Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, jabba, this is what it has become:

- 1. Jabba must be right. It is an obsession.
-- 1.1 Objections are dismissed with quibbles where possible.
-- 1.2 Objections are ignored where not.
- 2. Therefore, jabba is immortal.
 
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...

Really? Then you have not been reading the replies given...

FOR FIVE ******' YEARS.
 
Jabba said:
4. Under that hypothesis [OOFLam], my current existence is*EXTREMELY*unlikely.
Click to expand...

But it's under ANY hypothesis. As you've defined it, your current existence is extremely unlikely. Period. Having souls (or whatever) doesn't actually make your existence any more likely. You can literally just swap out "OOFLam" for "OSSoSam" or whatever and it doesn't change anything. There's nothing about the existence of souls that makes your specific current existence any more likely.
 
SOdhner said:
But it's under ANY hypothesis. As you've defined it, your current existence is extremely unlikely. Period. Having souls (or whatever) doesn't actually make your existence any more likely. You can literally just swap out "OOFLam" for "OSSoSam" or whatever and it doesn't change anything. There's nothing about the existence of souls that makes your specific current existence any more likely.
Click to expand...

Which goes back to kudos-to-whoever said it the most succinctly: Jabba's proof is designed to reject any hypothesis thrown at it (ostensibly in favor of some woo proposition). He simply chooses to throw only materialism at it. And not even that, but rather his admitted straw man.
 
I know this has been explained to Jabba before, and I know he's not likely to respond to me anyway, but I have to put this out there. I'll even use numbers to make Jabba more comfortable.

  1. If we assume Jabba's argument is sound (I know, I know).
  2. Then logically it would be sound coming from someone else as well.
  3. If it's sound coming from someone else, literally anyone can present this argument with their own name in place of Jabba's.
  4. If anyone can present this argument, then no specific person is required to exist for this argument to be valid.
  5. That means we're no longer trying to calculate the chances of any specific person, we're just trying to look at the odds that ANYONE will exist.

Like I said, I know this has probably been covered many times.
 
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...

The burden of proof is on you to mathematically prove immortality like you said you would. Did you think anybody would be fooled by this ploy? You tried it before.
 
Argumemnon said:
In fact, being immortal doesn't make his existence more likely. In other words the sub-sub-issues don't even have anything to do with the claim.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Jabba has not existed since the beginning of time, he was born on some particular day (I know this because he posted his birth date on his web site). That means Jabba is the result of a particular sperm and ovum. Now he may be mortal or immortal. Whichever it is, the odds (no matter how unlikely) of his existing on the day he was born are the same.
 
SOdhner said:
I know this has been explained to Jabba before, and I know he's not likely to respond to me anyway, but I have to put this out there. I'll even use numbers to make Jabba more comfortable.

  1. If we assume Jabba's argument is sound (I know, I know).
  2. Then logically it would be sound coming from someone else as well.
  3. If it's sound coming from someone else, literally anyone can present this argument with their own name in place of Jabba's.
  4. If anyone can present this argument, then no specific person is required to exist for this argument to be valid.
  5. That means we're no longer trying to calculate the chances of any specific person, we're just trying to look at the odds that ANYONE will exist.

Like I said, I know this has probably been covered many times.
Click to expand...


I've asked him, more than once, if he thinks that his argument would be valid if it was advanced by someone else existing in his place. He has declined to answer.
 
SOdhner said:
I know this has been explained to Jabba before, and I know he's not likely to respond to me anyway, but I have to put this out there. I'll even use numbers to make Jabba more comfortable.

  1. If we assume Jabba's argument is sound (I know, I know).
  2. Then logically it would be sound coming from someone else as well.
  3. If it's sound coming from someone else, literally anyone can present this argument with their own name in place of Jabba's.
  4. If anyone can present this argument, then no specific person is required to exist for this argument to be valid.
  5. That means we're no longer trying to calculate the chances of any specific person, we're just trying to look at the odds that ANYONE will exist.

Like I said, I know this has probably been covered many times.
Click to expand...
SOdhner,
- If you're saying what I think you're saying: yes, if everybody else experiences the same kind of sense of self that I experience, we should each have more than one finite life. Most likely, we are all, somehow, immortal.
- To account for the rise in population over the millennia, we have to posit an infinitely divisible pool of consciousness...
- And then, what about other animals, plants and rocks? And then, what about other planets -- or, other universes? What do we have here? Does science really know what it's talking about?
 
Mojo said:
I've asked him, more than once, if he thinks that his argument would be valid if it was advanced by someone else existing in his place. He has declined to answer.
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- I didn't understand what you were asking.
 
Jabba said:
SOdhner,
- If you're saying what I think you're saying: yes, if everybody else experiences the same kind of sense of self that I experience, we should each have more than one finite life. Most likely, we are all, somehow, immortal.
- To account for the rise in population over the millennia, we have to posit an infinitely divisible pool of consciousness...
- And then, what about other animals, plants and rocks? And then, what about other planets -- or, other universes? What do we have here? Does science really know what it's talking about?
Click to expand...

Science isn't the one positing an infinitely divisible pool of consciousness.
 
Jabba said:
- If you're saying what I think you're saying: yes, if everybody else experiences the same kind of sense of self that I experience, we should each have more than one finite life. Most likely, we are all, somehow, immortal.
Click to expand...

Okay it looks like you stopped reading before points 4 and 5.

If your argument is based on objective stuff like you say it is, then everyone could make the argument for themselves. I could make your exact same argument, but say that it's about "SOdhner" existing rather than"Jabba". You've provided no reason why it would be valid for YOUR existence but not for someone else's. So then if everyone can make the argument, no specific person is needed. If you, Jabba, did NOT exist then I, SOdhner, could still make the same argument.

That means we're no longer trying to calculate the chances of any specific person, we're just trying to look at the odds that ANYONE will exist.

Jabba said:
- To account for the rise in population over the millennia, we have to posit an infinitely divisible pool of consciousness...
- And then, what about other animals, plants and rocks? And then, what about other planets -- or, other universes? What do we have here? Does science really know what it's talking about?
Click to expand...

You're getting deep into the weeds there, that's all stuff we could talk about AFTER we establish your premise.
 
Jabba said:
SOdhner,
if everybody else experiences the same kind of sense of self that I experience, we should each have more than one finite life.
Click to expand...

You will ignore this but

how does:
we should each have more than one finite life

follow from:
if everybody else experiences the same kind of sense of self that I experience,
 
Jabba said:
If you're saying what I think you're saying: yes, if everybody else experiences the same kind of sense of self that I experience, we should each have more than one finite life. Most likely, we are all, somehow, immortal.
Click to expand...

Literally no one is saying that. Stop putting words in other people's mouths Jabba.

To account for the rise in population over the millennia, we have to posit an infinitely divisible pool of consciousness.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense.

And then, what about other animals, plants and rocks? And then, what about other planets -- or, other universes? What do we have here? Does science really know what it's talking about?
Click to expand...

Science knows far more of "what it is talking about" than you do. Far, far, far more.
 
Jabba said:
Does science really know what it's talking about?
Click to expand...


"Science" only talks about that which can be falsifiably and repeatedly tested.

The question I have is whether you know what "science" is talking about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom