Oh come on Brewer, he may be a shroom-taking nutcase but he's not THAT BAD.

Clearly, meaningless gibberish acquires meaning, depth, and utility when you colour outside the lines.

Boru

(November 6, 2016 at 7:32 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Am I the only one who is getting a twisted Deepak Chopra feel from this guy?

Fulfill the facing exercise:

Identify ONE opinionated stipulation of mine.

Therein I just finished coloring in a coloring book just now only not really.

THEREAFTER I have observed that GODS are STATISTIACLLY PROBABLE just now only not really.

(November 6, 2016 at 5:32 am)purplepurpose Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 5:25 am)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: I need not speculate.


Prominent Statistical Evidence:


Non-omniscient Gods/non trivial creators (brain based models) are likely on the horizon of Moore's Law..., at 2020's boundary....

Such shall likely occur, absent human extinction....

Likely in any topic means something below 100%. There IS a chance that you will die and sease to exist permenantly in the end.

Precisely.

Ergo, usage of 'likely' is apt.

---

(November 6, 2016 at 7:35 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Therein I just finished coloring in a coloring book just now only not really.

THEREAFTER I have observed that GODS are STATISTIACLLY PROBABLE just now only not really.

Quite the worthless sequence of yours.

Are you of theistic descent?

So you observe probable gods but disbelieve that you actually see such things? Makes perfect sense.

(November 6, 2016 at 5:42 am)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Just to be clear (which I know you're all about) simple yes or no: are you talking about simulation theory?

The universe simulation hypothesis (particularly relating to our universe) is the least relevant scenario mentioned. (As seen in solely ONE god-tier, #3)

Primarily, A God bound entity likely has the ability to create non-trivial intelligence  (The most complex constructs in the known universe human level, and likely beyond)

Thereafter, on Moore's Law etc, we are likely on the horizon of creating such non-trivial intelligence.  

(NOTE: Brain based models already exceed/equal humans on non trivial cognitive tasks, ranging from language translation to disease diagnosis)

(November 6, 2016 at 7:37 am)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: Are you of theistic descent?

Why yes. Because I have redefined "God" to mean "dude who types in far too much large colored text on atheistforums.org".

(November 6, 2016 at 7:35 am)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 7:32 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Am I the only one who is getting a twisted Deepak Chopra feel from this guy?

Fulfill the facing exercise:

Identify ONE opinionated stipulation of mine.

No. 

I don't do face exercises, other than eat and blink. I used to wiggle my ears but pulled a muscle.

(November 6, 2016 at 7:32 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Am I the only one who is getting a twisted Deepak Chopra feel from this guy?

You know what? Visually, it's a perfect symbolic representation of Chopra. It's nauseating, it offends my brain, and for every second I expose my senses to it, the more I am filled with a murderous rage.