XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism   
   From: smiler@jo.king   
      
   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"   
      
   --   
   Smiler, The godless one.   
   aa #2279   
   Gods are all tailored to order. They are made   
   to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)