XPost: alt.atheism, talk.atheism   
   From: malte_runz@forgitit.dk   
      
   "Olrik"  skrev i meddelelsen news:mj15h7$i5k$2@dont-email.me...   
   >   
   > Le 2015-05-13 13:06, Malte Runz a écrit :   
   > > "Smiler"  skrev i meddelelsen news:mitu3k$nuv$1@speranza.aioe.org...   
   > >>   
   > >> On Mon, 11 May 2015 22:24:39 +0000, Smiler wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> > On Sat, 09 May 2015 22:07:13 +0000, Smiler wrote:   
   > >> >   
   > >> >> 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?   
   > >> >   
   > >> >    
   > >>   
   > >>    
   > >>   
   > >    
   >   
   >    
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
   Malte Runz   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)