XPost: alt.atheism, talk.atheism   
   From: smiler@jo.king   
      
   On Sat, 30 May 2015 16:06:03 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:   
      
   > On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:59:47 +0000 (UTC), Smiler    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Fri, 29 May 2015 20:45:32 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On Fri, 22 May 2015 19:38:39 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:   
   >>> .   
   >>>>On Fri, 22 May 2015 12:04:11 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Sat, 9 May 2015 22:04:16 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:   
   >>>>> .   
   >>>>>>On Fri, 08 May 2015 22:02:41 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:26:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas   
   >>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>>>On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:07:11 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>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. The same is true for the lack of transition   
   >>>>>>>>>species of all other types.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>How do you know that?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>     It is in itself.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>Is that meant to mean something?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>     Only to people who don't have faith that it doesn't mean   
   >>>>>     anything.   
   >>>>>     To them it raises questions about what it does mean.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Thanks for admitting that you post nonsense.   
   >>>   
   >>> I usually don't mind pointing out the obvious for you people, even   
   >>> when there's between very little and no chance that you'll ever be   
   >>> able to comprehend much less appreciate it.   
   >>   
   >>Q.E.D.   
   >   
   > Everybody is out of step except him.   
      
   Oft heard in a mental asylum:   
   "I'm sane, it's the rest of the world that's mad."   
      
   --   
   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)