XPost: alt.atheism, talk.atheism
On Sat, 30 May 2015 21:14:45 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
>On Fri, 29 May 2015 20:45:35 -0400, mur wrote:
>
>> 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,
>
>On what evidence?
What have I told you about that?
>That someone, several millennia ago, thought up the idea of a god and it
>caught on?
>Do you also consider the possibility that all the other 20,000+ known gods
>exist?
What have I told you about that?
>Or the possibility that leprechauns exist?
What have I told you about that?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
