Discussion:
Theotech: God Is the Ultimate Technology
(too old to reply)
James Redford
2015-04-17 23:16:40 UTC
Permalink
A *god* (minuscule G) is an immortal sapient being who is still finite
at any given time. Whereas *God* (majuscule G) is the infinite sapient
being.

As physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler noted, "Any
cosmology with unlimited progress will end in God." (See Anthony
Liversidge, interview of Frank Tipler, "A Physicist Proposes a Theory
of Eternal Life that Yields God", Omni, Vol. 17, No. 1 [Oct. 1994],
pp. 89 ff. [8 pp.].) This means that, e.g., any form of immortality
necessarily entails the existence of the capital-G God, in the sense
of an omniscient, omnipotent and personal being with infinite
computational resources. This is mathematically unavoidable, for the
reason that any finite state will eventually undergo the Eternal
Return per the Quantum Recurrence Theorem. This is very easy to see by
considering the simple example of two bits, which have only four
possible states (i.e., 2^2): hence, once these four states have been
exhausted, states will have to recur. What that means is that any
finite state can only have a finite number of experiences (i.e.,
different states), because any finite state will eventually start to
repeat.

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.

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 concept of man being gods and becoming ever-more Godlike is simply
traditional Christianity, going all the way back to Jesus's teachings
(e.g., see John 10:34), that of Paul and the other Epistlers, and that
of the Church Fathers. In traditional Christian theology, this is
known as apotheosis, theosis or divinization. For many examples of
these early teachings, see the article "Divinization (Christian)",
Wikipedia, Apr. 14, 2015,
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Divinization_%28Christian%29&oldid=656379874
. Though this traditional position of Christian theology has been
deemphasized for the last millennium.

Indeed, the words "transhumanism" and "superhumanism" originated in
Christian theology. "Transhumanism" is a neologism coined by Dante
Alighieri in his Divine Comedy (Paradiso, Canto I, lines 70-72),
referring favorably to a mortal human who became an immortal god by
means of eating a special plant. For the Christian theological origin
of the term "superhumanism", see the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd
ed.), the first appearance being by Henry Montagu, 1st Earl of
Manchester, in his Al Mondo: Contemplatio Mortis, & Immortalitatis
(London, England: Robert Barker, and the Assignes of John Bill, 1636).

Moreover, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a proof (i.e.,
mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of,
e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and
artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics
(viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and
Quantum Mechanics) to take control over all matter in the universe,
for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and
for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both
processor speed and memory space) to diverge to infinity as the
universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point.
Said Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic component of the
Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of
Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in
physics, of which TOE is itself mathematically forced by the aforesaid
known physical laws. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and
extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

The Omega Point final singularity has all the unique properties
(quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. For much
more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it
uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described
in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses
the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of
Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012
(orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF,
1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb,
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 ,
https://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything
, http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf ,
https://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf
,
http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf
.

Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain
very informative videos of Prof. Tipler explaining the Omega Point
cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard
Model TOE. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of
Tipler. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of
these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's
Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?",
alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: ***@4ax.com
, July 30, 2013,
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo ,
http://archive.today/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS . The
plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5:
b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761, http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp ,
http://webcitation.org/6WGd90MBa , http://archive.today/cVRmc .

----------------------------------------

James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science
Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001),
doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 ,
http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf ,
http://webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website with information
on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem and the quantum gravity
Theory of Everything [TOE]), http://theophysics.host56.com ,
http://theophysics.freevar.com
Christopher A. Lee
2015-04-17 23:20:33 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
A *god* (minuscule G) is an immortal sapient being who is still finite
at any given time. Whereas *God* (majuscule G) is the infinite sapient
being.
What "the infinite sapient being", imbecile?

[120 lines of Redford's standard mindless, unsolicited nonsense
deleted]
James Redford
2015-04-17 23:29:15 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:20:33 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
A *god* (minuscule G) is an immortal sapient being who is still finite
at any given time. Whereas *God* (majuscule G) is the infinite sapient
being.
What "the infinite sapient being", imbecile?
Hi, Christopher A. Lee. That foregoing sentence by you is not
grammatically correct. It should rather read, "What is 'the infinite
sapient being', imbecile?"
Post by Christopher A. Lee
[120 lines of Redford's standard mindless, unsolicited nonsense
deleted]
Don't blame me for your own imbecilic asininity. I never put a gun to
your head and ordered you to behave in the manner of a brain-damaged
cad. Rather, it is your own erroneous Weltanschauung which lead you to
act in such an intellectually-debased way.

However, I have provided the intellectual tools in which to ameliorate
your error. My below articles explain to people (1) theological ethics
and soteriology in a comprehensive and logically-coherent manner; (2)
how the known laws of physics prove God's existence while
demonstrating the exacting and extensive consilience of the New
Testament with said physical laws; (3) the nature of God in light of
said physical laws; (4) the End Time, the Tribulation, the Second
Coming of Jesus Christ, the foundation of Heaven on Earth, and the
universal resurrection of the dead in light of said physical laws; and
(5) the End Time in light of the history of the globalist oligarchy's
self-termed New World Order world government and world religion
agenda.

Item No. 1 is important vis-à-vis salvation for those who maintain
that they already believe in Jesus Christ's Godhead. Items Nos. 2-5
are important in letting atheists, believers in other religions, and
nominal ersatz "Christians" know that God as described by the New
Testament does exist and that the New Testament is true. Items Nos.
2-5 are additionally important in giving believers in Christ a much
deeper understanding of God and of the End Time, so that they may be
strengthened in their faith during the extreme horrors to come and so
that they will not fall for the deceptions of the Beast governmental
system.

My following articles distill all of the most important aspects of
veridical human knowledge into a comprehensive, coherent and unified
whole: from theology, physics, science, ethics, legal theory,
political theory, economics, sociology, epistemology to history.

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of
Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012
(orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF,
1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb,
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 ,
https://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything
, http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf ,
https://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf
,
http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf
.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's
Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?",
alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: ***@4ax.com
, July 30, 2013,
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo ,
http://archive.today/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS . The
plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5:
b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761, http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp ,
http://webcitation.org/6WGd90MBa , http://archive.today/cVRmc .

James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research
Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp.,
doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761; PDF, 312715 bytes, MD5:
ff45387b1b2ed9d6dec411d5328abdd6, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 ,
http://archive.org/download/JesusIsAnAnarchist/Redford-Jesus-Is-an-Anarchist.pdf
, http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf ,
http://webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw ,
http://pdf-archive.com/2013/09/10/redford-jesus-is-an-anarchist/redford-jesus-is-an-anarchist.pdf
.

James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct",
Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp.,
doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733; PDF, 118091 bytes, MD5:
e6de8181ad84c9d96400bb9582311c79, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1972733 ,
http://archive.org/download/LibertarianAnarchismIsApodicticallyCorrect/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf
, http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf ,
http://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm ,
http://pdf-archive.com/2013/09/10/redford-apodictic-libertarianism/redford-apodictic-libertarianism.pdf
.

----------------------------------------

James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science
Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001),
doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 ,
http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf ,
http://webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website with information
on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem and the quantum gravity
Theory of Everything [TOE]), http://theophysics.host56.com ,
http://theophysics.freevar.com
Christopher A. Lee
2015-04-18 03:51:45 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:29:15 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:20:33 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
A *god* (minuscule G) is an immortal sapient being who is still finite
at any given time. Whereas *God* (majuscule G) is the infinite sapient
being.
What "the infinite sapient being", imbecile?
Hi, Christopher A. Lee. That foregoing sentence by you is not
grammatically correct. It should rather read, "What is 'the infinite
sapient being', imbecile?"
No, liar - it was grammatically correct.

WHAT "THE INFINITE SAPIENT BEING", IMBECILE?

You begged the question by presuming it at the start of your mindless
nonsense.

You used the definite article, not I.

And dishonestly adding the "is" to the question changes its meaning
completely to the pretending one is granted.

But then you always were thoroughly dishonest.
Post by James Redford
Post by Christopher A. Lee
[120 lines of Redford's standard mindless, unsolicited nonsense
deleted]
Don't blame me for your own imbecilic asininity.
Do I keep reposting the same unsolicited bullshit, certifiable
lunatic?
Post by James Redford
I never put a gun to
your head and ordered you to behave in the manner of a brain-damaged
cad.
So who put the gun to your head and ordered you to tell the world just
how deranged you are, certifiable lunatic?
Post by James Redford
Rather, it is your own erroneous Weltanschauung which lead you to
act in such an intellectually-debased way.
Project much, pathological liar?

[The mindless lunatics's standard followup nonsense, deleted]
mur
2015-04-30 00:03:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Do I keep reposting the same unsolicited bullshit
Pretty much you do, yeah.
Melzzzzz
2015-04-18 00:04:20 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400
Post by James Redford
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.
There is no such thing that is immortal. Even stars eventually die.
James Redford
2015-04-18 01:56:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400
Post by James Redford
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.
There is no such thing that is immortal. Even stars eventually die.
And those dead stars create the higher elements which make up our
bodies. We are the remnants of dead stars. We are the eyes of the
universe so that the universe can look at and study itself.

