XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism
From: smiler@jo.king
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?
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? Or the possibility that leprechauns exist?
--
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)
|
