You started a troll thread based on percentages you made up in your head and you're pretending it's fortifying claims that have no foundation in reality — whollyrolling

I put some thought into the calculations 4 and 5 as explained above. I am not trolling. I thought that life after death is a subject that is of natural interest to all of us and was there anything we could do with it on the numbers side. I thought it was an interesting idea. Why all the hostility?

I am an amateur astronomer. I am also an amateur philosopher. I have not had anything published but then I have not tried until recently.

Just saying my argument is not valid does not make it so. — Devans99

Just saying our counter-arguments are invalid does not make it so.
You are right in that you are an amateur. Many in here are, but being an amateur might also mean that you don't even have the dialectical methodology to be able to participate in proper philosophical discussions.

Your way of dismissing counterarguments show that you don't have any grasp on actual philosophy. It's self-proclaimed philosophers like you who makes me feel I already have a PhD.

I already told you. Im not interested in that right now. Im trying to find out why you think everyone disagrees with you, and rejects what you are saying as nonsense.
Are you willing to commit, barring someones declaration of strong atheism, that your position is that ALL the people saying the exact same thing about your “probability” basis and its lack of validity lack the comprehension to grasp your argument? — DingoJones

Well as no-one can articulate exactly what is the problem with my probability calculations, I can hardly be expected to answer that question.

I thought that life after death is a subject that is of natural interest to all of us and was there anything we could do with it on the numbers side. I thought it was an interesting idea. Why all the hostility? — Devans99

Are we hostile just because we point out your logic is invalid? As I said, you don't seem to understand what philosophy really is.

I understand philosophy involves argument and counter-argument. All you do is waffle.

SPECIFIC ON TOPIC COUNTER ARGUMENTS PLEASE

Well as no-one can articulate exactly what is the problem with my probability calculations, I can hardly be expected to answer that question. — Devans99

Your numbers don't relate to anything other than your own invented logic. That's the problem. People have pointed this out over and over but you won't listen. You have no source for the probability you propose. Seriously, how are you unable to see this simple fact?

Explain how you ended up with those probability numbers, it's the biggest hole in your logical reasoning.

Your numbers don't relate to anything other than your own invented logic. — Christoffer

Which number(s) do you object to?

I understand philosophy involves argument and counter-argument. All you do is waffle.

SPECIFIC ON TOPIC COUNTER ARGUMENTS PLEASE — Devans99

EVERYONE DID OVER AND OVER - DEAL WITH IT

Which number(s) do you object to? — Devans99

1%

12,5%

Explain, now, or just stop trolling.

Which number(s) do you object to?

Well as no-one can articulate exactly what is the problem with my probability calculations, I can hardly be expected to answer that question. — Devans99

Ok, so you will not commit to that. Will you commit to admitting that you do not know why they disagree with you?

1%

12,5%

Explain, now, or just stop trolling. — Christoffer

1% - is basically a rounded up estimate for 'I have virtually no belief in the possibility of' (religion, simulation or quantum immortality). I rounded up out of respect for these viewpoints I guess. Could of used 0% - it would not make much difference to the end result.

12.5% - I already explained the derivation here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/279748

What aspect in particular do you disagree with?

I am afraid I do not have much of a web presence if thats what you mean. Not even a Facebook page. — Devans99

Oh, don't be so modest. You're a prestigious author! But yes, that's exactly what I meant. I'm glad we got that settled.

This conversation is a source of laughter not hostility.

Also it's "I could have" not "I could of".

What's funny about survival? It is our primary directive after all.

Ok, so you will not commit to that. Will you commit to admitting that you do not know why they disagree with you? — DingoJones

I have to assume I have not articulated my arguments clearly enough I guess.

This conversation is a source of laughter not hostility. — whollyrolling

That we have no valid counterarguments is no laughing matter. We really need to pull our socks up. We're in the presence of someone who's going places. He'll have the last laugh when he's all over television, and everyone is lining up for him to sign their copy of his new book, in his mind, in his padded cell, inside the asylum.

What's funny is that he is so wildly off course. He utterly fails to distinguish between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. God is that which is prior to that which is existentially dependent upon that which consists in/of the medication I need to keep me bouncing off the walls.