----------------------------------------

James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science
Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001),
doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 ,
http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf ,
http://webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website with information
on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem and the quantum gravity
Theory of Everything [TOE]), http://theophysics.host56.com ,
http://theophysics.freevar.com
Melzzzzz
2015-04-18 04:25:23 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 21:56:00 -0400
Post by James Redford
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400
Post by James Redford
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.
There is no such thing that is immortal. Even stars eventually die.
And those dead stars create the higher elements which make up our
bodies. We are the remnants of dead stars. We are the eyes of the
universe so that the universe can look at and study itself.
We die, too.
mur
2015-04-30 00:05:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400
Post by James Redford
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.
There is no such thing that is immortal.
That's a possibility you put faith in, but nothing more than that.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Even stars eventually die.
When do they live?
raven1
2015-04-18 00:46:19 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would
suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
But since the premises are trivially false (biological evolution is,
in fact, constrained by chemistry and physics), that's a moot point.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight
James Redford
2015-04-18 02:05:22 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would
suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
But since the premises are trivially false (biological evolution is,
in fact, constrained by chemistry and physics), that's a moot point.
But as the rest of my post which you here reply to, yet cut out,
demonstrates, the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) actually
mathematically force the universe to diverge to infinite computational
power, becoming literally infinite in processor speed and infinite in
memory space at the final singularity, of which singularity is termed
the Omega Point.

So far from physics constraining evolution, the known physical laws
actually logically force the universe to evolve to infinite complexity
and infinite intelligence.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight
----------------------------------------

James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science
Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001),
doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 ,
http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf ,
http://webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website with information
on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem and the quantum gravity
Theory of Everything [TOE]), http://theophysics.host56.com ,
http://theophysics.freevar.com
raven1
2015-04-18 15:37:21 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:05:22 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would
suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
But since the premises are trivially false (biological evolution is,
in fact, constrained by chemistry and physics), that's a moot point.
But as the rest of my post which you here reply to, yet cut out,
demonstrates, the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) actually
mathematically force the universe to diverge to infinite computational
power,
Nonsense. As Pauli would say, it isn't even wrong.
Post by James Redford
becoming literally infinite in processor speed and infinite in
memory space at the final singularity, of which singularity is termed
the Omega Point.
Or the "noosphere", if you read Teillard de Chardin, rather than
Tipler...
Post by James Redford
So far from physics constraining evolution, the known physical laws
actually logically force the universe to evolve to infinite complexity
and infinite intelligence.
Nice job moving the goalposts. What has this assertion to do with
*biological* evolution, which is, as I noted, constrained by chemistry
and physics, contrary to your assertion in the first paragraph above?

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight
mur
2015-04-30 00:06:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by raven1
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:05:22 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would
suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
But since the premises are trivially false (biological evolution is,
in fact, constrained by chemistry and physics), that's a moot point.
But as the rest of my post which you here reply to, yet cut out,
demonstrates, the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) actually
mathematically force the universe to diverge to infinite computational
power,
Nonsense. As Pauli would say, it isn't even wrong.
Post by James Redford
becoming literally infinite in processor speed and infinite in
memory space at the final singularity, of which singularity is termed
the Omega Point.
Or the "noosphere", if you read Teillard de Chardin, rather than
Tipler...
Post by James Redford
So far from physics constraining evolution, the known physical laws
actually logically force the universe to evolve to infinite complexity
and infinite intelligence.
Nice job moving the goalposts. What has this assertion to do with
*biological* evolution, which is, as I noted, constrained by chemistry
and physics
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.
Otherwise why would it no longer be working as it did in the past?
Chris F.A. Johnson
2015-04-30 03:18:42 UTC
Permalink
On 2015-04-30, mur wrote:
...
Post by mur
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.
If there are no examples, it is evidence that they either haven't
been found yet or that there aren't any. It says nothing whatsoever
about the existence of something like God or anything else.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson
raven1
2015-04-30 12:39:01 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:18:42 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.
If there are no examples, it is evidence that they either haven't
been found yet or that there aren't any. It says nothing whatsoever
about the existence of something like God or anything else.
We do have transitional fossils of reptile-to-bird evolution,
Archaeopteryx being the most celebrated. But whether we did or not,
you are correct that this is irrelevant to the existence of a deity,
and it's involvement or not in the process.
Christopher A. Lee
2015-04-30 12:53:24 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:39:01 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:18:42 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.
If there are no examples, it is evidence that they either haven't
been found yet or that there aren't any. It says nothing whatsoever
about the existence of something like God or anything else.
We do have transitional fossils of reptile-to-bird evolution,
Archaeopteryx being the most celebrated. But whether we did or not,
you are correct that this is irrelevant to the existence of a deity,
and it's involvement or not in the process.
However, there is no reason to invoke one apart from pre-existing
religious belief, and it is just plain stupid to do so outside their
religion.
mur
2015-05-09 02:02:27 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:39:01 -0400, raven1 <***@nevermore.com> wrote:
.
Post by raven1
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:18:42 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.
If there are no examples, it is evidence that they either haven't
been found yet or that there aren't any. It says nothing whatsoever
about the existence of something like God or anything else.
We do have transitional fossils of reptile-to-bird evolution,
Archaeopteryx being the most celebrated. But whether we did or not,
you are correct that this is irrelevant to the existence of a deity,
and it's involvement or not in the process.
That's your guess, and you obviously have great faith in your guess being
correct, but so far you've given no reason why everyone else should put their
faith in it being correct. How about if you give everybody reason to now?
Smiler
2015-05-09 21:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by raven1
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:18:42 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive
today is evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence
on evolution.
If there are no examples, it is evidence that they either haven't
been found yet or that there aren't any. It says nothing whatsoever
about the existence of something like God or anything else.
We do have transitional fossils of reptile-to-bird evolution,
Archaeopteryx being the most celebrated. But whether we did or not, you
are correct that this is irrelevant to the existence of a deity,
and it's involvement or not in the process.
That's your guess, and you obviously have great faith in your guess being
correct, but so far you've given no reason why everyone else should put
their faith in it being correct. How about if you give everybody reason
to now?
No faith is needed when there is scientific evidence, of which there is
plenty. But obviously you don't have any evidence for your supposed god
character, otherwise you'd be showing it to us.
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
mur
2015-05-22 16:04:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 9 May 2015 21:56:26 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by raven1
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:18:42 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive
today is evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence
on evolution.
If there are no examples, it is evidence that they either haven't
been found yet or that there aren't any. It says nothing whatsoever
about the existence of something like God or anything else.
We do have transitional fossils of reptile-to-bird evolution,
Archaeopteryx being the most celebrated. But whether we did or not, you
are correct that this is irrelevant to the existence of a deity,
and it's involvement or not in the process.
That's your guess, and you obviously have great faith in your guess being
correct, but so far you've given no reason why everyone else should put
their faith in it being correct. How about if you give everybody reason
to now?
No faith is needed when there is scientific evidence,
Of what?
Post by Smiler
of which there is plenty.
Why didn't you present it then?
Smiler
2015-05-22 19:30:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:39:01 -0400, raven1
.
Post by raven1
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:18:42 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc,
alive today is evidence that something (like God) had deliberate
influence on evolution.
If there are no examples, it is evidence that they either haven't
been found yet or that there aren't any. It says nothing
whatsoever about the existence of something like God or anything
else.
We do have transitional fossils of reptile-to-bird evolution,
Archaeopteryx being the most celebrated. But whether we did or not,
you are correct that this is irrelevant to the existence of a deity,
and it's involvement or not in the process.
That's your guess, and you obviously have great faith in your guess being
correct, but so far you've given no reason why everyone else should
put their faith in it being correct. How about if you give everybody
reason to now?
No faith is needed when there is scientific evidence,
Of what?
Post by Smiler
of which there is plenty.
Why didn't you present it then?
Why should I bother? Your closed mind and religious blinders would prevent
you from even seeing it, let alone understanding it.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
mur
2015-05-30 00:45:41 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 May 2015 19:30:22 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:39:01 -0400, raven1
.
Post by raven1
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:18:42 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc,
alive today is evidence that something (like God) had deliberate
influence on evolution.
If there are no examples, it is evidence that they either haven't
been found yet or that there aren't any. It says nothing
whatsoever about the existence of something like God or anything
else.
We do have transitional fossils of reptile-to-bird evolution,
Archaeopteryx being the most celebrated. But whether we did or not,
you are correct that this is irrelevant to the existence of a deity,
and it's involvement or not in the process.
That's your guess, and you obviously have great faith in your guess being
correct, but so far you've given no reason why everyone else should
put their faith in it being correct. How about if you give everybody
reason to now?
No faith is needed when there is scientific evidence,
Of what?
Post by Smiler
of which there is plenty.
Why didn't you present it then?
Why should I bother?
Why "should" you? LOL....HILARIOUS!
Post by Smiler
Your closed mind and religious blinders would prevent
you from even seeing it, let alone understanding it.
You tried to find something to support your claim but couldn't find
anything. Maybe at some point in the future you will, or maybe you never will be
able to, but you're infantile wussings have made it clear that you couldn't
support your claims the last time I challenged you to try.
Smiler
2015-05-30 20:55:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:39:01 -0400, raven1
.
Post by raven1
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:18:42 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition
stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc,
alive today is evidence that something (like God) had deliberate
influence on evolution.
If there are no examples, it is evidence that they either
haven't been found yet or that there aren't any. It says nothing
whatsoever about the existence of something like God or anything
else.
We do have transitional fossils of reptile-to-bird evolution,
Archaeopteryx being the most celebrated. But whether we did or not,
you are correct that this is irrelevant to the existence of a deity,
and it's involvement or not in the process.
That's your guess, and you obviously have great faith in your guess being
correct, but so far you've given no reason why everyone else should
put their faith in it being correct. How about if you give everybody
reason to now?
No faith is needed when there is scientific evidence,
Of what?
Post by Smiler
of which there is plenty.
Why didn't you present it then?
Why should I bother?
Why "should" you? LOL....HILARIOUS!
Post by Smiler
Your closed mind and religious blinders would prevent you from even
seeing it, let alone understanding it.
You tried to find something to support your claim but couldn't find
anything.
Snipped at first lie. Why should I cast my pearls before swine?
Would it change your mind? Would anything change your mind?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
mur
2015-06-05 20:23:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:55:29 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:39:01 -0400, raven1
.
Post by raven1
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:18:42 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition
stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc,
alive today is evidence that something (like God) had deliberate
influence on evolution.
If there are no examples, it is evidence that they either haven't
been found yet or that there aren't any. It says nothing
whatsoever about the existence of something like God or anything
else.
We do have transitional fossils of reptile-to-bird evolution,
Archaeopteryx being the most celebrated. But whether we did or not,
you are correct that this is irrelevant to the existence of a deity,
and it's involvement or not in the process.
That's your guess, and you obviously have great faith in your guess being
correct, but so far you've given no reason why everyone else should
put their faith in it being correct. How about if you give everybody
reason to now?
No faith is needed when there is scientific evidence,
Of what?
Post by Smiler
of which there is plenty.
Why didn't you present it then?
Why should I bother?
Why "should" you? LOL....HILARIOUS!
Post by Smiler
Your closed mind and religious blinders would prevent
you from even seeing it, let alone understanding it.
You tried to find something to support your claim but couldn't find
anything. Maybe at some point in the future you will, or maybe you never will be
able to, but you're infantile wussings have made it clear that you couldn't
support your claims the last time I challenged you to try.
Snipped . . . Why should I . . .
To provide some evidence that you have any idea at all what you think you're
trying to talk about. So far you've given the clear appearance that you don't
have any idea and can't even pretend you do.
Would it change your mind? Would anything change your mind?
Your cowardly attempts to wuss away from yourself certainly don't. If you
could do better it might, depending on what you could come up with. I do
consider the possibility that there's no God associated with this planet, but
since I don't have faith in that being the correct one I consider other
possibilities as well.
Smiler
2015-06-05 22:01:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:39:01 -0400, raven1
.
Post by raven1
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:18:42 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in
transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc,
alive today is evidence that something (like God) had
deliberate influence on evolution.
If there are no examples, it is evidence that they either
haven't been found yet or that there aren't any. It says
nothing whatsoever about the existence of something like God
or anything else.
We do have transitional fossils of reptile-to-bird evolution,
Archaeopteryx being the most celebrated. But whether we did or
not, you are correct that this is irrelevant to the existence of a
deity,
and it's involvement or not in the process.
That's your guess, and you obviously have great faith in your
guess being
correct, but so far you've given no reason why everyone else
should put their faith in it being correct. How about if you give
everybody reason to now?
No faith is needed when there is scientific evidence,
Of what?
Post by Smiler
of which there is plenty.
Why didn't you present it then?
Why should I bother?
Why "should" you? LOL....HILARIOUS!
Post by Smiler
Your closed mind and religious blinders would prevent you from even
seeing it, let alone understanding it.
You tried to find something to support your claim but couldn't find
anything. Maybe at some point in the future you will, or maybe you
never will be able to, but you're infantile wussings have made it clear
that you couldn't support your claims the last time I challenged you to
try.
Snipped [Restore]at first lie. Why should I cast my pearls before swine?
[end restore]
Post by mur
To provide some evidence that you have any idea at all what you think you're
trying to talk about. So far you've given the clear appearance that you
don't have any idea and can't even pretend you do.
Your mental masturbation is yours and yours alone.
Post by mur
Would it change your mind? Would anything change your mind?
Your cowardly attempts to wuss away from yourself certainly don't. If you
could do better it might, depending on what you could come up with. I do
consider the possibility that there's no God associated with this
planet, but since I don't have faith in that being the correct one I
consider other possibilities as well.
Thanks for admitting that NOTHING would change your closed mind.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
mur
2015-06-13 18:04:21 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 22:01:46 +0000 (UTC), Smil stupidly wrote:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:39:01 -0400, raven1
.
Post by raven1
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:18:42 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition
stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc,
alive today is evidence that something (like God) had deliberate
influence on evolution.
If there are no examples, it is evidence that they either haven't
been found yet or that there aren't any. It says nothing
whatsoever about the existence of something like God or anything
else.
We do have transitional fossils of reptile-to-bird evolution,
Archaeopteryx being the most celebrated. But whether we did or not,
you are correct that this is irrelevant to the existence of a deity,
and it's involvement or not in the process.
That's your guess, and you obviously have great faith in your
guess being
correct, but so far you've given no reason why everyone else should
put their faith in it being correct. How about if you give everybody
reason to now?
No faith is needed when there is scientific evidence,
Of what?
Post by Smiler
of which there is plenty.
Why didn't you present it then?
Why should I bother?
Why "should" you? LOL....HILARIOUS!
Post by Smiler
Your closed mind and religious blinders would prevent
you from even seeing it, let alone understanding it.
You tried to find something to support your claim but couldn't find
anything. Maybe at some point in the future you will, or maybe you never will be
able to, but you're infantile wussings have made it clear that you couldn't
support your claims the last time I challenged you to try.
Snipped . . . Why should I . . .
To provide some evidence that you have any idea at all what you think you're
trying to talk about. So far you've given the clear appearance that you don't
have any idea and can't even pretend you do.
Your mental masturbation is yours and yours alone.
YOU consistently give the very clear appearance that you have no idea at all
what you think you're trying to talk about. The only thing that has to do with
me is that I keep pointing it out for you, and sometimes challenge you to try to
pretend you do have some clue.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Would it change your mind? Would anything change your mind?
Your cowardly attempts to wuss away from yourself certainly don't. If you
could do better it might, depending on what you could come up with. I do
consider the possibility that there's no God associated with this planet, but
since I don't have faith in that being the correct one I consider other
possibilities as well.
Thanks for admitting that NOTHING would change your closed mind.
LOL!!! If you're honestly stupid enough to believe I told you that, maybe
you honestly are as stupid as you appear to be. I consider what little you're
able to but don't put faith in it being correct as you do, so I consider what
little you're able to and more.
mur
2015-05-09 02:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.
If there are no examples, it is evidence that they either haven't
been found yet or that there aren't any.
Why would the transitions have stopped?
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
It says nothing whatsoever
about the existence of something like God or anything else.
It says nothing whatsoever to you. It says more than that to some other
people.
Chris F.A. Johnson
2015-05-09 02:35:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.
If there are no examples, it is evidence that they either haven't
been found yet or that there aren't any.
Why would the transitions have stopped?
Who says they've stopped?

