XPost: alt.atheism, talk.atheism   
   From: smiler@jo.king   
      
   On Fri, 08 May 2015 22:02:03 -0400, mur wrote:   
      
   > On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:46:59 -0500, Mitchell Holman    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>mur wrote in news:cfs2kat7bmirb4et3itpn7grae2ejj3p2t@4ax.com:   
   >>   
   >>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford   
   >>>  wrote: . . .   
   >>>>Thus, immortality is logically inseparable from the existence of the   
   >>>>capital-G God, since mathematically, immortality requires the   
   >>>>existence of either an infinite computational state or a finite state   
   >>>>which diverges to an infinite computational state (i.e., diverging to   
   >>>>literal Godhead in all its fullness), thus allowing for states to   
   >>>>never repeat and hence an infinite number of experiences.   
   >>>   
   >>>     Something would have to preserve the sense of self of the   
   >>>     individual, and   
   >>> somehow retain the sense of identity. From my position it seems God   
   >>> would have to do that for himself and any other beings he chose to do   
   >>> it for.   
   >>>   
   >>>>Consequently, transhumanism--if the goal by that position is   
   >>>>immortality--is inherently theistic, not only in a lowercase-G god   
   >>>>sense, but also in the capital-G God sense.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Interestingly, this also means that the existence of biological   
   >>>>evolution, far from demonstrating that God is unnecessary, is in fact   
   >>>>a logical proof of God's existence *unless* one posits the additional   
   >>>>postulate that there is a limit to evolution. Yet there is no logical   
   >>>>limit to evolution other than infinite complexity; and there exists no   
   >>>>empirical evidence that evolution is finitely-bounded. Thus, to   
   >>>>believe that evolution has a finite cut-off would be to hold a belief   
   >>>>without evidence, and thus it would be an irrational belief.   
   >>>   
   >>>     The fact that there are no beings in apparent transition from   
   >>>     reptiles to   
   >>> birds today, and very few fossil examples, is evidence that God   
   >>> influenced evolution.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>  So you don't believe in evolution   
   >   
   >     Prevent your supposed evidence of that.   
      
   Was that meant to be English?   
      
   >>but you also believe your god is influencing it.   
   >>   
   >>  Most odd.   
   >   
   >     You can't comprehend the basic possibility that God infuenced   
   >     evolution.   
   > Other people can.   
      
   What god would that be? The one you admit that you have no evidence for?   
      
   --   
   Smiler, The godless one.   
   aa #2279   
   Gods are all tailored to order. They are made   
   to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)