think you can. Your soul concept is so fundamental to your perspective, you don't even see it.

As a result, the very question you should be able to answer for yourself, you cannot understand why it is even a question.

 

[Jabba]

Are they real studies or half baked secondhand anecdotes?...

Dave,
- Just look up "evidence for" those different concepts, and decide for your self. Some will be more credible than others.
- I'm not claiming proof; I'm just claiming that there is some reasonable evidence for immateriality -- we can't just dismiss it out of hand.

- And, try this: http://messiahornot.com/Magic.php

 

[Jabba]

Dave,...
- And then, I claim that if one first accepts that there is a reasonable possibility (say a probability of .001) for immaterial selves, Bayesian statistics, itself, provides overwhelming indirect evidence for them.

...
And that makes zero sense.

- If the prior probability of immaterial selves is .001, and the likelihood of ME, given no immaterial selves, is unimaginably small, since I do currently exist, there must be immaterial selves.
- Put those figures into the formula and see what you get.

 

[Loss Leader]

- If the prior probability of immaterial selves is .001, and the likelihood of ME, given no immaterial selves, is unimaginably small, since I do currently exist, there must be immaterial selves.
- Put those figures into the formula and see what you get.

"I can make a hat, or a brooch, or a pterodactyl ..."

Seriously, what you've written is nonsense. If the chance of you existing is very small, the chance of you existing AND having an immortal soul should be even smaller.

For that matter, you've never told us how many immaterial souls in waiting there are. If there are eight, then the chance of you being you is 1/8. But couldn't there be ten septillion? Then the chance of you being you goes down to close to zero as well.

Unless you're arguing that God chose your soul for you at this time. But you've never said anything like that.

 

[jsfisher]

- If the prior probability of immaterial selves is .001, and the likelihood of ME, given no immaterial selves, is unimaginably small, since I do currently exist, there must be immaterial selves.
- Put those figures into the formula and see what you get.

Why do you think that?

I have a grape. We can discuss the likelihoods of the grape being purple, or seedless, or Concord, or whatever. And given new information about the grape (perhaps its color), we can adjust our likelihood estimates.

You'd agree with that, right?

Ok, so what is the likelihood it is a grape?

 

[JayUtah]

Put those figures into the formula and see what you get.

A misapplied formula.

 

[JayUtah]

Just look up "evidence for" those different concepts...

No, we're asking you for your evidence. You don't get to sidestep that by telling people to just go Google for stuff. No amount of exertion on my part would be able to discover what you consider credible and thus worthy of defending. Only you can do that.

...and decide for your self. Some will be more credible than others.

So obviously not real studies then. If your "evidence" is just anecdote and attribution, say so. Don't insinuation you have rigor when you don't.

I'm not claiming proof; I'm just claiming that there is some reasonable evidence for immateriality...

It's not reasonable evidence unless you can show it to be based on reason. That's your burden of proof. Tell us what you think the best evidence is and why it's based on reason.

we can't just dismiss it out of hand.

Of course we can, if it's just a speculative attribution. And if it lacks probative rigor, indeed we must. Anecdotes that attribute some observation to some cause without testing that causation is in no way reasonable evidence. It's just wishful thinking.

Try again.