XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism   
   From: quoththeraven@nevermore.com   
      
   On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:05:22 -0400, James Redford   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford   
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>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.   
   >>   
   >>Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence   
   >>that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would   
   >>suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.   
   >>But since the premises are trivially false (biological evolution is,   
   >>in fact, constrained by chemistry and physics), that's a moot point.   
   >   
   >But as the rest of my post which you here reply to, yet cut out,   
   >demonstrates, the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of   
   >Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) actually   
   >mathematically force the universe to diverge to infinite computational   
   >power,   
      
   Nonsense. As Pauli would say, it isn't even wrong.   
      
   > becoming literally infinite in processor speed and infinite in   
   >memory space at the final singularity, of which singularity is termed   
   >the Omega Point.   
      
   Or the "noosphere", if you read Teillard de Chardin, rather than   
   Tipler...   
      
   >So far from physics constraining evolution, the known physical laws   
   >actually logically force the universe to evolve to infinite complexity   
   >and infinite intelligence.   
      
   Nice job moving the goalposts. What has this assertion to do with   
   *biological* evolution, which is, as I noted, constrained by chemistry   
   and physics, contrary to your assertion in the first paragraph above?   
      
   ---   
   raven1   
   aa # 1096   
   EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)   
   BAAWA Knight   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)