There are many examples of transitional species in the fossil
record, but we probably haven't yet uncovered all that there are.
Post by mur
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
It says nothing whatsoever
about the existence of something like God or anything else.
It says nothing whatsoever to you. It says more than that to some other
people.
It says just as much about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the
Invisible Pink Unicorn as it does about any other deity. It's not
evidence for anything.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson
Christopher A. Lee
2015-05-09 12:53:46 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 8 May 2015 22:35:13 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
Post by mur
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.
What fucking God?

As usual, a stupid religious fundamentalist presumes it outside his
religion as if it were universally granted.

And if he even had a high-school education elsewhere than the US, he
would know that evolution doesn't require "something (like God)" to
influence it.

It is simply survival to pass on whatever caused survival on to
subsequent generations, although this is an oversimplification - it is
also about differential reproductive success, survival is an extreme
case.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
Post by mur
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
If there are no examples, it is evidence that they either haven't
been found yet or that there aren't any.
Why would the transitions have stopped?
Who says they've stopped?
There are living transitionals, eg the platypus. Not to mention ring
species.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
There are many examples of transitional species in the fossil
record, but we probably haven't yet uncovered all that there are.
Post by mur
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
It says nothing whatsoever
about the existence of something like God or anything else.
It says nothing whatsoever to you. It says more than that to some other
people.
Only believers, who don't think about it - it's confirmation bias.

Try to get an explanation from them for why it leads to the conclusion
of their God, and all they say is "they examined the evidence and
reached the conclusion" - but they never, ever say how they reached
it.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
It says just as much about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the
Invisible Pink Unicorn as it does about any other deity. It's not
evidence for anything.
It's evidence for their pre-existing belief in a god, because it is a
complete non-sequitur, and it would never occur to anybody who didn't
already believe in it.
mur
2015-05-22 16:04:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 09 May 2015 07:53:46 -0500, Wuss Lee wrote:
.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 8 May 2015 22:35:13 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
Post by mur
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.
What fucking God?
Any that had the influence of course. It seems even an atheist should have
been able to figure that out.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
As usual, a stupid religious fundamentalist presumes it outside his
religion as if it were universally granted.
And if he even had a high-school education elsewhere than the US, he
would know that evolution doesn't require "something (like God)" to
influence it.
You don't have any idea about whether a God had influence on evolution or
not, but I challenge you to try to explain how you want people to think you
could have possibly found out.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It is simply survival to pass on whatever caused survival on to
subsequent generations, although this is an oversimplification - it is
also about differential reproductive success, survival is an extreme
case.
In contrast to that reproduction is always a part of the survival of any
type of animal.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
Post by mur
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
If there are no examples, it is evidence that they either haven't
been found yet or that there aren't any.
Why would the transitions have stopped?
Who says they've stopped?
There are living transitionals, eg the platypus.
What will it eventually become?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Not to mention ring species.
Why are there no longer transtional species between reptiles and birds? What
caused it to stop happening?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
There are many examples of transitional species in the fossil
record, but we probably haven't yet uncovered all that there are.
Post by mur
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
It says nothing whatsoever
about the existence of something like God or anything else.
It says nothing whatsoever to you. It says more than that to some other
people.
Only believers,
I'm not a believer, but I do consider things you're obviously not mentally
capable of considering.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
who don't think about it - it's confirmation bias.
That's true for people who have faith that there's no God associated with
Earth.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Try to get an explanation from them for why it leads to the conclusion
of their God, and all they say is "they examined the evidence and
reached the conclusion" - but they never, ever say how they reached
it.
That's a horribly blatant lie.

"The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution."
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
It says just as much about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the
Invisible Pink Unicorn as it does about any other deity. It's not
evidence for anything.
It's evidence for their pre-existing belief in a god, because it is a
complete non-sequitur, and it would never occur to anybody who didn't
already believe in it.
How did you learn that no one ever considered the situation and decided it
seems likely that it was influenced by something intelligent? So far it seems
that you're lying blatantly again.
mur
2015-05-22 16:04:24 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 8 May 2015 22:35:13 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <***@cfaj.ca>
wrote:
.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
Post by mur
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.
If there are no examples, it is evidence that they either haven't
been found yet or that there aren't any.
Why would the transitions have stopped?
Who says they've stopped?
Present some examples of reptile like creatures in transition to birds then.
It's only because I've never been made aware of any that I believe they don't
exist.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
There are many examples of transitional species in the fossil
record,
Present them too then.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
but we probably haven't yet uncovered all that there are.
Post by mur
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
It says nothing whatsoever
about the existence of something like God or anything else.
It says nothing whatsoever to you. It says more than that to some other
people.
It says just as much about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the
Invisible Pink Unicorn as it does about any other deity.
If God does exist I have confidence that he wouldn't be restricted to any
particular form or gender, and also that people of all faiths have incorrect
beliefs about him.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
It's not evidence for anything.
LOL...it's amusing to think that it could truly not be evidence for
anything...LOL...hilarious!!!
Jeanne Douglas
2015-04-30 04:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
Post by raven1
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:05:22 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would
suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
But since the premises are trivially false (biological evolution is,
in fact, constrained by chemistry and physics), that's a moot point.
But as the rest of my post which you here reply to, yet cut out,
demonstrates, the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) actually
mathematically force the universe to diverge to infinite computational
power,
Nonsense. As Pauli would say, it isn't even wrong.
Post by James Redford
becoming literally infinite in processor speed and infinite in
memory space at the final singularity, of which singularity is termed
the Omega Point.
Or the "noosphere", if you read Teillard de Chardin, rather than
Tipler...
Post by James Redford
So far from physics constraining evolution, the known physical laws
actually logically force the universe to evolve to infinite complexity
and infinite intelligence.
Nice job moving the goalposts. What has this assertion to do with
*biological* evolution, which is, as I noted, constrained by chemistry
and physics
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.
Otherwise why would it no longer be working as it did in the past?
What a load of garbage.Evolution is happening all around us.
--
JD

Je suis Charlie.
raven1
2015-04-30 12:40:27 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:27:22 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by raven1
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:05:22 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would
suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
But since the premises are trivially false (biological evolution is,
in fact, constrained by chemistry and physics), that's a moot point.
But as the rest of my post which you here reply to, yet cut out,
demonstrates, the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) actually
mathematically force the universe to diverge to infinite computational
power,
Nonsense. As Pauli would say, it isn't even wrong.
Post by James Redford
becoming literally infinite in processor speed and infinite in
memory space at the final singularity, of which singularity is termed
the Omega Point.
Or the "noosphere", if you read Teillard de Chardin, rather than
Tipler...
Post by James Redford
So far from physics constraining evolution, the known physical laws
actually logically force the universe to evolve to infinite complexity
and infinite intelligence.
Nice job moving the goalposts. What has this assertion to do with
*biological* evolution, which is, as I noted, constrained by chemistry
and physics
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.
Otherwise why would it no longer be working as it did in the past?
What a load of garbage.Evolution is happening all around us.
He's also just plain wrong about transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx,
anyone? Tiktaalik?
mur
2015-05-09 02:02:34 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:40:27 -0400, raven1 <***@nevermore.com> wrote:
.
Post by raven1
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:27:22 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by raven1
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:05:22 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would
suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
But since the premises are trivially false (biological evolution is,
in fact, constrained by chemistry and physics), that's a moot point.
But as the rest of my post which you here reply to, yet cut out,
demonstrates, the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) actually
mathematically force the universe to diverge to infinite computational
power,
Nonsense. As Pauli would say, it isn't even wrong.
Post by James Redford
becoming literally infinite in processor speed and infinite in
memory space at the final singularity, of which singularity is termed
the Omega Point.
Or the "noosphere", if you read Teillard de Chardin, rather than
Tipler...
Post by James Redford
So far from physics constraining evolution, the known physical laws
actually logically force the universe to evolve to infinite complexity
and infinite intelligence.
Nice job moving the goalposts. What has this assertion to do with
*biological* evolution, which is, as I noted, constrained by chemistry
and physics
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.
Otherwise why would it no longer be working as it did in the past?
What a load of garbage.Evolution is happening all around us.
He's also just plain wrong about transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx,
anyone?
Present your quotes of me mentioning fossils, or be revealed as a blatant
liar. I have mentioned Archaeopteryx in the past and the fact that there aren't
a lot more examples is support for what I pointed out.
Chris F.A. Johnson
2015-05-09 02:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by raven1
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:27:22 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by raven1
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:05:22 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would
suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
But since the premises are trivially false (biological evolution is,
in fact, constrained by chemistry and physics), that's a moot point.
But as the rest of my post which you here reply to, yet cut out,
demonstrates, the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) actually
mathematically force the universe to diverge to infinite computational
power,
Nonsense. As Pauli would say, it isn't even wrong.
Post by James Redford
becoming literally infinite in processor speed and infinite in
memory space at the final singularity, of which singularity is termed
the Omega Point.
Or the "noosphere", if you read Teillard de Chardin, rather than
Tipler...
Post by James Redford
So far from physics constraining evolution, the known physical laws
actually logically force the universe to evolve to infinite complexity
and infinite intelligence.
Nice job moving the goalposts. What has this assertion to do with
*biological* evolution, which is, as I noted, constrained by chemistry
and physics
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.
Otherwise why would it no longer be working as it did in the past?
What a load of garbage.Evolution is happening all around us.
He's also just plain wrong about transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx,
anyone?
Present your quotes of me mentioning fossils, or be revealed as a blatant
liar. I have mentioned Archaeopteryx in the past and the fact that there aren't
a lot more examples is support for what I pointed out.
There are a lot more examples. Do a little research.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson
mur
2015-05-22 16:04:18 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 8 May 2015 22:35:59 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <***@cfaj.ca>
wrote:
.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
Post by mur
.
Post by raven1
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:27:22 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by raven1
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:05:22 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would
suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
But since the premises are trivially false (biological evolution is,
in fact, constrained by chemistry and physics), that's a moot point.
But as the rest of my post which you here reply to, yet cut out,
demonstrates, the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) actually
mathematically force the universe to diverge to infinite computational
power,
Nonsense. As Pauli would say, it isn't even wrong.
Post by James Redford
becoming literally infinite in processor speed and infinite in
memory space at the final singularity, of which singularity is termed
the Omega Point.
Or the "noosphere", if you read Teillard de Chardin, rather than
Tipler...
Post by James Redford
So far from physics constraining evolution, the known physical laws
actually logically force the universe to evolve to infinite complexity
and infinite intelligence.
Nice job moving the goalposts. What has this assertion to do with
*biological* evolution, which is, as I noted, constrained by chemistry
and physics
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.
Otherwise why would it no longer be working as it did in the past?
What a load of garbage.Evolution is happening all around us.
He's also just plain wrong about transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx,
anyone?
Present your quotes of me mentioning fossils, or be revealed as a blatant
liar. I have mentioned Archaeopteryx in the past and the fact that there aren't
a lot more examples is support for what I pointed out.
There are a lot more examples.
Why can't you present a lot of them?
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
Do a little research.
I'm doing research by challenging those of you who claim there are a lot of
examples to present a lot of examples. So far the research shows VERY CLEARLY
that you're lying and don't have any idea at all what you want people to think
you think you're trying to talk about. That's a much better way of doing
research than to try to support YOUR claim FOR YOU. LOL....the very idea of
doing that for you is HILARIOUS!!!
vallor
2015-05-22 19:57:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
Post by mur
.
Post by raven1
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:27:22 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by raven1
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:05:22 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would
suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
But since the premises are trivially false (biological evolution is,
in fact, constrained by chemistry and physics), that's a moot point.
But as the rest of my post which you here reply to, yet cut out,
demonstrates, the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) actually
mathematically force the universe to diverge to infinite computational
power,
Nonsense. As Pauli would say, it isn't even wrong.
Post by James Redford
becoming literally infinite in processor speed and infinite in
memory space at the final singularity, of which singularity is termed
the Omega Point.
Or the "noosphere", if you read Teillard de Chardin, rather than
Tipler...
Post by James Redford
So far from physics constraining evolution, the known physical laws
actually logically force the universe to evolve to infinite complexity
and infinite intelligence.
Nice job moving the goalposts. What has this assertion to do with
*biological* evolution, which is, as I noted, constrained by chemistry
and physics
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.
Otherwise why would it no longer be working as it did in the past?
What a load of garbage.Evolution is happening all around us.
He's also just plain wrong about transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx,
anyone?
Present your quotes of me mentioning fossils, or be revealed as a blatant
liar. I have mentioned Archaeopteryx in the past and the fact that there aren't
a lot more examples is support for what I pointed out.
There are a lot more examples.
Why can't you present a lot of them?
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
Do a little research.
I'm doing research by challenging those of you who claim there are a lot of
examples to present a lot of examples. So far the research shows VERY CLEARLY
that you're lying and don't have any idea at all what you want people to think
you think you're trying to talk about. That's a much better way of doing
research than to try to support YOUR claim FOR YOU. LOL....the very idea of
doing that for you is HILARIOUS!!!
When discussing common knowledge, it's up to _you_, "mur", to be
informed -- not for others to teach you.
--
-v

The nice thing about standards
is that there are so many of them to choose from.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum
duke
2015-05-23 13:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by vallor
Post by mur
.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
Post by mur
.
Post by raven1
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:27:22 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by raven1
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:05:22 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would
suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
But since the premises are trivially false (biological evolution is,
in fact, constrained by chemistry and physics), that's a moot point.
But as the rest of my post which you here reply to, yet cut out,
demonstrates, the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) actually
mathematically force the universe to diverge to infinite computational
power,
Nonsense. As Pauli would say, it isn't even wrong.
Post by James Redford
becoming literally infinite in processor speed and infinite in
memory space at the final singularity, of which singularity is termed
the Omega Point.
Or the "noosphere", if you read Teillard de Chardin, rather than
Tipler...
Post by James Redford
So far from physics constraining evolution, the known physical laws
actually logically force the universe to evolve to infinite complexity
and infinite intelligence.
Nice job moving the goalposts. What has this assertion to do with
*biological* evolution, which is, as I noted, constrained by chemistry
and physics
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.
Otherwise why would it no longer be working as it did in the past?
What a load of garbage.Evolution is happening all around us.
He's also just plain wrong about transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx,
anyone?
Present your quotes of me mentioning fossils, or be revealed as a blatant
liar. I have mentioned Archaeopteryx in the past and the fact that there aren't
a lot more examples is support for what I pointed out.
There are a lot more examples.
Why can't you present a lot of them?
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
Do a little research.
I'm doing research by challenging those of you who claim there are a lot of
examples to present a lot of examples. So far the research shows VERY CLEARLY
that you're lying and don't have any idea at all what you want people to think
you think you're trying to talk about. That's a much better way of doing
research than to try to support YOUR claim FOR YOU. LOL....the very idea of
doing that for you is HILARIOUS!!!
When discussing common knowledge, it's up to _you_, "mur", to be
informed -- not for others to teach you.
Is that why you haven't been participating?

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
mur
2015-05-30 00:45:28 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 May 2015 12:57:25 -0700, vallor <***@cultnix.org> wrote:
.
Post by mur
.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
Post by mur
.
Post by raven1
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:27:22 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by raven1
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:05:22 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would
suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
But since the premises are trivially false (biological evolution is,
in fact, constrained by chemistry and physics), that's a moot point.
But as the rest of my post which you here reply to, yet cut out,
demonstrates, the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) actually
mathematically force the universe to diverge to infinite computational
power,
Nonsense. As Pauli would say, it isn't even wrong.
Post by James Redford
becoming literally infinite in processor speed and infinite in
memory space at the final singularity, of which singularity is termed
the Omega Point.
Or the "noosphere", if you read Teillard de Chardin, rather than
Tipler...
Post by James Redford
So far from physics constraining evolution, the known physical laws
actually logically force the universe to evolve to infinite complexity
and infinite intelligence.
Nice job moving the goalposts. What has this assertion to do with
*biological* evolution, which is, as I noted, constrained by chemistry
and physics
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.
Otherwise why would it no longer be working as it did in the past?
What a load of garbage.Evolution is happening all around us.
He's also just plain wrong about transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx,
anyone?
Present your quotes of me mentioning fossils, or be revealed as a blatant
liar. I have mentioned Archaeopteryx in the past and the fact that there aren't
a lot more examples is support for what I pointed out.
There are a lot more examples.
Why can't you present a lot of them?
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
Do a little research.
I'm doing research by challenging those of you who claim there are a lot of
examples to present a lot of examples. So far the research shows VERY CLEARLY
that you're lying and don't have any idea at all what you want people to think
you think you're trying to talk about. That's a much better way of doing
research than to try to support YOUR claim FOR YOU. LOL....the very idea of
doing that for you is HILARIOUS!!!
When discussing ["There are a lot more examples"] ...it's up to _you_, "mur", to be
informed -- not for others to teach you.
I've noticed that atheists never feel they need to support their claims, or
give any indication that they have any idea what they want people to think they
think they're trying to talk about.
Chris F.A. Johnson
2015-05-30 01:24:30 UTC
Permalink
On 2015-05-30, mur wrote:
...
Post by mur
I've noticed that atheists never feel they need to support their claims, or
give any indication that they have any idea what they want people to think they
think they're trying to talk about.
Athiesm does not involve making any claims.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson
Christopher A. Lee
2015-05-30 15:33:39 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:24:30 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
I've noticed that atheists never feel they need to support their claims, or
give any indication that they have any idea what they want people to think they
think they're trying to talk about.
Athiesm does not involve making any claims.
The in-your-face, proven serial liar knows this because we have been
explaining to him exactly what atheism is and what it isn't, for many
years.
duke
2015-05-30 17:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:24:30 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
I've noticed that atheists never feel they need to support their claims, or
give any indication that they have any idea what they want people to think they
think they're trying to talk about.
Athiesm does not involve making any claims.
The in-your-face, proven serial liar knows this because we have been
explaining to him exactly what atheism is and what it isn't, for many
years.
And you still can't get it right.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
mur
2015-06-05 20:23:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 May 2015 10:33:39 -0500, Wuss Lee wrote:
.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:24:30 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
I've noticed that atheists never feel they need to support their claims, or
give any indication that they have any idea what they want people to think they
think they're trying to talk about.
Athiesm does not involve making any claims.
The in-your-face, proven serial liar knows this because we have been
explaining to him exactly what atheism is
"yes I do know that there is no god." - ***@m.nu

"The easies way to know for a 100% fact that god does not exist is to not be a
moron. Thats
it. it is as simple as that." - ***@m.nu

"If a person can not say with 100% clarity
that they know that there is no god that there will never be a god and
there has never been a god, then that person is NOT an atheist." - ***@m.nu

"Just as You know that superman does not exist I can
tell you with the same assuredness that god does not exist" - ***@m.nu

"if you are reffering to the fact that I know there is no god" - ***@m.nu

"I have admitted numerous times that I *KNOW* there is not god. On this planet
or any others for that matter." - ***@m.nu

"I myself as an anti theist in fact {know} there is no god<s>." - ***@m.nu

"Atheists know that there is no god except the one that has formed out of
delusion that only lives inside your head." - ***@m.nu

"yes I do know that god is not and never was and never will be
anything other than a figment from those whom are less educated and/or
much more stupid" - ***@m.nu

"Oh actually I can explain exctaly how I know.. And I can even explain
how I found out." - ***@m.nu

"I "found out" I got my decoder ring in the mail one day and used
it when I looked at the bible and it said god was not real....." - ***@m.nu

"I have all the evidence I willl and any other atheist will ever need" -
***@m.nu
duke
2015-05-30 17:50:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
I've noticed that atheists never feel they need to support their claims, or
give any indication that they have any idea what they want people to think they
think they're trying to talk about.
Athiesm does not involve making any claims.
Big mistake. Atheism professes NO God despite all the evidence. Agnostics say
they don't find the evidence convincing.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
talishi
2015-05-30 17:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
I've noticed that atheists never feel they need to support their claims, or
give any indication that they have any idea what they want people to think they
think they're trying to talk about.
Athiesm does not involve making any claims.
Big mistake. Atheism professes NO God despite all the evidence. Agnostics say
they don't find the evidence convincing.
Theists confuse "claims" with "evidence".
Christopher A. Lee
2015-05-30 20:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by talishi
Post by duke
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
I've noticed that atheists never feel they need to support their claims, or
give any indication that they have any idea what they want people to think they
think they're trying to talk about.
Athiesm does not involve making any claims.
Big mistake. Atheism professes NO God despite all the evidence.
What "evidence" was the proven serial liar lying about? He keeps
claiming there is evidence but has never attempted to provide any.

Just like all the other theists who have made the same claim.
Post by talishi
Post by duke
Agnostics say
they don't find the evidence convincing.
Again, what "evidence"?

The proven serial liar keeps getting both atheists and agnostics
wrong, even though he has been corrected over and over again.

We are part of the world beyond his religious paradigm, and its tenets
don't even apply to us. We cannot be described as if they did -
including its god.
Post by talishi
Theists confuse "claims" with "evidence".
Puke tells the same old lie about us, to us, just as he has been doing
since the 1990s because he is too stupid to think outside his
religion, in the real world where his god is a belief just like Zeus,
Odin, Krishna, Mithras and all the others - not an actuality.
Jeanne Douglas
2015-05-31 00:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by talishi
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:24:30 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
I've noticed that atheists never feel they need to support their
claims, or
give any indication that they have any idea what they want people to think they
think they're trying to talk about.
Athiesm does not involve making any claims.
Big mistake. Atheism professes NO God despite all the evidence.
What "evidence" was the proven serial liar lying about? He keeps
claiming there is evidence but has never attempted to provide any.
His evidence is his own credulity.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Just like all the other theists who have made the same claim.
Post by talishi
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Agnostics
say
they don't find the evidence convincing.
Again, what "evidence"?
His evidence is his own credulity.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
The proven serial liar keeps getting both atheists and agnostics
wrong, even though he has been corrected over and over again.
We are part of the world beyond his religious paradigm, and its tenets
don't even apply to us. We cannot be described as if they did -
including its god.
Post by talishi
Theists confuse "claims" with "evidence".
Puke tells the same old lie about us, to us, just as he has been doing
since the 1990s because he is too stupid to think outside his
religion, in the real world where his god is a belief just like Zeus,
Odin, Krishna, Mithras and all the others - not an actuality.
--
JD

Being open-minded is merely the willingness to consider
evidence, not the willingness to accept claims without any.
mur
2015-06-05 20:23:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 May 2015 12:50:06 -0500, duke <***@cox.net> wrote:
.
Post by duke
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
I've noticed that atheists never feel they need to support their claims, or
give any indication that they have any idea what they want people to think they
think they're trying to talk about.
Athiesm does not involve making any claims.
Big mistake. Atheism professes NO God despite all the evidence.
That's strong atheism, though as we see many if no most atheists want to
deny it even exists. Then we have weak atheism which involves not having a
belief, though I have yet to encounter someone who says they're a weak atheist
that behaves like one. Having no belief would involve considering the
possibility that God does not exist but also considering the possibility that he
does. I've never seen any of these atheists give the slightest bit of evidence
that they're capable of considering the possibility that God exists. Even after
they claim to be able to I have never known even one of them to provide any
evidence of it.
Post by duke
Agnostics say
they don't find the evidence convincing.
the dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Smiler
2015-06-05 21:54:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:24:30 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
I've noticed that atheists never feel they need to support their claims, or
give any indication that they have any idea what they want people to
think they think they're trying to talk about.
Athiesm does not involve making any claims.
Big mistake. Atheism professes NO God despite all the evidence.
That's strong atheism,
Learn to parse English. Professing no god is like professing no support
for any football team or no support for any political party. It is NOT the
same as professing that there are no football teams or no political
parties.

<snip bullshit>
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
mur
2015-06-13 18:04:26 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 21:54:29 +0000 (UTC), Smil wussed horribly:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by duke
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
...
Post by mur
I've noticed that atheists never feel they need to support their claims, or
give any indication that they have any idea what they want people to think they
think they're trying to talk about.
Athiesm does not involve making any claims.
Big mistake. Atheism professes NO God despite all the evidence.
That's strong atheism, though as we see many if no most atheists want to
deny it even exists.
Learn to parse English. Professing no god is like professing no support
for any football team or no support for any political party. It is NOT the
same as professing that there are no football teams or no political
parties.
You proved me correct by displaying your own shame of strong atheism. Even
though you yourself clearly appear to be a strong atheist you're not only
ashamed of your own faith but obviously ashamed that strong atheism even exists.
True as that is, you're also far too narrow minded to be even the worst of weak
atheists.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Then we have weak atheism which involves not having a
belief, though I have yet to encounter someone who says they're a weak atheist
that behaves like one. Having no belief would involve considering the
possibility that God does not exist but also considering the possibility that he
does. I've never seen any of these atheists give the slightest bit of evidence
that they're capable of considering the possibility that God exists. Even after
they claim to be able to I have never known even one of them to provide any
evidence of it.
Post by duke
Agnostics say
they don't find the evidence convincing.
the dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
mur
2015-06-05 20:23:30 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:24:30 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <***@cfaj.ca>
wrote:
.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
Post by mur
.
Post by mur
.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
Post by mur
.
Post by raven1
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:27:22 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by raven1
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:05:22 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would
suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
But since the premises are trivially false (biological evolution is,
in fact, constrained by chemistry and physics), that's a moot point.
But as the rest of my post which you here reply to, yet cut out,
demonstrates, the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) actually
mathematically force the universe to diverge to infinite computational
power,
Nonsense. As Pauli would say, it isn't even wrong.
Post by James Redford
becoming literally infinite in processor speed and infinite in
memory space at the final singularity, of which singularity is termed
the Omega Point.
Or the "noosphere", if you read Teillard de Chardin, rather than
Tipler...
Post by James Redford
So far from physics constraining evolution, the known physical laws
actually logically force the universe to evolve to infinite complexity
and infinite intelligence.
Nice job moving the goalposts. What has this assertion to do with
*biological* evolution, which is, as I noted, constrained by chemistry
and physics
The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.
Otherwise why would it no longer be working as it did in the past?
What a load of garbage.Evolution is happening all around us.
He's also just plain wrong about transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx,
anyone?
Present your quotes of me mentioning fossils, or be revealed as a blatant
liar. I have mentioned Archaeopteryx in the past and the fact that there aren't
a lot more examples is support for what I pointed out.
There are a lot more examples.
Why can't you present a lot of them?
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
Do a little research.
I'm doing research by challenging those of you who claim there are a lot of
examples to present a lot of examples. So far the research shows VERY CLEARLY
that you're lying and don't have any idea at all what you want people to think
you think you're trying to talk about. That's a much better way of doing
research than to try to support YOUR claim FOR YOU. LOL....the very idea of
doing that for you is HILARIOUS!!!
When discussing ["There are a lot more examples"] ...it's up to _you_, "mur", to be
informed -- not for others to teach you.
I've noticed that atheists never feel they need to support their claims, or
give any indication that they have any idea what they want people to think they
think they're trying to talk about.
Athiesm does not involve making any claims.
"I know that gods are merely a figment of your deluded imagination" - Smiler

"I found out that your supposed god character is a lie." - Smiler

"If a person can not say with 100% clarity
that they know that there is no god that there will never be a god and
there has never been a god, then that person is NOT an atheist." - ***@m.nu

"Just as You know that superman does not exist I can
tell you with the same assuredness that god does not exist" - ***@m.nu

"I have admitted numerous times that I *KNOW* there is not god. On this planet
or any others for that matter." - ***@m.nu

"There is no god." - Malte Runz

"I showed an example of evidence that proves god does not exist." - Malte Runz

"It is clear that there is no need for an intelligent being." - Free Lunch

"all gods are human inventions" - Free Lunch

"The gods of the theists who bother us here don't exist, even in non-god form."
- Free Lunch

"If a god really existed there would be no reason to have 'evidence' of his
existence. It would be apparent to all. No need to question because all sorts of
magical events would be common place." - ***@baawa.com

"Well, there you have it, a proof that god does not exist." - Olrik

"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"

"I showed an example of evidence that proves god does not exist." -
"Wizard-Of-Oz"
Christopher A. Lee
2015-04-18 03:40:20 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would
suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
But since the premises are trivially false (biological evolution is,
in fact, constrained by chemistry and physics), that's a moot point.
Redford is an in-your-face, certifiable lunatic who reposts the same
unsolicited, mindless nonsense here with monotonous regularity.

He imagines that Tippler's nonsense is established science and uses
that as a starting point for even more mindless nonsense.

But Tippler assumes there can only be one particular outcome from an
infinitely branching set of futures.

Even though this makes its likelihood vanishingly small.

Redford then plucks a second particular outcome from his arse in
another infinitely branching set of futures beyond Tippler's imaginary
omega point.

So we have infinity^2 zeroes after the decimal point.
mur
2015-04-30 00:05:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would
suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
WHAT sort of evidence/proof do you think there should be, WHERE do you think
it should be, WHY do you think he should provide it, and WHEN do you think he
should provide or should have provided it if there is a God associated with
Earth?
Smiler
2015-04-30 20:41:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence that
any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would suggest
that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
WHAT sort of evidence/proof do you think there should be, WHERE do you think
it should be, WHY do you think he should provide it, and WHEN do you
think he should provide or should have provided it if there is a God
associated with Earth?
The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that your supposed
god character exists.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Smiler
2015-05-01 22:35:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence that
any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would
suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
WHAT sort of evidence/proof do you think there should be, WHERE do you think
it should be, WHY do you think he should provide it, and WHEN do you
think he should provide or should have provided it if there is a God
associated with Earth?
The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that your
supposed god character exists.
<crickets>
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Smiler
2015-05-02 22:13:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would
suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
WHAT sort of evidence/proof do you think there should be, WHERE do you think
it should be, WHY do you think he should provide it, and WHEN do you
think he should provide or should have provided it if there is a God
associated with Earth?
The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that your
supposed god character exists.
<crickets>
<sage brush>
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
mur
2015-05-09 02:02:45 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:41:53 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence that
any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would suggest
that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
WHAT sort of evidence/proof do you think there should be, WHERE do you think
it should be, WHY do you think he should provide it, and WHEN do you
think he should provide or should have provided it if there is a God
associated with Earth?
The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that your supposed
god character exists.
There is none and it makes sense that there is not. That's one of the basic
starting lines atheists can't get as "far" as.
Smiler
2015-05-09 22:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would
suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
WHAT sort of evidence/proof do you think there should be, WHERE do you think
it should be, WHY do you think he should provide it, and WHEN do you
think he should provide or should have provided it if there is a God
associated with Earth?
The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that your
supposed god character exists.
There is none and it makes sense that there is not. That's one of the basic
starting lines atheists can't get as "far" as.
Thanks for admitting that you believe in your supposed god character
without a single scrap of evidence.

I've this lovely bridge I want to sell. Are you interested in buying it?

P.T. Barnum was right.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
mur
2015-05-22 16:04:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 9 May 2015 22:02:43 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would
suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.
WHAT sort of evidence/proof do you think there should be, WHERE do you think
it should be, WHY do you think he should provide it, and WHEN do you
think he should provide or should have provided it if there is a God
associated with Earth?
The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that your
supposed god character exists.
There is none and it makes sense that there is not. That's one of the basic
starting lines atheists can't get as "far" as.
Thanks for admitting that
It's obvious and even an atheist should be able to figure it out without
having to have it explained.
Smiler
2015-05-22 19:36:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they
would suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God
exists.
WHAT sort of evidence/proof do you think there should be, WHERE
do you think
it should be, WHY do you think he should provide it, and WHEN do you
think he should provide or should have provided it if there is a God
associated with Earth?
The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that your
supposed god character exists.
There is none and it makes sense that there is not. That's one of the basic
starting lines atheists can't get as "far" as.
Thanks for admitting that you believe in your supposed god character
without a single scrap of evidence. <full sentence restored>
It's obvious and even an atheist should be able to figure it out
without having to have it explained.
I've a lovely bridge that I'm trying to sell. Are you interested in buying
it?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
mur
2015-05-30 00:45:45 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 May 2015 19:36:16 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they
would suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God
exists.
WHAT sort of evidence/proof do you think there should be, WHERE
do you think
it should be, WHY do you think he should provide it, and WHEN do you
think he should provide or should have provided it if there is a God
associated with Earth?
The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that your
supposed god character exists.
There is none and it makes sense that there is not. That's one of the basic
starting lines atheists can't get as "far" as.
Thanks for admitting that you believe in your supposed god character
without a single scrap of evidence. <full sentence restored>
It's obvious and even an atheist should be able to figure it out
without having to have it explained.
I've a lovely bridge that I'm trying to sell.
Provide the verifiable evidence or again be revealed as a liar by your own
ineptitude.
Smiler
2015-05-30 20:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they
would suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God
exists.
WHAT sort of evidence/proof do you think there should be,
WHERE do you think
it should be, WHY do you think he should provide it, and WHEN do
you think he should provide or should have provided it if there is
a God associated with Earth?
The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that your
supposed god character exists.
There is none and it makes sense that there is not. That's one of the basic
starting lines atheists can't get as "far" as.
Thanks for admitting that you believe in your supposed god character
without a single scrap of evidence. <full sentence restored>
It's obvious and even an atheist should be able to figure it out
without having to have it explained.
I've a lovely bridge that I'm trying to sell.
Provide the verifiable evidence or again be revealed as a liar by your own
ineptitude.
You first, liar for god.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
mur
2015-06-05 20:23:39 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:57:18 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence
that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they
would suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God
exists.
WHAT sort of evidence/proof do you think there should be,
WHERE do you think
it should be, WHY do you think he should provide it, and WHEN do
you think he should provide or should have provided it if there is
a God associated with Earth?
The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that your
supposed god character exists.
There is none and it makes sense that there is not. That's one
of the basic
starting lines atheists can't get as "far" as.
Thanks for admitting that you believe in your supposed god character
without a single scrap of evidence. <full sentence restored>
It's obvious and even an atheist should be able to figure it out
without having to have it explained.
I've a lovely bridge that I'm trying to sell.
Provide the verifiable evidence or again be revealed as a liar by your own
ineptitude.
You
YOU again revealed yourself as a liar.
Smiler
2015-06-05 22:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by James Redford
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical
evidence that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at
best they would suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove
that a God exists.
WHAT sort of evidence/proof do you think there should be,
WHERE do you think
it should be, WHY do you think he should provide it, and WHEN do
you think he should provide or should have provided it if there
is a God associated with Earth?
The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that your
supposed god character exists.
There is none and it makes sense that there is not. That's one
of the basic
starting lines atheists can't get as "far" as.
Thanks for admitting that you believe in your supposed god character
without a single scrap of evidence. <full sentence restored>
It's obvious and even an atheist should be able to figure it out
without having to have it explained.
I've a lovely bridge that I'm trying to sell.
Provide the verifiable evidence or again be revealed as a liar by your own
ineptitude.
You [restore] first, liar for god.[/]
YOU again revealed yourself as a liar.
You have yet to provide any verifiable evidence for your supposed god
character. Until you do, you remain a liar.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Olrik
2015-04-18 03:58:22 UTC
Permalink
You certainly can type words.

One day, you might even learn to convey useful meaning with them.

In the meantime, please kindly FOAD.

Many thanks!

<snip useless carp>
Christopher A. Lee
2015-04-18 04:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olrik
You certainly can type words.
One day, you might even learn to convey useful meaning with them.
In the meantime, please kindly FOAD.
Many thanks!
<snip useless carp>
Don't flounder.

He's certifiable.

He posts the same cut'n'paste. unsolicited insanity regularly, and for
some reason expects it to be taken seriously.

He then follows it up with another round of much the same insanity.

Does he honestly not understand why he gets the same reaction every
time?

Although "honest" is word I wouldn't normally use around wither James
Redford or the other equally mentally ill "Scientific proof of God"
troll. George Hammond.
mur
2015-04-30 00:07:11 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
. . .
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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. The same is true for the lack of transition species of all other
types.
Post by James Redford
The concept of man being gods and becoming ever-more Godlike is simply
traditional Christianity, going all the way back to Jesus's teachings
(e.g., see John 10:34), that of Paul and the other Epistlers, and that
of the Church Fathers. In traditional Christian theology, this is
known as apotheosis, theosis or divinization. For many examples of
these early teachings, see the article "Divinization (Christian)",
Wikipedia, Apr. 14, 2015,
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Divinization_%28Christian%29&oldid=656379874
. Though this traditional position of Christian theology has been
deemphasized for the last millennium.
Indeed, the words "transhumanism" and "superhumanism" originated in
Christian theology. "Transhumanism" is a neologism coined by Dante
Alighieri in his Divine Comedy (Paradiso, Canto I, lines 70-72),
referring favorably to a mortal human who became an immortal god by
means of eating a special plant. For the Christian theological origin
of the term "superhumanism", see the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd
ed.), the first appearance being by Henry Montagu, 1st Earl of
Manchester, in his Al Mondo: Contemplatio Mortis, & Immortalitatis
(London, England: Robert Barker, and the Assignes of John Bill, 1636).
Moreover, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a proof (i.e.,
mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of,
e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and
artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics
(viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and
Quantum Mechanics) to take control over all matter in the universe,
for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and
for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both
processor speed and memory space) to diverge to infinity as the
universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point.
Said Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic component of the
Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of
Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in
physics, of which TOE is itself mathematically forced by the aforesaid
known physical laws. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and
extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.
The Omega Point final singularity has all the unique properties
(quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. For much
more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it
uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described
in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses
James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of
Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012
(orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF,
1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb,
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 ,
https://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything
, http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf ,
https://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf
,
http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf
.
Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain
very informative videos of Prof. Tipler explaining the Omega Point
cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard
Model TOE. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of
Tipler. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of
these videos.
James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's
Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?",
, July 30, 2013,
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo ,
http://archive.today/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS . The
b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761, http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp ,
http://webcitation.org/6WGd90MBa , http://archive.today/cVRmc .
----------------------------------------
James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science
Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001),
doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 ,
http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf ,
http://webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website with information
on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem and the quantum gravity
Theory of Everything [TOE]), http://theophysics.host56.com ,
http://theophysics.freevar.com
Jeanne Douglas
2015-04-30 04:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
. . .
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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,
How do you know that?
--
JD

