How can you even measure probability as you do here? What methodology are you using to end up with those numbers? And how can you attach a higher number to theories that you are arguing for? Isn't that a serious cognitive bias towards your own convictions? — Christoffer
As far as I see it, there is no probability until there is actual support for a hypothetical truth. All of these have no real foundation and is both highly speculative and fantasy. So probability cannot be applied to such a low degree of support — Christoffer
So far, we have no data what-so-ever that support any kind of life after death — Christoffer
It's like me asking you to guess the probability of my car's color. Red 10%, Blue 16,48%, Green 7,4%. Without any knowledge of whether or not I even own a car. — Christoffer
The first three are guesses. The fourth is calculated here: — Devans99
I agree the foundation for some of the others is shaky or non-existent, hence assigning a 1% probability (rounded up) for each of them. — Devans99
We will never have any data supporting life after death. People are still interested though; our primary directive is survival and this directive extends beyond the grave. — Devans99
But despite not having data, there are still possibilities and where there are possibilities there are probabilities. — Devans99
I can still assign a probability that you own a green car without knowing whether you own a car or not; I just assign a lower probability to account for the fact you may not even own a ca — Devans99
That calculation does not have any valid foundation other than your own invention. There's a 50% chance I own a car. That is a calculation I just made, is that probability correct? No, since it refers to nothing more than a probability of my own invention. — Christoffer
You haven't given any deductive reasoning behind any of the calculations which indisputably solidifies the probabilities you proposed. — Christoffer
No, you can't, since you don't have any data to attach that probability to — Christoffer
1%, 12.5%, how do you even reach those specific numbers? You're just inventing them out of thin air. — Christoffer
You are determined to prove there is a god...and it is almost certain, you are determined to show that the god in question is one you have in mind — Frank Apisa
You are determined to prove there is a god...and it is almost certain, you are determined to show that the god in question is one you have in mind ā Frank Apisa
Dude, this is about life after death not God. Two different questions. Life after death is possible without God as pointed out in the OP.
I subscribe to no conventional religion. Deism is probably the best description (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism). — Devans99
The deductive reasoning for eternalism was given here — Devans99
But in the absence of data, we assume a boolean distribution — Devans99
The 1% estimates have sufficiently small impact of the overall analysis that guessing them does not matter too much. I have given you the calculations for the two that matter. Those calculations are a step removed from a blind guess, which is what most people do. — Devans99
Dude, this is about life after death not God. Two different questions. Life after death is possible without God as pointed out in the OP. — Devans99
That's not a deductive argument, so no. Read the answers in that thread given to you. You ignore them and start new threads in which you conclude your previous arguments to be final and concluded without ever addressing the problems people raise. You end up just having personal beliefs proposed as truths with flawed math. — Christoffer
"But in the absence of data, we assume a boolean distribution
ā Devans99
No we don't, you do. And you make conclusions based on the value you like. It's pure belief dressed in flawed logic. — Christoffer
Life after death is just as much of a belief fantasy as the existence of God — Christoffer
No-one came up with any valid counter arguments. — Devans99
Do you think I'm stupid enough to keep posting about it if it has been rebutted? — Devans99
Take a coin toss. You can assume it comes up heads, tails, or heads half the time. Which is the most correct assumption? Half the time is. So when doing a probability analysis, if you have no data for a particular sub-proposition, all you can do is assign a 50% probability. — Devans99
That is a very high level statement with no justification. See the OP for an example of how to argue an inductive proposition. — Devans99
You've received countless of counters to your arguments without actually addressing them fully. — Christoffer
Yes, because you have the coin (data) and you have two sides (data) and you have physical conditions like air density, spin, force, energy (data) to conclude with a probability of a certain event. — Christoffer
Life after death has no support in science, so it's a belief. — Christoffer
I do address all counter arguments fully. If you disagree, provide a link to such an unaddressed counter argument. — Devans99
Ok, so say someone gave you 100 boolean propositions. You don't know what the propositions are but you have to guess how many are true. What would be your guess?
- 0 true
- 50 true
- 100 true
You would guess 50. So when you truly have no data about a proposition, it is correct to assume 50% likelihood of truth. — Devans99
Eternalism is supported by science — Devans99
You haven't, you refer back to your original statements or other arguments you've made which are flawed, as per all the counter-arguments you've received in them.
Just because you say you've countered the counter-arguments, doesn't mean that you have.
It's like me saying that my conclusion is that I'm right, so you can't say I'm wrong. That's delusional. — Christoffer
This doesn't adress the counter-arguments I gave — Christoffer
Why do you keep spamming the same answers over and over? People all over the forum keep countering your logic and you keep ignoring all of them and start new threads referring back to your own previous threads with a conclusion that they are correct, ignoring every counter-argument you got in those threads. — Christoffer
I'm sorry, but you are not able to participate in a philosophical dialectic since you do not even try and falsify your own arguments. — Christoffer
I have not succeeded so far. — Devans99
Isn't that a serious cognitive bias towards your own convictions? — Christoffer
He screams cognitive bias. Perhaps more than any other member of this forum I have encountered. — S
We have been through this before. You claim my points have been rebutted but you never give counter arguments or links to counter arguments. That is not a productive exercise from my perspective. Try to stay on topic. — Devans99
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement ā just fascinating conversations.