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

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Such an endeavour is perhaps futile; for your prior expressions are narrow in nature..

Yep, that's what I'm trying to get across to you. Your text manipulations are futile. They mean nothing, except to demonstrate a vain attempt to draw attention to yourself. That is why I don't read them. 

What do you call (think of) individuals that go out of their way to draw attention to themselves? Do these individuals often have underlying insecurities? Or often over inflate their ego as a cover up?

BTW, nice Deepak.

Rather, my reference existed betwixt your narrow expression style.
Are you of religious descent?

[brewer]

Yep, that's what I'm trying to get across to you. Your text manipulations are futile. They mean nothing, except to demonstrate a vain attempt to draw attention to yourself. That is why I don't read them. 

What do you call (think of) individuals that go out of their way to draw attention to themselves? Do these individuals often have underlying insecurities? Or often over inflate their ego as a cover up?

BTW, nice Deepak.

Rather, my reference existed betwixt your narrow expression style.
Are you of religious descent?

If you mean not over the top for no reason as "narrow expression style", yeah, I'll take that. Can you explain why you feel it is necessary to draw attention to your words/posts in this manor? Or did I already hit the nail on the head. 

What does my "religious descent" have to do with the discussion? Trying to change the subject? But I'll still answer, which is more than you seem to be willing to do. Yes, I had a christian up bringing until age 13. And what is your religious descent? 

(see, no bold, no italics, no colors, and it still works).

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Rather, my reference existed betwixt your narrow expression style.
Are you of religious descent?

If you mean not over the top for no reason as "narrow expression style", yeah, I'll take that. Can you explain why you feel it is necessary to draw attention to your words/posts in this manor? Or did I already hit the nail on the head. 

What does my "religious descent" have to do with the discussion? Trying to change the subject? But I'll still answer, which is more than you seem to be willing to do. Yes, I had a christian up bringing until age 13. And what is your religious descent? 

(see, no bold, no italics, no colors, and it still works).

Invalid.

Simply, your expression manner is but nonsensical. 

I am of course, atheistic. [I have not any belief, and thereafter, I have not any belief in God or gods].

[ApeNotKillApe]

There's nothing like condescension from a moron.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

There's nothing like condescension from a moron.

Such is quite irrelevant.

Of what nature is your profession?

[brewer]

If you mean not over the top for no reason as "narrow expression style", yeah, I'll take that. Can you explain why you feel it is necessary to draw attention to your words/posts in this manor? Or did I already hit the nail on the head. 

What does my "religious descent" have to do with the discussion? Trying to change the subject? But I'll still answer, which is more than you seem to be willing to do. Yes, I had a christian up bringing until age 13. And what is your religious descent? 

(see, no bold, no italics, no colors, and it still works).

Invalid.

Simply, your expression manner is but nonsensical. 

I am of course, atheistic. [I have not any belief, and thereafter, I have not any belief in God or gods].

Wow, nice dodge. 

OK, my manner is nonsensical, that is your opinion about me. I'll ask again, Can you explain why you feel it is necessary to draw attention to your words/posts with manipulation of font, size, and color? If you don't respond what am I suppose to think? 

And dodge again. I answered your "descent" question, you neglected to answer mine, so I'll ask again. What is your religious descent? Are you going to respond or evade?

[bennyboy]

. . . and this is why font formatting should be disabled on forums.

FONTS DO NOT MAKE IDEAS BETTER.

Also. . . go */fuck\* 8====O--- , yourself.  Just felt I should get that in there somewhere.

[ApeNotKillApe]

There's nothing like condescension from a moron.

Such is quite irrelevant.

Of what nature is your profession?

Refer you to sig.

[brewer]

You know what PGJ, if you'd like to start over and state your positions/opinions in the thread without all the the text manipulation I would be willing to read it/them. Then we can discuss substance rather than form or motivations. 

If you can't, I'm OK with going our separate ways.

What do you think?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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.

Your thought cycles are but nonsensical.
Are you of theistic descent?

[*A*]

Simply, aforesaid statistics persist on the boundary of prominently religiously described Gods. [As encoded amidst the original post]



[*B*]


Re-Stipulation:

Tradition (theistic deity definition) contains (on the horizon of scientifically observable probabilities/statistics) non-evident properties.


In contrast, the definition (as observed in the original post) 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 theist-theorized properties [omniscience, omnipotence etc] likely shan't obtain, particularly on the horizon of aforesaid observable probabilities/statistics.)


Thusly, God is properly statistically definable, as observed amidst the original post.  (Only the theistic mind adheres to the concept of omniscient, omnipotent deities)

Separately, here are 20 God definitions, via international dictionaries:

1.[wikipedia] 
In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe.

2.[merriam-webster]

The perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshiped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe


3.[dictionary]
The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

4.[oxford-dictionaries]
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

5.[the freedictionary]
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

6.[learner's dictionary]
The perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshiped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe.

7.[yourdictionary]
The definition of a god is an image, person or thing that is worshiped, honored or believed to be all-powerful or the creator and ruler of the universe.


8.[webster-dictionary]
The Supreme Being; the eternal and infinite Spirit, the Creator, and the Sovereign of the universe; Jehovah.

9.[colliins-dictionary]
Theology the sole Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes; the object of worship in monotheistic religions

10.[assemblyoftrueisrael]
Yahweh, the Almighty Creator.

11.[biblestudytools]
Bible gives is God as Creator of the heavens and earth (Gen:1:1). The phrase "heavens and earth" is a merismus, which means that everything in the universe as we know it was created by God.

12.[god-defined]
GOD creator of all. 

13.[brainy-quote]
The Supreme Being; the eternal and infinite Spirit, the Creator, and the Sovereign of the universe; Jehovah.

14.[whoisgod]
God is the creatorof mankind and He loves you.

15.[catholic]
God is the Creator of the world -- the producer of its whole substance...

16.[islam-101]
God is the creator of the universe. 


17.[jewfaq]
God created the universe

18.[whojesusis]
Jesus is God...and the Word was with God and the Word was God (John 1:1 ESV). He created the world and all that is in it 

19.[bible ca]
Unchangeable Qualities of God: Creator, not creature.


20.[theopedia]
God is the triune Supreme Being, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the sovereign Creator and Ruler of the universe, the principal Object of the Christian faith.

---

You know what PGJ, if you'd like to start over and state your positions/opinions in the thread without all the the text manipulation I would be willing to read it/them. Then we can discuss substance rather than form or motivations. 

If you can't, I'm OK with going our separate ways.

What do you think?

I have not any opinion.
Rather, I stipulate scientifically observed/observable statistics.

---

Invalid.

Simply, your expression manner is but nonsensical. 

I am of course, atheistic. .

Wow, nice dodge. 

OK, my manner is nonsensical, that is your opinion about me. I'll ask again, Can you explain why you feel it is necessary to draw attention to your words/posts with manipulation of font, size, and color? If you don't respond what am I suppose to think? 

And dodge again. I answered your "descent" question, you neglected to answer mine, so I'll ask again. What is your religious descent? Are you going to respond or evade?

[*A*]
I have not any opinion/faith/belief.
Simply, your commentary contains inaccurate blather.

[*B*]
I am of christian descent. 
However, one need merely disable emotional bias, such that one observes that religion is nonsense.

Thereafter, I had doffed my religious bound 4 years prior [2012], thusly synonymously, I had encountered logic (atheism).

Post Scriptum: I am of course, atheistic.