Proof of Immortality III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Loss Leader said:
This one is easy.
Pick the statement most likely to be true.

a. Jane is a successful Dermatologist and her office is on Park Avenue.
b. Jane's office is on Park Avenue.

B is more likely to be true, because it only requires one thing to occur (that she have an office on Park Avenue). A is the more restricted set of (successful dermatologist) AND (office on Park Avenue). Since A is a smaller set than B, B is more likely.

You have presented two competing theories:

a. You exist in physical form
b. You exist in physical form AND metaphysical form or spirit/animus/soul/whatever.

B is less likely. It is a smaller set within A (if it exists at all).

You've set yourself up to prove two things - that you exist as a body AND that you exist as a soul. The chance of B being correct is smaller than A.

That makes A more likely to be true, no matter what numbers you put in.

The only way A is less likely is if A (you having a body) is necessarily a subset of B (you have a soul). Since you can't show you have a soul through evidence, though, I don't think that gets you anywhere. Plus, you've already agreed that there are lots of corporeal things that don't have souls. Mt. Rainier is one of them.
Click to expand...
LL,
- Thanks. I'll have to think about that.
 
Loss Leader said:
This one is easy.
Pick the statement most likely to be true.

a. Jane is a successful Dermatologist and her office is on Park Avenue.
b. Jane's office is on Park Avenue.

B is more likely to be true, because it only requires one thing to occur (that she have an office on Park Avenue). A is the more restricted set of (successful dermatologist) AND (office on Park Avenue). Since A is a smaller set than B, B is more likely.

You have presented two competing theories:

a. You exist in physical form
b. You exist in physical form AND metaphysical form or spirit/animus/soul/whatever.

B is less likely. It is a smaller set within A (if it exists at all).

You've set yourself up to prove two things - that you exist as a body AND that you exist as a soul. The chance of B being correct is smaller than A.

That makes A more likely to be true, no matter what numbers you put in.

The only way A is less likely is if A (you having a body) is necessarily a subset of B (you have a soul). Since you can't show you have a soul through evidence, though, I don't think that gets you anywhere. Plus, you've already agreed that there are lots of corporeal things that don't have souls. Mt. Rainier is one of them.
Click to expand...
LL,
- As a quick answer -- I, at least essentially, am trying to prove the existence of a "soul." But, I'm not trying to prove my physical existence.
 
Jabba said:
LL,
- As a quick answer -- I, at least essentially, am trying to prove the existence of a "soul." But, I'm not trying to prove my physical existence.
Click to expand...

But you still have to account for your physical existence. Under OOFLam, you only have to account for the existence of your physical existence. Under your scenario you have to account for your "soul" as well as your physical existence, and then you have to account for the soul and the body connecting.
 
Jabba said:
LL,
- As a quick answer -- I, at least essentially, am trying to prove the existence of a "soul." But, I'm not trying to prove my physical existence.
Click to expand...

OOFLam only requires your physical existence. Immortality by reincarnation requires your physical existence plus the existence of your soul, and some mechanism for one to meet the other.
 
Jabba said:
LL,
- As a quick answer -- I, at least essentially, am trying to prove the existence of a "soul." But, I'm not trying to prove my physical existence.
Click to expand...

In that case, your "E" is the existence of your soul, not your physical existence. That would mean P(E|H) and P(H|E) would both be 0. It would also mean P(E) is indeterminable since E has no observable characteristic.

How does this help you?
 
Jabba said:
abaddon,

- It seems to me that the first thing we should try to do in a debate (if we're actually seeking the truth, and not just trying to win) is to make sure that we understand what the other side is saying. When I ask if such and such is what you guys are saying, you say that I'm putting words in your mouth. If it isn't what you're saying, just say "no," and try again to explain yourself (if you think it's worth your while to continue the discussion).
Click to expand...

Evidence of the highlighted statement would seem to be lacking on your part.
 
Jabba said:
It seems to me that the first thing we should try to do in a debate (if we're actually seeking the truth, and not just trying to win) is to make sure that we understand what the other side is saying.
Click to expand...

In my years as a skeptic this has happened on multiple occasions, someone that has been argued into a corner accusing the skeptical/rational side of being more interesting in "winning" the argument than seeking the "truth" and to be honest I've never exactly figured out what the skeptical side is being accused of whenever that claim is made.
 
JoeBentley said:
In my years as a skeptic this has happened on multiple occasions, someone that has been argued into a corner accusing the skeptical/rational side of being more interesting in "winning" the argument than seeking the "truth" and to be honest I've never exactly figured out what the skeptical side is being accused of whenever that claim is made.
Click to expand...
From Jabba's perspective, which he has all but stated as explicitly as I am about to lay it out, it goes like this:

Jabba is biased but knows for it and does not allow it to affect his objectivity. Coupled with his holistic thinking, it makes his arguments de facto correct.

Skeptics are biased but will neither admit it nor control for it, thus making all their arguments subjective appeals for their desired conclusion. Coupled with their inability to think holistically, it makes their arguments not only hopelessly skewed but small minded.
 
Jabba said:
LL,
- As a quick answer -- I, at least essentially, am trying to prove the existence of a "soul." But, I'm not trying to prove my physical existence.
Click to expand...


That is just ... the very opposite of what I was trying to show you.


As others have pointed out, the scientific universe accounts for your physical existence.

You have never shown any interest in proving the existence of souls without bodies. Your focus has been that your body contains an immortal soul. The soul, as you yourself have said, doesn't even exist until the body is formed.

So, you are trying to prove two things: the existence of your body AND the existence of a soul.

The fact that we might grant that one of these is true (your body does exist), doesn't change that fact. You are arguing that a system where two things happen is somehow less complicated than a system where only one thing happened.
 
Jabba said:
- It seems to me that there are only 5 issues here.
1. Does the formula I provide actually apply to the situation I'm trying to apply it to?
2., 3., 4., & 5. Are my estimates for the 4 variables reasonable/appropriate?
Click to expand...


If you think that, you haven't been paying attention. You can't make all the other objections to your argument go away by ignoring them.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Can you list the other objections?
Click to expand...

The objections have not changed in four years. You have not made progress on any of them. The objections are the same as they were a year ago, two years ago, and three years ago.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Can you list the other objections?
Click to expand...

How dare you ask for some new itemized list of the objections that you haven't once addressed in near half a decade.

No. Absolutely not. We're not going to go through the work of condensing the things you're ignoring.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Can you list the other objections?
Click to expand...


You could just read what people have said. There's hardly a logical fallacy that you haven't committed - excluded middle/false dilemma/Texas sharpshooter/strawman/parsimony/affirming the consequent/Prosecutor's fallacy/and many, many more.

Each and every one of these have been explained in depth by multiple people. You ignore all of it and simply restate the same reasoning and the same conclusion over and over again. For whatever reason, your brain appears to be protecting you from having to deal with the possibility that you're wrong. I doubt anything in the world could convince you that your beliefs are misapplied.

I cannot imagine what gain could be made by shouting down into this well again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom