Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You are blatantly ignoring the neurosynaptic regime.

IBM has already constructed neurosynaptic chips, that better approximate the human neuronal calculation cycle (10^ 15 flops).

The entirety of your commentary occurs amidst the Von Neumannian paradigm, of central processing unit bound constructs. (Whence CPU systems induce larger space-time complex calculations, than those of non CPU aligned systems - neurosynaptic chips. [See IBM synapse])

"Until those floating variables above are better defined, I'd say any position on either of the far ends of the plausibility spectrum are unfounded. "

...

Really, you think so, in a couple of paragraphs in which I spoke of the brain, and the brain, and the brain, and the brain./..you somehow think I;m thinking of a vn architecture when the only mention of computational architecture I make is to say that they -aren't- equivalent.  

Please, stop using my posts as an excuse to post the inanities you're going to post anyway.  It's a courtesy, and you don't need me to talk to yourself.

The limitations you stipulated, are but unavoidably entailed in the Von Neumannian paradigm.
Such limitations are thereafter, softened amidst the nuerosynaptic regime.
Such floating values' descriptions are enhancing amidst neurosynaptic chips, and thereafter are not unfounded, as you prior mentioned. (See the highlighted text sequence that represents your inaccurate opinion)

---

---

Tradition is often wrong. (Only the theistic mind adheres to the concept of omniscient, omnipotent deities)

Thusly, on statistical observation, God/Creator is likely properly, naturally statistically definable as stipulated in the original post.

---

Great. Then define it. But I'm not reading your original post because it looks like dogshit.

In SUMMARY, probabilistically, the ability to generate artificial intelligence, that surpasses the net intellect of one’s species, AND OR compute simulation of universes (with intellect resembling prior), IS THAT WHICH classifies said species as God-bound. (likely non omniscient, non-omnipotent)

---

Simply, the description, though scribed by myself, is not mine, or rather, such a definition is not opinionated.

Strange, because it certainly seems like your opinion........

This was your response to a remark about how you;d contradicted yourself from one sentence to the next with the last response?  That's.....impressive.

[*A*]

Sensible Non Anecdotal Example:
The observable laws of physics (ie: a falling apple) are not any physicist's. (The laws persist absent the notation of such laws via said physicists)

[*B*]
In the like, the definition stipulated (amidst the original post), is not mine. (Such a definition, persists whether I select to stipulate said definition; it reduces traditional deity-bound properties, abound scientifically observable probabilities/statistics, such that a particular property is evident - thusly the ability to forge non-trivial intelligence, and thereafter, said intelligence shall likely exceed the net intelligence of the creator's(s') species...whilst separately theorized properties [omniscience, omnipotence etc] likely shan't obtain, particularly on the horizon of aforesaid observable probabilities/statistics.)