Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Moving right along...
Click to expand...

If only.

7. Often, however,*all*of the alternative possible results/events produced by the particular situation are extremely unlikely -- in such a case, the unlikelihood of the particular event produced is*not*evidence against the hypothesis.
8. In such a case, in order to be evidence against the hypothesis, the particular event needs to be "set apart" from most of the other possible results in a way that is meaningful to the particular hypothesis.
9. Consequently, in order for my current existence to be evidence against OOFLam, I need to be set apart in a way meaningful to OOFLam.
10. That is the case.
Click to expand...

And again you're back to square one, telling us what you should be doing without doing it.
 
Jabba said:
Dave and others,
Moving right along...
[...]
Click to expand...

Stop lying. We aren't "moving right along" since you started this thread and its ancestors 5 years ago. Your interlocutors have been urging you along these many years to no avail.

There is no evidence that you have heard, demonstrated, proven or learned anything.

Better luck next time.
 
Last edited:
10. That is the case.
Click to expand...

No meaningful attempt has been made by the defense to support any of the bare assertions in the various numbered lists that have been proffered over the several years that this mock* trial has run.

It is the opinion of this mock judge that the mock defense has no knowledge of what mockery he is defending, has no intention of being taken seriously, and has been pulling the mock court's leg all this time.

There is no need for the mock jury to retire; the mock case is dismissed.

*Please substitute your favorite censored colorful words for all instances of the word, mock.
 
Hokulele said:
So you are interested in agreement, rather than truth?
Click to expand...

The only thing he's interested in is some silly power fantasy he's trying to trick us into acting out where he's awesome debate skills beat a bunch of big mean skeptics.
 
HighRiser said:
No meaningful attempt has been made by the defense to support any of the bare assertions in the various numbered lists that have been proffered over the several years that this mock* trial has run.

It is the opinion of this mock judge that the mock defense has no knowledge of what mockery he is defending, has no intention of being taken seriously, and has been pulling the mock court's leg all this time.

There is no need for the mock jury to retire; the mock case is dismissed.

*Please substitute your favorite censored colorful words for all instances of the word, mock.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think he imagines himself to be the prosecution, probably because he started the thread claiming proof and that he had a solid case to make.

Now we all know that he's completely full of it; has nothing except literal juvenile fantasies as well as delusions of knowledge or competency.
 
Jabba said:
Dave and others,
- Moving right along...
Click to expand...


No, you aren't. You're just restating the same argument.

- My next set of sub-issues. All comments welcome. I'll send any of my viewers (if and when I get any) over here to read whatever comments I don't publish.

4. Under that hypothesis [OOFLam], my current existence is*EXTREMELY*unlikely.
5. But here I am!
6. Given the "right" conditions, the fact that I do currently exist is*EXTREMELY*strong evidence that OOFLam is wrong.
Click to expand...


Under the hypothesis that you have an immortal soul in addition to your body, your existence is *EXTREMELY* unlikely. If your argument disproves one hypothesis, it also disproves the other.

7. Often, however,*all*of the alternative possible results/events produced by the particular situation are extremely unlikely -- in such a case, the unlikelihood of the particular event produced is*not*evidence against the hypothesis.
8. In such a case, in order to be evidence against the hypothesis, the particular event needs to be "set apart" from most of the other possible results in a way that is meaningful to the particular hypothesis. A good example is when a lottery is won by the second cousin of the lottery controller.
9. Consequently, in order for my current existence to be evidence against OOFLam, I need to be set apart in a way meaningful to OOFLam.
10. That is the case.
Click to expand...


How are you set apart?
 
- Just wanted to point out that "refute" has 2 definitions:

1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2: to deny the truth or accuracy of refuted the allegations
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute

- And, for the most part, you guys have refuted my claims via #2, but not #1.
 
Jabba said:
- Just wanted to point out that "refute" has 2 definitions:
Click to expand...

Everyone knows which definition's been used. Stop playing stupid, childish games. First you denied that it was refuted, then you ignored it altogether, and now you're trying to pretend that it was, but under a different definition.

Really, stop it. Start acting like an adult and admit defeat.
 
Jabba said:
- Just wanted to point out that "refute" has 2 definitions:

1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2: to deny the truth or accuracy of refuted the allegations
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute

- And, for the most part, you guys have refuted my claims via #2, but not #1.
Click to expand...

Every single word you have spoken has been "refuted" multiple times via whatever definition you wish to use. You sticking your fingers in your ears going "la la la I can't hear you la la la roadmap la la la neutral audience la la la" doesn't change that.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- Just wanted to point out that "refute" has 2 definitions:

1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2: to deny the truth or accuracy of refuted the allegations
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute

- And, for the most part, you guys have refuted my claims via #2, but not #1.
Click to expand...

Bald-faced lie.

You know this post exists. We talked about it, specifically whether you were allowed to use it in your map. (You aren't.) We then talked about whether you would be addressing it and the other refutations by responding here in this thread. You assured us you would. (Another lie, apparently.)

That post contains the "arguments and evidence" that refute your proof according to definition 1 in your dictionary. It's one thing to simply ignore it. It's another thing altogether to affirmatively deny it exists.

Pathetic, Jabba. Really, really pathetic.
 
jond said:
Denial. It's not just a river any more.
Click to expand...

Hell calling it Denial is being generous. Denial requires a person listens to something, understands it, and rejects for emotional instead of logical reasons.
 
JoeBentley said:
...and rejects for emotional instead of logical reasons.
Click to expand...

Jabba has already done this. He has said that he has a strong emotional attachment to his theory and that he would be emotionally devastated if he could not prove it mathematically. He might as well be wearing a T-shirt that says, "I have strong emotional reasons for mischaracterizing my critics' findings."

And on the back, space permitting, it should probably note the irony of someone who proudly admits he doesn't read all the rebuttals, nor any appreciable part of any one rebuttal, trying to assertively claim what those rebuttals look like. Jabba admits he doesn't have the information to support the claim of improper refutation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom