XPost: alt.atheism, talk.atheism   
      
   On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 22:09:06 +0000 (UTC), Smil had no clue at all:   
   .   
   >On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 16:23:36 -0400, mur challenged Smil:   
   >   
   >> 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?   
   >   
   >No answer.   
      
       Since you have no clue what I told you before how could it be different if   
   I   
   tell you again?   
      
   >>>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?   
   >   
   >No answer.   
      
       Since you have no clue what I told you before how could it be different if   
   I   
   tell you again?   
      
   >>>Or the possibility that leprechauns exist?   
   >>   
   >>     What have I told you about that?   
   >   
   >No answer.   
      
       Since you have no clue what I told you before how could it be different if   
   I   
   tell you again?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)