RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
November 4, 2016 at 1:04 am
(This post was last modified: November 4, 2016 at 1:24 am by ProgrammingGodJordan.)
(November 4, 2016 at 12:46 am)robvalue Wrote: It's a fair hypothesis that this is some sort of simulation, yeah. It appears unfalsifiable to me, although it's certainly interesting. I'm concerned there is a fallacy of composition included in the hypothesis though, and it requires several assumptions.
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 4, 2016 at 1:03 am)robvalue Wrote: Erm, you can't exactly say a definition is wrong when no one ever agreed on one in the first place.
Is it necessary to write everything in varying text size and colours? It makes it a bit hard to read.
Note [0] : I am not saying anything. Rather, I need not say anything. On observation of statistics, (trivially observable by any non-brain damaged being) such a definition of God is naturally, statistically observable. (See the note atop the original post, pertaining to abstinence from opinion/say)
Therein, there are already existent definitions of God, which are likely wrong, on statistical observation.
Note [1]: I was attempting to shorten the content. The simple 3 minute passage seems to be 2 hours long absent text variation.