You don't know what's funny about "surviving death"?

1% - is basically a rounded up estimate — Devans99

Rounded up from what? Why is this number 1% and not 1,1%? Explain how you ended up with exactly 1% We want to see the actual mathematical calculation that made you end up at that exact number.

12.5% - I already explained the derivation here: — Devans99

No, you didn't. You need to explain how you calculated 50% in the first place and how you can apply the chances of circular time to be 50%, which has no data in support of that number.
You essentially need to explain how you can apply 50% to a concept that does not have any data in support of it. A boolean distribution cannot be used as a foundation for a probability of something to be true. That is so fundamentally un-scientific in its logic that it's absurd.

Here's a test for your appliance of 50% to circular time. Tell your calculation to a physicist actually working on time-related physics and see how they react to your concept. If they don't laugh at it I will be surprised.

There, now answer in a way that convinces us all how any of this is logical.

Which number(s) do you object to?

DingoJones
704
↪Frank Apisa
↪Devans99


↪S
↪Christoffer


I tagged the people in this thread, but there are more people who disagree with you on the same things as we do from other threads since you’ve uses this stuff as a basis for a bunch of threads. In fact, no one agrees with you that Ive seen.

Gentlemen, please sound off. Which of you are “strong atheists”? — DingoJones

If anything, I am an agnostic.

I prefer not to use the descriptor...but instead state my position as:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Which number(s) do you object to? — S

Which counter-argument that is not valid are you referring to? :lol:

Oh my goodness, this is getting too absurd, even for me. Now we have Frank Aspammer turning up! I ought to give him Apisa my mind.

If anything, I am an agnostic. — Frank Apisa

Not a foundation for a rational argument, irrelevant.

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't. — Frank Apisa

THIS IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT

THIS IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT — Christoffer

THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTERARGUMENT

Rounded up from what? Why is this number 1% and not 1,1%? Explain how you ended up with exactly 1% We want to see the actual mathematical calculation that made you end up at that exact number. — Christoffer

There is no calculation behind it; it is an estimate. In the absence of statistical support; estimates are the best one can do.

You need to explain how you calculated 50% in the first place and how you can apply the chances of circular time to be 50%, which has no data in support of that number.
You essentially need to explain how you can apply 50% to a concept that does not have any data in support of it. A boolean distribution cannot be used as a foundation for a probability of something to be true. That is so fundamentally un-scientific in its logic that it's absurd. — Christoffer

Eternalist time can have two possible topologies: linear or circular. I have no data on which is more prevalent, so it is statistically correct to assume 50%:

- Assuming 0% chance of circler would be an unwarranted bias towards linear.
- Assuming 100% chance of circler would be an unwarranted bias towards circular
- So we assume 50% - equidistant between the two extremes.

That is the statistically correct answer.

Here's a test for your appliance of 50% to circular time. Tell your calculation to a physicist actually working on time-related physics and see how they react to your concept. If they don't laugh at it I will be surprised. — Christoffer

It is not as far fetched as you think, see for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve

THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTERARGUMENT — S

THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTER-ARGUMENT TO ANY COUNTER-ARGUMENT TO ANY ARGUMENT TO ANY QUOTED ARGUMENT - COUNTERED

I have to assume I have not articulated my arguments clearly enough I guess. — Devans99

You don't "guess". You believe.

Or is it the other way around? I'm sure Frank will tell us. Again.

He might believe he has the last laugh, like William Lane Craig when he thinks he's got an ontological argument for the existence of god and says "I'd like to see someone provide evidence against god" before spewing out nonsense from the 1400's, an "argument" which begins with the assumption that god exists. You need two PhD's to talk pedantic jibberish on a stage. You don't need any PhD's for Philosophy Forums.

Everyone who argues this argues the same tired points from the middle ages every time because confirmation bias makes sense of ancient writing. It's strange that no one has come up with a new god argument in 600 years.

THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTER-ARGUMENT TO ANY COUNTER-ARGUMENT TO ANY ARGUMENT TO ANY QUOTED ARGUMENT - COUNTERED — Christoffer

What are you referring to? Provide a link.