Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventually..

[Arising_uk]

... Given that there's no way you could possibly know if there are gods or not, why not simply say...

"I have no idea if there are gods or not."

Which is what the agnostic says. But they also, in general, if they've been brought-up around the idea of 'god/s', can say what they believe about the question with respect to a 'god/s' existence. So what do you believe about 'god/s' existence? Is it that you have no belief either way? Like me you just don't think about 'it' at all, unless its in response to a theists or atheists claim? Are you like me in that even if the theists 'god' manifested itself to me, I'd still not accept it as my 'god'?

[Arising_uk]

That aside. My point still remains that as entropy increases, intelligent beings with the capability to do so, will find ways to extend their consciousness, their 'existence' as it were. And one way of doing this is to abandon the inefficient material self.

Futile in the end though, as its all material where 'entropy' is concerned.

But ah! Are you a transhumanist then? 'Rapture of the Nerds' or 'Human Enhancement'?

[blackbox]

Yes...i was waiting for someone to make a point in relation to my posturing on free will. I had considered what yourself and Arising_uk are pointing out, in the past, and had a similar discussion on a forum far far away.

That aside. My point still remains that as entropy increases, intelligent beings with the capability to do so, will find ways to extend their consciousness, their 'existence' as it were. And one way of doing this is to abandon the inefficient material self.

That aside? Don't you want people to actually think about your ideas?

[Arising_uk]

Do I have shoes on right now, or not? Yes, or no?

There's no way you could possibly know the answer.

Its called a videocam.

You think heavens got one?

[Typist]

"So what do you believe about 'god/s' existence? Is it that you have no belief either way? Like me you just don't think about 'it' at all, unless its in response to a theists or atheists claim? Are you like me in that even if the theists 'god' manifested itself to me, I'd still not accept it as my 'god'?

Even when I tie you up, lay you down on the ground, stand on your chest, and slowly spoon feed you the answer, over and over and over again, you still ask, "So what is your opinion?"

[chaz wyman]

The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.

What is the "natural progression" that is interrupted by intelligent life?

Why does intelligent life interfere with this natural progression?

I used an analogy of a cue ball striking a set pack of pool balls.

Think of it as the big bang...cause and effect...resulting in the universe prior to life. You could predict the end result knowing the conditions of the pack and the velocity, angle of the cue ball. Once life evolves...and the more intelligent it becomes, it no longer exhibits simple cause and effect physics, it starts to exert free will.

Therefore...intelligent life interferes with this natural progression.

You are talking complete BOLLOCKS.
Observation changes the observed is not the same as willing a thing to be different.
I assume you have tagged onto the coffee table science book interpretation of QM phenomena.
Well let me tall you what the idiots that write the Fortean Times interpretation of QM don't really understand; randomness and quantum indeterminacy are NOT the same as the illusion of free-will.

[Arising_uk]

Even when I tie you up, lay you down on the ground, stand on your chest, and slowly spoon feed you the answer, over and over and over again, you still ask, "So what is your opinion?"

Show me this answer. Can't be hard as I assume you know where it is within all your posts. Just post the link.

[Typist]

]Show me this answer. Can't be hard as I assume you know where it is within all your posts. Just post the link.

A few posts up Mr. Dimwit.

[Arising_uk]

... A few posts up Mr. Dimwit.

You mean all that shilly-shallying around with what some or others may? Or the bondage dreams. I see nowhere that starts with "I believe..." or "What I believe is..." or "I am an..."

[chaz wyman]

Dear Typist,

I have read every word on this thread concerning this topic in order to satisfy to myself the little spat you are Arising are having to see if either your case or his is valid.
I have carefully examined every word a response. I have weighted your words and searched for your argument.

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.

Your posts are basically contentless. You have not addressed Arisings questions and have failed to give any reasonable response.

I would suggest you go back and revise your words, but I imagine that you are not capable of doing such a thing.

Chaz

[Typist]

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.

OMG!! I HAVE BEEN FOUND WANTING BY THE BRILLIANT CHAZMAN!!

WANTING!!!

BOO HOO HOOOOOOOO!



PS: Hey Chaz, did you notice you're doing EXACTLY what I said was the theme of most of your posts?

[chaz wyman]

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.

OMG!! I HAVE BEEN FOUND WANTING BY THE BRILLIANT CHAZMAN!!

WANTING!!!


PS: Hey Chaz, did you notice you're doing EXACTLY what I said was the theme of most of your posts?

Yes, you mean saying a thing that you are too stupid to see. We all know that.

[attofishpi]

Yes...i was waiting for someone to make a point in relation to my posturing on free will. I had considered what yourself and Arising_uk are pointing out, in the past, and had a similar discussion on a forum far far away.

That aside. My point still remains that as entropy increases, intelligent beings with the capability to do so, will find ways to extend their consciousness, their 'existence' as it were. And one way of doing this is to abandon the inefficient material self.

That aside? Don't you want people to actually think about your ideas?

The 'free will' postulation has no bearing on my original argument. And lets face it, we could argue over whether we have free will until the dying days of the cosmos...

[blackbox]

The 'free will' postulation has no bearing on my original argument. And lets face it, we could argue over whether we have free will until the dying days of the cosmos...

No bearing? I think it is right at the heart of your argument. Your opening post included this:

The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.
The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural pre-destined universal outcome.
Intelligent life forms require increasing amounts of energy to sustain their lifestyle. As resources diminish these lifeforms must interface to a super efficient state.

Right in the middle of that is this tension between intelligent life forms and a natural outcome. When you were subsequently questioned about this tension, you said it was occasioned by the emergence of freewill.

Ok, after rereading, I guess you could omit that whole sentence about opposition and still have a meaningful idea... intelligent lifeforms may need to morph into super efficiency, with or without freewill. Anyway, the above is why I thought it a part of your argument.

--------

And on freewill, I think you're overstating your position. Have you got an argument, one with content? Something other than "I feel like I have freewill therefore it exists" or some non-argument like "god gave it, therefore it exists". I can easily offer arguments - with content - as to why freewill is likely illusory if not absurd. Btw I realise this sounds arrogant, and I don't mean to be. I'm honestly interested in knowing if you think you do have a good argument establishing freewill (how it could possibly be the case), and would be very interested to hear it, or even a brief summary. cheers.

[attofishpi]

....Ok, after rereading, I guess you could omit that whole sentence about opposition and still have a meaningful idea... intelligent lifeforms may need to morph into super efficiency, with or without freewill.

So your answer to the thread question is?

And on freewill, I think you're overstating your position. Have you got an argument, one with content? Something other than "I feel like I have freewill therefore it exists" or some non-argument like "god gave it, therefore it exists". I can easily offer arguments - with content - as to why freewill is likely illusory if not absurd. Btw I realise this sounds arrogant, and I don't mean to be. I'm honestly interested in knowing if you think you do have a good argument establishing freewill (how it could possibly be the case), and would be very interested to hear it, or even a brief summary. cheers.

Sure, i'll have a discussion with regards to free will, but first i would like your answer.