XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism   
      
   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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)