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

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I haven't any description.
It is rather that, on observation of statistics, God is describable as

snipped, because LOL.

Where is the contradiction?

Just spitballing here, but it might have something to do with the first sentence being a claim that you do not have a description, while the second sentence immediately launches into the description...you apparently don't have.......

Thus far, the most intelligent response amidst this crowd, has been a spelling error indication, betwixt a trivial sentence of mine.

Until 9 hours from now...

Something tells me you won't be any better at recognizing intelligence nine hours from now.

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

---

Kurzweil is quite the inventor.
Albeit, unless one is brain damaged, technological exponential transition is observable, as his graphs entail.

He's a media scientist only out to promote himself to get funding by over selling AI and relying on a team of people to do the work for him. He's been talking about reaching super human intelligence of AI in 2040 for years now based on really a dodgy understanding of how the brain works and assuming that Moore's Law will carry on forever. I lump him in with the likes of Kevin Warwick and Sam Harris. In other words, he sells fantasies.

Sure there's been an exponential curve with Moore's Law continuing, but it's coming to an end. Exponential curves tend to saturate in reality and become sigmoid functions. The scale of the challenge is far greater by many, many orders of magnitude.

The idea of super human intelligence by 2040 relies on the idea of a neuron being a simple integration device. It's not. A single neuron is extremely complex and has more computational power than a whole artificial neural network. We're talking 100 billion neurons and about 100 trillion synapses in the brain. Each neuron has on average about 7,000 synapses. That's just for a single human brain. Each human is part of a population that has evolved over time. Intelligence requires being embodied in an environment, and that takes time. Mechanical movement is many orders of magnitude slower. Any kind of AI will require parameter searching. In the real world this happened with Darwinian evolution.

Not to mention all the other limitations such as the long emergency halting Moore's Law before it even completes, how long it takes us as humans to understand such complex systems as the brain, our ability to measure the brain, materials research and how to power such processing power. A human brain works on 100 watts. You need many megawatts to power a super computer to even get close to simulating one second of a human brain in action. Fact is we just don't yet know what form of computer will come next to take us to the next step. And the next computers will dictate the kind of solution that is available. A quantum computer that needs to be cooled to a fraction of a degree above Kelvin will lead to very different solutions compared to a DNA or biological computer.

I can assure you, I am not brain damaged. I'm experienced in the field of Artificial Intelligence.

Quite the longueur.
Albeit, such a profound pasage of yours , changes not the fact, that exponential technological change occurs, and therein, kurzweil's graphs entail such a transition.

---

What the fuck is a "probable non-omniscient god"?

Non-omniscent, therefore not 'God', and the most probable not-a-god is no god.

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.

---

Then, (probably when we are a still a mortal species, having not yet solved ageing…) we BECOME GODS, however NOT the OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT God specified in religion.

In other words "we become gods" to the same degree that my fully determined motives and choices are "free". And in the same way that if my SoundCloud with my music is still there after my death I "live on" and am "immortal".

Or that divisible objects with smaller parts are "atoms". Or that the universe came from "nothing".

In other words... not really.

Are you theistic?

for theists tend to reference silly anecdotes.

---

PGJ, do you have some infirmities that you would like to discuss? Your behavior here is somewhat amiss.

It is ironic, that I have solely utilized globally observable, non nonsense statistics.

I have expressed not any faith, opinion nor belief amidst my posts.

Therein, the folly is but not of my accord.