Je suis Charlie.
mur
2015-05-09 02:02:41 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:26:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <***@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
. . .
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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. The same is true for the lack of transition species of all other
types.
How do you know that?
It is in itself. How would you like to pretend it's not? Try to be specific
for the first time.
Smiler
2015-05-09 22:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:26:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
. . .
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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. The same is true for the lack of transition
species of all other types.
How do you know that?
It is in itself.
Is that meant to mean something?
Post by mur
How would you like to pretend it's not? Try to be specific
for the first time.
You first.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
mur
2015-05-22 16:04:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 9 May 2015 22:04:16 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:26:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
. . .
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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. The same is true for the lack of transition
species of all other types.
How do you know that?
It is in itself.
Is that meant to mean something?
Only to people who don't have faith that it doesn't mean anything. To them
it raises questions about what it does mean.
Smiler
2015-05-22 19:38:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:26:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
. . .
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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. The same is true for the lack of transition
species of all other types.
How do you know that?
It is in itself.
Is that meant to mean something?
Only to people who don't have faith that it doesn't mean anything. To them
it raises questions about what it does mean.
Thanks for admitting that you post nonsense.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
mur
2015-05-30 00:45:32 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 May 2015 19:38:39 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:26:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
. . .
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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. The same is true for the lack of transition
species of all other types.
How do you know that?
It is in itself.
Is that meant to mean something?
Only to people who don't have faith that it doesn't mean anything.
To them it raises questions about what it does mean.
Thanks
I usually don't mind pointing out the obvious for you people, even when
there's between very little and no chance that you'll ever be able to comprehend
much less appreciate it.
Smiler
2015-05-30 20:59:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:26:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
. . .
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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. The same is true for the lack of transition
species of all other types.
How do you know that?
It is in itself.
Is that meant to mean something?
Only to people who don't have faith that it doesn't mean anything.
To them it raises questions about what it does mean.
Thanks for admitting that you post nonsense.
I usually don't mind pointing out the obvious for you people, even when
there's between very little and no chance that you'll ever be able to
comprehend much less appreciate it.
Q.E.D.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Christopher A. Lee
2015-05-30 21:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:26:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
. . .
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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. The same is true for the lack of transition
species of all other types.
How do you know that?
It is in itself.
Is that meant to mean something?
Only to people who don't have faith that it doesn't mean anything.
To them it raises questions about what it does mean.
Thanks for admitting that you post nonsense.
I usually don't mind pointing out the obvious for you people, even when
there's between very little and no chance that you'll ever be able to
comprehend much less appreciate it.
Q.E.D.
Everybody is out of step except him.
Smiler
2015-05-31 20:49:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:26:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
. . .
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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. The same is true for the lack of transition
species of all other types.
How do you know that?
It is in itself.
Is that meant to mean something?
Only to people who don't have faith that it doesn't mean anything.
To them it raises questions about what it does mean.
Thanks for admitting that you post nonsense.
I usually don't mind pointing out the obvious for you people, even
when there's between very little and no chance that you'll ever be
able to comprehend much less appreciate it.
Q.E.D.
Everybody is out of step except him.
Oft heard in a mental asylum:
"I'm sane, it's the rest of the world that's mad."
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
mur
2015-06-05 20:23:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 31 May 2015 20:49:29 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
Post by Smiler
On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:59:47 +0000 (UTC), Smil
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:26:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
. . .
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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. The same is true for the lack of transition
species of all other types.
How do you know that?
It is in itself.
Is that meant to mean something?
Only to people who don't have faith that it doesn't mean anything.
To them it raises questions about what it does mean.
Thanks for admitting that you post nonsense.
I usually don't mind pointing out the obvious for you people, even
when there's between very little and no chance that you'll ever be
able to comprehend much less appreciate it.
Q.E.D.
Everybody is out of step except him.
"I'm sane, it's the rest of the world that's mad."
"Our aggregated data from 2012 show that 2.4% of American adults say they are
atheists when asked about their religious identity, up from 1.6% in 2007."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/23/5-facts-about-atheists/
Smiler
2015-06-05 22:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:26:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
. . .
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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. The same is true for the lack of
transition species of all other types.
How do you know that?
It is in itself.
Is that meant to mean something?
Only to people who don't have faith that it doesn't mean anything.
To them it raises questions about what it does mean.
Thanks for admitting that you post nonsense.
I usually don't mind pointing out the obvious for you people, even
when there's between very little and no chance that you'll ever be
able to comprehend much less appreciate it.
Q.E.D.
Everybody is out of step except him.
"I'm sane, it's the rest of the world that's mad."
"Our aggregated data from 2012 show that 2.4% of American adults say
they are atheists when asked about their religious identity, up from
1.6% in 2007."
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/23/5-facts-about-atheists/
Why would that be of concern to me, moron?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Mitchell Holman
2015-04-30 13:46:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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 but you
also believe your god is influencing it.

Most odd.
mur
2015-05-09 02:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by Mitchell Holman
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.
Smiler
2015-05-09 22:07:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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?
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
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?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Smiler
2015-05-11 22:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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?
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
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?
<crickets>
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Smiler
2015-05-12 22:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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?
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
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?
<crickets>
<tumble weed>
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Malte Runz
2015-05-13 17:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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?
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
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?
<crickets>
<tumble weed>
<continents drifting>
--
Malte Runz
Smiler
2015-05-13 20:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:46:59 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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?
Post by Mitchell Holman
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?
<crickets>
<tumble weed>
<continents drifting>
It appears that he has either run away or has fallen into a crevasse
caused by continental drift.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Olrik
2015-05-14 03:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
Thus, immortality is logically inseparable from the existence of
the
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by James Redford
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
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by James Redford
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?
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
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?
<crickets>
<tumble weed>
<continents drifting>
<space travel>
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Malte Runz
2015-05-14 17:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olrik
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:46:59 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
Thus, immortality is logically inseparable from the existence of
the
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by James Redford
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
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by James Redford
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?
Post by Mitchell Holman
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?
<crickets>
<tumble weed>
<continents drifting>
<space travel>
<The big RIP>
--
Malte Runz
mur
2015-05-22 16:04:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 14 May 2015 19:11:58 +0200, Chicken wrote:
.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Olrik
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:46:59 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
Thus, immortality is logically inseparable from the existence of
the
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by James Redford
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
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by James Redford
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?
Post by Mitchell Holman
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?
<crickets>
<tumble weed>
<continents drifting>
<space travel>
<The big RIP>
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.
mur
2015-05-22 16:04:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 9 May 2015 22:07:13 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
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".
Post by Smiler
The one you admit that you have no evidence for?
Present your quote(s) or be exposed as a liar.
Smiler
2015-05-22 19:44:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
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".
Post by Smiler
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.
mur
2015-05-30 00:45:35 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 May 2015 19:44:10 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
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".
Post by Smiler
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, which is involves much more thinking than you're capable of in your tiny
little mental comfort zone. You like to think that you're capable of giving as
much thought as anyone else, but if you could you would. It's only because you
can't that you don't.
Chris F.A. Johnson
2015-05-30 01:25:58 UTC
Permalink
On 2015-05-30, mur wrote:
..
Post by mur
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
I'll consider that possibility when I see some evidence for it.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson
mur
2015-06-05 20:23:25 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:25:58 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <***@cfaj.ca>
wrote:
.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
..
Post by mur
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
I'll consider that possibility when I see some evidence for it.
What sort of evidence are you imagining? So far not a single one of you has
been able to imagine anything respectable at all. None of you can imagine what
you think there should be, but you all think there should be something more than
there is. That absurdity is evidence to me.
Chris F.A. Johnson
2015-06-05 21:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
..
Post by mur
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
I'll consider that possibility when I see some evidence for it.
What sort of evidence are you imagining?
I'm not imagining any evidence, because I haven't seen any.
Post by mur
So far not a single one of you has been able to imagine anything
respectable at all. None of you can imagine what you think there
should be, but you all think there should be something more than
there is. That absurdity is evidence to me.
You are making the claim; it is up to you to provide evidence.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson
mur
2015-06-13 18:04:11 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 17:15:50 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <***@cfaj.ca>
wrote:
.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
Post by mur
.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
..
Post by mur
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
I'll consider that possibility when I see some evidence for it.
What sort of evidence are you imagining?
I'm not imagining any evidence, because I haven't seen any.
It's because you can't imagine what you think there should be, or where you
think it should be, etc. Not one of you can imagine anything respectable. You're
convinced something should be somewhere, but have no idea what, or where, or why
it should be wherever.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
Post by mur
So far not a single one of you has been able to imagine anything
respectable at all. None of you can imagine what you think there
should be, but you all think there should be something more than
there is. That absurdity is evidence to me.
You are making the claim;
I'm pointing out one of the things you atheists are ALL competely clueless
about.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
it is up to you to provide evidence.
Every one of you has PROVEN what I'm pointing out to be correct. How do you
think you're "teaching" anyone anything when you're entirely clueless about what
you're attempting to "teach" and can't pretend you're not even when asked
directly about it?
Mitchell Holman
2015-06-06 15:38:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:25:58 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
..
Post by mur
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
I'll consider that possibility when I see some evidence for it.
What sort of evidence are you imagining? So far not a single one of you has
been able to imagine anything respectable at all. None of you can
imagine what you think there should be, but you all think there should
be something more than there is. That absurdity is evidence to me.
Show us the evidence that YOU believe.
mur
2015-06-13 18:04:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 10:38:34 -0500, Mitchell Holman <***@att.net> wrote:
.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:25:58 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
.
Post by Chris F.A. Johnson
..
Post by mur
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
I'll consider that possibility when I see some evidence for it.
What sort of evidence are you imagining? So far not a single one of you has
been able to imagine anything respectable at all. None of you can
imagine what you think there should be, but you all think there should
be something more than there is. That absurdity is evidence to me.
Show us the evidence that YOU believe.
The FACT that none of you have any idea what evidence you think there should
be, or where, or why it should be available, but you ALL have faith that
something should be somewhere for some reason...LOL...is evidence of something
like Satan having influence on human minds. Your position is so idiotic that
only a very few people who are incredibly stupid should ever be in it, not lots
of people most of whom don't seem to be THAT incredibly stupid. The position is
so absurd it raises the question of what causes so many of you to come to be in
it.
Smiler
2015-05-30 21:14:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:46:59 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by Smiler
Post by Mitchell Holman
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".
Post by Smiler
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.
mur
2015-06-05 20:23:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 May 2015 21:14:45 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:46:59 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by Smiler
Post by Mitchell Holman
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".
Post by Smiler
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?
Post by Smiler
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?
Post by Smiler
Or the possibility that leprechauns exist?
What have I told you about that?
Smiler
2015-06-05 22:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:46:59 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by Smiler
Post by Mitchell Holman
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".
Post by Smiler
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.
Post by mur
Post by Smiler
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.
Post by mur
Post by Smiler
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.
mur
2015-06-13 18:04:18 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 22:09:06 +0000 (UTC), Smil had no clue at all:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:46:59 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by James Redford
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.
Post by Smiler
Post by Mitchell Holman
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".
Post by Smiler
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.
Since you have no clue what I told you before how could it be different if I
tell you again?
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Smiler
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.
Since you have no clue what I told you before how could it be different if I
tell you again?
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Smiler
Or the possibility that leprechauns exist?
What have I told you about that?
No answer.
Since you have no clue what I told you before how could it be different if I
tell you again?
Loading...