Probabilities of God's existence debate

[kin hell]

so the Probabilities of God's existence debate continuing are not good then?

[PaulGL]

There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.
First, there is the explanation that life on earth was divinely created.
Since, obviously, there is no way that the above explanation of the origin of life can be subjected to any scientific analysis, it would be profitless to discuss its merits (at this point).
The other means I am referring to is, of course, the theory of evolution. By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe. Keeping these parameters in mind, let us now see what relevant conclusions may be derived:...

Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.

What are the implications of such a conclusion?

Such an entity would in all practicality be:

1.   Omnipotent and
2.   Omniscient and
3.   Omnipresent.

Such an entity would, by definition, be God.
By no means am I intending to speculate about the origin of God.
Such speculation is vain at best and blasphemous at worst. My intention is to show that no matter what method that you employ to explain the existence of life; the inevitable implication is the existence and reality of God.

Chapter Seven.  Past History: The World System                              p.145
...
            {   II.     The Religious System
A.   The Source of Religion <Hint: NOT God>
B.   The World’s Religions
C.   The Jewish Religion
D.   Christianity, the Religion   }


FROM: amessageforthehumanrace

[Ambassador Pony]

PaulGL, you agreed to not spam the boards with cut and pastes when you signed up. If you continue, your posts will be moderated.

Furthermore, abusing this community in the selfish pursuit of self-promotion is poor manners.

[JeffPT]

Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.

This makes it sound like evolution is moving toward some sort of end, when in reality, that's not what it is at all.  In order for an entity to evolve and no longer be subject to time, it would require selection pressures in that direction.  What sort of selection pressures would give a survival advantage if they were no longer subject to time? 

What are the implications of such a conclusion?

Such an entity would in all practicality be:

1.   Omnipotent and
2.   Omniscient and
3.   Omnipresent.

Such an entity would, by definition, be God.

Actually, if we take your train of thought where you're taking it, the end result would not be A god, but many gods.  A whole species of Gods that are all omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.  Perhaps the Greeks were on to something.  I don't agree at all with where you're going, and you seem not to have a full grasp on evolution, but it's an interesting thought. 

[Graybeard]

There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.

Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.

The failure of reasoning in that statement is appalling.

If the universe is vast, what do you mean by "profusion of life"? As a percentage of the universe, "life forms" would not register.

"an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time." This borders on the insane. Please give some reason why this might be and how it could possibly be.

We want details.

Just because you do not have an understanding of time or the process evolution or the effects of "being outside time" (whatever that means) does not mean that you can pull theories out of your ass and announce them as if someone ought to accept them.

[Astreja]

By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe...

Paul, if you actually want to have a conversation with us on such matters, please learn the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.