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

[ApeNotKillApe]

Reminds me of that guy, what's-his-name, sits in a chair.

[ApeNotKillApe]

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Your commentary is quite nonsensical, for I have merely enlisted scientifically observable statistics.

See the notation atop the original post, that entails the NON usage of opinion|emotion|faith|belief.

Thusly, the sequences stipulated are NON IDEA bound.

The word god is never, ever an observable statistic. Merely an embellishment to an otherwise ordinary profession. Computer programing. Simply substitute "dude" for every time you impose the word "god" and we keep things in human perspective.

Incorrect.

Simplification: 

[0] The theistically-hypothesized God entails a particular property [the ability to generate non trivial intelligence, ie human intellect]


[1] Mankind is an observable sequence.

[2] Mankind shall likely encode a particular property; [whence mankind shall likely generate artificial intellect that shall exceed the net intelligence of its species]



[3] At the compaction of the theistically-theoirized God, amidst statistic [2], God is thereafter properly scientifically statistically definable as some likely non-omniscient, non-omnipotent entity, with the ability to generate non-trivial intelligence...

[The Grand Nudger]

You were wrong from the very start.  Most gods aren't creator gods at all, let alone creators of such a narrow set.  Moreover, you're not talking about gods, you're talking about people who make smart machines. We already have a term for that, it's not "gods", it's "people who make smart machines".

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You were wrong from the very start.  Most gods aren't creator gods at all, let alone creators of such a narrow set.  Moreover, you're not talking about gods, you're talking about people who make smart machines.  We already have a term for that, it's not "gods", it's "people who make smart machines".

Your commentary is nonsense.

You need refrain from invoking my accord, amidst the presented globally observable statistics.


Here are statistics to consider:

The world's 4 largest religions and their number of believers are:

• Christianity (2.1 billion)
  
• Islam (1.3 billion)
  
• Nonreligious (Secular/Agnostic/Atheist) (1.1 billion)
  
• Hinduism (900 million)
  
• ....
  

[The Grand Nudger]

What do numbers of religious adherents have to do with gods and the properties they have?

You;re the one who wants to pretend you've got this shit super squared away, I'm only trying to help. Modify your language, specify which god it is that you're attempting to define, don't tell us that the "theistic god" has a specific property...when the vast majority of theistic gods -don't- have that property. If you can't even start at step 0 with an accurate statement, whats the likelihood of reaching truth by the conclusion? Care to work up some stats on that?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

What do numbers of religious adherents have to do with gods and the properties they have?

The initially compiled statistics, persisted on the boundary of the planet's largest religions/theistic regimes...

[The Grand Nudger]

IOW, "theistic gods" -don't- have that specific property, just the one that you're thinking about does?  

Modify your language, or continue to be wrong at step 0.  Your call.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

What do numbers of religious adherents have to do with gods and the properties they have?

You;re the one who wants to pretend you've got this shit super squared away, I'm only trying to help.  Modify your language, specify which god it is that you're attempting to define, don't tell us that the "theistic god" has a specific property...when the vast majority of theistic gods -don't- have that property.  If you can't even start at step 0 with an accurate statement, whats the likelihood of reaching truth by the conclusion?  Care to work up some stats on that?

IOW, "theistic gods" -don't- have that specific property, just the one that you're thinking about does?  

Modify your language, or continue to be wrong at step 0.  Your call.

It is of indubitable nature, that the prominent theistic gods, unavoidably entail such a property...

[The Grand Nudger]

Prominent gods?  

You're actually only thinking of one god across it's faith family.  The god's aren't prominent in any case, they're non-existent, their believers are simply numerous.  Further, you're attempting to count a hit and ignore the misses.  Is that the -only- specific trait of that specific god?  Nope. In fact, it; all the other traits of that god that distinguish it from "peole who make smart machines".

Unless you'd like to continue to argue that men are becoming yahweh, specifically, -which ofc we aren't by reference to all of those other traits-... modify your language.