But, that doesn't mean that you should just accept acclaimed -- or apparent -- facts when they don't make sense to you.
Unfortunately you've shown several times in this debate that your thinking is just too limited to understand anything you don't already believe in. You've subsequently shown that you are completely impervious to any and all attempts to educate you on points you don't yet already grasp. It's not as if you're being asked to take anything on faith. You've literally had dozens of people over the better part of five years attempting to correct your errors and explain things to you, and you simply ignore them. And that's not just an ISF phenomenon either; it happened elsewhere, and people came to the conclusion that you simply had no interest in what anyone else says.
If after all that it still doesn't "make sense," then that's clearly on you, and it doesn't excuse the
failure of your proof. When all the evidence shows that you are ineducable, the "I don't have to accept anything I don't understand" argument falls comically flat. It's just barely-concealed denialism. You have several times tried to claim you aren't responsible for things you don't understand, and it is apparent to your critics that this is a dodge.
'Unfortunately,' I have come to the tentative conclusion that reality is actually more than science (and cause and effect) can effectively address.
Yes, you've suggested several times in this debate that science is just to clumsy and blind to address the "evidence" you think you have -- which, of course, you
don't have. Which is just the standard fringe claimant's way of trying to excuse his failure by casting vague aspersions on science and scientific methodology. "Your puny science has no power to refute me, blah blah blah." Unfortunately you specifically said you could provide a mathematical proof. You say you can prove your proposition
within the boundaries of rational skepticism, so you don't get to play the "science is blind" card.
Nor does the "hobbled science" argument matter in the slightest for P(E|H). If you're going to go the Bayesian route, there is no way to avoid reckoning P(E|H) as if H were true. H is materialism. By definition, under materialism, there is no reality that cannot be cause-and-effect traceable to the material. Your attempts to falsify H by reckoning P(E|H) as very small rely on your belief that H is improbable. You tell us that's for reasons such as not being able to explain aspects of a reality that, for you, necessarily features immaterial factors you conjure into a pseudo-existence with nothing more than a wishful wave of the hand. Your inability to see this as blatantly circular reasoning, and blatantly wrong from a statistical-inference standpoint, is why you don't seem to see just how obviously wrong your proof is.
IOW, I tend to believe in magic...
We believe in facts and math. You came here to prove your belief in immortality according to those things. Now it appears you're admitting you can't, and that your proof only works if people believe in your brand of magic. A proof is meant to show the truth of a proposition to people who don't already believe it. Your "proof" seems to only work for people who already accept its conclusion.
I tend to actually...<remainder of pseudo-philosophical rambling snipped>
And, I suspect that this is where you and I diverge.
Where we diverge is where you claim to be able to prove all this mathematically, but then have to invoke magic and also insist that science is blind to evidence that would somehow vindicate you. Your outline for your proof is quite literally to beg your critics to accept your special pleading and begged questions as if those didn't matter.
I had best leave it at that for now.
There is no "for now," Jabba, that helps you in this debate. You've quite clearly conceded that you can't prove your point without invoking magic. But of course you won't concede and give your critics their justly earned praise for having successfully refuted you. You'll just say you think you're still right anyway, and insinuate that your critics are too benighted to understand your particular genius. Your behavior here is far more consistent with an ego-reinforcement exercise than it is with any sort of scientific or mathematical investigation.
