XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism   
      
   On Thu, 14 May 2015 19:11:58 +0200, Chicken wrote:   
   .   
   >"Olrik"  skrev i meddelelsen news:mj15h7$i5k$2@dont-email.me...   
   >>   
   >> Le 2015-05-13 13:06, Chicken wrote :   
   >> > Smil  skrev i meddelelsen news:mitu3k$nuv$1@speranza.aioe.org...   
   >> >>   
   >> >> On Mon, 11 May 2015 22:24:39 +0000, Smil wrote:   
   >> >>   
   >> >> > On Sat, 09 May 2015 22:07:13 +0000, 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?   
   >> >> >>   
   >> >> >>>>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? The one you admit that you have no evidence   
   >> >> >> for?   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> >    
   >> >>   
   >> >>    
   >> >>   
   >> >    
   >>   
   >>    
   >   
   >   
      
       The fact that not one of you atheists have ever presented any idea that's   
   more intersting than "no" doesn't encourage me to look forward to reading what   
   any of you have to say about the possibility of God's existence and influence   
   because I know what it's going to be in advance. You may try to used different   
   words to express the same horribly restricted idea over and over and over and   
   over and over..............................but it's always the same. And it's a   
   possibility that I take into consideration also, but I consider MORE   
   possibilities than the one you people are restricted to. Then I also go on to   
   consider WHY you people are so horribly restricted, and also the fact that most   
   of you are ashamed to admit your own belief.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)