XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism   
   From: smiler@jo.king   
      
   On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 16:23:36 -0400, mur wrote:   
      
   > On Sat, 30 May 2015 21:14:45 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:   
   > .   
   >>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?   
   >   
   >     What have I told you about that?   
      
   No answer.   
      
   >>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?   
   >   
   >     What have I told you about that?   
      
   No answer.   
      
   >>Or the possibility that leprechauns exist?   
   >   
   >     What have I told you about that?   
      
   No answer.   
      
   --   
   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)