XPost: alt.atheism, talk.atheism
On Fri, 22 May 2015 19:44:10 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
>On Fri, 22 May 2015 12:04:08 -0400, mur wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 9 May 2015 22:07:13 +0000 (UTC), Smil 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?
>>
>> Would you like people to think you're truly too stupid to figure out
>> the
>> mistake I made.
>>
>>>>>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?
>>
>> If there's a God associated with Earth it's obvious that people have
>> different beliefs about him and refer to him in different ways. You for
>> example have great faith that he doesn't exist and refer to him as "what
>> god".
>>
>>>The one you admit that you have no evidence for?
>>
>> Present your quote(s) or be exposed as a liar.
>
>I wrote that I would accept: "The exact same objective evidence that
>persuaded _you_ that your supposed god character exists."
>
>You replied: "There is none"
I'm not persuaded that God does exist. Like you I consider the possibility
that he doesn't. But unlike you I can also consider the possibility that he
does, which is involves much more thinking than you're capable of in your tiny
little mental comfort zone. You like to think that you're capable of giving as
much thought as anyone else, but if you could you would. It's only because you
can't that you don't.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
