Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Argumemnon said:
I think you should link to the posts along with the dates, and bookmark it so you can re-post it as needed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, good point. He will continue to ignore it, of course. But that’s not going to make it go away.
 
Jabba said:
Zoo,

- For "self," I've offered several definitions (self-awareness, identity, sense of self, particular sense of self, etc.) -- and since this is such a difficult concept to effectively define, I've offered two denotations(?): the experience that reincarnationists think returns and that solipsists think is all there is.
Click to expand...
Which is your JIL (Jabba Immortal Lie). You're continually waffling back and forth between referring to it as a process and a thing, depending on whether you're trying to simulate agreement or trying to falsify something.

You can refer to the process as a thing if you want to but just know that you aren't falsifying the materialist model when you do. I'm not sure what it is you're falsifying but it isn't that.

- Caveman wanted me to talk about "immortal" -- I'd still prefer ~OOFLam, which would only include immortal. But, I think it works either way. By "immortal," I mean "always exists," in one form or another.
Click to expand...
Don't care. Your goal was to falsify the materialist model first before you can claim something else replaces it.
 
Jabba said:
- No. I should have included, "And, the fact that I am set apart."
Click to expand...
That is the opposite of a "fact". It is, in fact, a lie. You aren't set apart in the materialist model, which is what you're trying to falsify. This has been explained to you and you were told you wouldn't be allowed to lie about it.

Do not lie about that again.
 
On December 27, Jabba agrees that in materialism, the self is a process generated by the brain. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12126769&postcount=1116

On December 30, Jabba agrees that in order to get to immortality, he needs to add another entity in addition to his body.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12129197&postcount=1266

On May 4, Jabba agrees that it is impossible for the body and soul to be more likely than the body alone.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11825460&postcount=2069
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Jay,
- Yes I am... and, no I'm not.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your admission that you deliberately bait and switch.

- Materialists do not believe that the self is immortal,
Click to expand...
How can a process be mortal or immortal? Do not try to paste a soul onto the materialist model. You won't be allowed to.

so they dismiss the normal concept of "soul" -- which does include immortality. I'm just claiming that they're talking about the same personal experience as the theists are talking about.
Click to expand...
No, you're trying to make the materialist process include a soul so that you can try to falsify that. You aren't going to be allowed to bait and switch like that.

- Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...
Does the materialist model, which is what you're trying to falsify, include a soul?
 
Jabba said:
Jay,
- Yes I am... and, no I'm not.
- Materialists do not believe that the self is immortal, so they dismiss the normal concept of "soul" -- which does include immortality. I'm just claiming that they're talking about the same personal experience as the theists are talking about.
- Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...


I disagree. Because you're lying.

You're using the word "experience" when you actually mean "thing." Only a thing can exist through time, let alone immortally. An experience is constantly changing. Which are you talking about?

You're talking about something that exists in time. You refuse to define what it is, how we could recognize it, or what evidence you have that it is an unchanging thing. You just state it, hide behind a misuse of the word "experience" and hope that your lies are not apparent.

They are.
 
Mojo said:
You can only observe your own existence if you exist.
Click to expand...

Others can only observe you if you exist. Jabba is equivocating "observe." We mean it in the statistical sense. Jabba's trying to equivocate it to be a literal observation. Other people don't see our souls, so that doesn't count in his book.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Thank you for your admission that you deliberately bait and switch.
Click to expand...

And worse still trying to hide a bait and switch behind yet another "Lying to his opponents about what they believe."

Again it's this whole act he's got going on where even us admitting he is right wouldn't be enough for him, we'd have to admit we knew deep down in our heart of hearts he was right all along.

This "You know you agree with me" subtext in so much of your nonsense is amazingly childish and insulting Jabba.

You don't have anywhere near a stable enough platform to start telling your opponents that you know what they think better than they do.
 
Jabba,

At some point are you going to post something that doesn't boil down to your own wishful thinking?
 
Jabba said:
Jay...
- Materialists do not believe that the self is immortal, so they dismiss the normal concept of "soul" -- which does include immortality. I'm just claiming that they're talking about the same personal experience as the theists are talking about.
- Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...

JayUtah said:
...
You're trying to make the "self" under materialism an individualized entity, as the soul is under your beliefs...
Click to expand...
- But, do you disagree that they're talking about the same experience?


JayUtah said:
You have been given a comprehensive list of my objections which you can't be bothered to address in the manner requested. Stop insulting me by asking me ad nauseam to repeat myself.
Click to expand...
- I'm trying to answer other objections by other members, but I am trying to answer your objections also. For now, I'm addressing your objections one at a time cause it takes me awhile to be comfortable with my answers. When, I've addressed them all, I'll put all my answers in one post.
- If you want, just wait till I've finished that last step to read them -- or, I could just wait to post them all at once. Whatever you say -- but I will try to answer them.

- If that ultimate step is not what you want me to do in "breadth," let me know.
 
jond said:
Answered fully and ignored. Unsurprisingly.
Click to expand...

His entire argument is based on his need to count "potential selves" as they supposedly exist in materialism. Except that no such thing exists in materialism, and the sense of self is a property, not an entity -- countable or otherwise. It's basically just pissing on his critics at this point to say he's not trying to make "selves" a countable separate entity from the body in materialism. And as Loss Leader pointed out, he's frantically trying to get people to let him equivocate "experience" to mean soul.
 
JayUtah said:
His entire argument is based on his need to count "potential selves" as they supposedly exist in materialism. Except that no such thing exists in materialism, and the sense of self is a property, not an entity -- countable or otherwise. It's basically just pissing on his critics at this point to say he's not trying to make "selves" a countable separate entity from the body in materialism. And as Loss Leader pointed out, he's frantically trying to get people to let him equivocate "experience" to mean soul.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know. I'm not going to let him get away with pretending he hasn't cornered himself by agreeing that in materialism selves are a process generated by the brain and that he needs to add another entity if he wants to get to immortality (or reincarnation or whatever else he wants to pretend he's talking about this week). And that he knows it's impossible for a body and a soul to be more likely than a body alone.
 
jond said:
Jabba, on December 27th you agreed that the materialistic model holds that the self is a process generated by the brain. On December 30th you agreed that in order to get anything other than one finite life, you need to add another entity (a soul). Which means that for theists, your current existence is both a body and a soul. On May 4th you agreed that a body and a soul cannot be less likely than a body alone.

Do you agree with this? If not, I can once again collect the posts where you did.
Click to expand...

I think you meant 'more', not 'less'.
 
JoeBentley said:
Why answer your questions for 55th time when you'll either ignore it or lie and pretend we agree with anyway?
Click to expand...

It's even more insulting for him to ask that question in that way after Loss Leader pointed out exactly how he's misusing and equivocating words. I mean literally right after someone exposes the equivocation game for what it is, Jabba seems to think his critics are so monumentally stupid that he can just play it again and they won't notice. I'm beginning to think Jabba literally has no shame.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom