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

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

NOTE [1]: No opinion, faith, emotion, nor bias was used in this thread.

Oh ye of little faith......

WARNING: Some statistics/words occur in UPPER CASE FORM or various colours, because reading all lower case/uniform colour is simply quite tiresome.

Reading this in an explosion of fonts and colors only makes reading it more tiresome.

God is PROBABLY quite real. (however, not the omniscient, all powerful kind seen in religion)

You're simply redefining the word god here.

[0]
I need not redefine God, for on observable statistics, a particular theistic bound-property is evident; the ability to generate non trivial intelligence. Mankind thereafter satisfies such a property.

We are simulating more and more detailed universes (Example 'illustris') as computing power increases, and creating more and more sophisticated artificial intelligence.

If this computing increase doesn’t end (ie we aren’t all wiped out) our simulations will eventually get detailed enough to contain INTELLIGENCE or create  artificial intelligence. that exceeds humans on all tasks (God-like software).

Perhaps, or perhaps we will need to fully understand animal intelligence in order to create human level intelligence and we never actually reach that point.  We could also fail to achieve such goals do to currently unknown technological limitations or political failures of the will.  Unknowns are unknown.

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.

We become gods only in the figurative sense of the word, not the literal.

[1]

Nonsense. See [0].

In the same way, it is likely that THE VERY UNIVERSE WE OCCUPY may have come about, and thus likewise, God (it’s creator(s)) is non-omnipotent, non-infinite etc.

This is pure speculation.  What's that you said about your post containing no opinion?

[2]

See Jeremy England's work via 'Dissipative Adaptation'.
[2.a] Such work shows that matter shall likely attribute life-like properties.
[2.b] See James Gates' Adinkra Postulation [and by extension digital phyiscs]
[and or 2.c] See Simulation hypothesis.

PROBABLE NON-OMNISCIENT GODS


**(1)** Man-made 'General Artificial intelligence' (The brain based software we invent [that shall exceed humans in all tasks, not merely individual tasks as they do now]). [Eg Google Deepmind's atari q or alpha go]

Neither of Deepmind's projects can be said to approach general intelligence in any meaningful sense.  Saying that it's likely we will create superhuman intelligence based upon such examples is just pie in the sky speculation.  We don't know what obstacles, human or intellectual, might face the creation of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence).  It's possible that intelligence doesn't scale linearly and so novel intelligence architectures are required to advance beyond the human level.  You don't know.  This is more speculation.

[3]

Nonsense. 
[3.a] Alpha Go is quite significant, as such approximates a regime, that garners profound neuronal sample space reduction capability; beyond human scope. (where Go's possibilities exceed the number of atoms in the known universe.)
It appears you are quite ignorant regarding alpha go's impact.

[3.b] On Moore's Law, at 2020's horizon, brain based hardware shall likely approximate the HUMAN NEURONAL COMPUTATION CYCLE, 10^15 FLOPS. By Extension, see [7] and [8].

**(2)** Intelligence that EVOLVES in our own simulations to become God-like (ie they create universes, or ‘general artificial intelligence’-like programs).

This assumes we can program a self evolving simulation with the right end results.  That's far from a given.  We don't remotely understand how to create general intelligence, much less evolve it.

[4]

Nonsense. See [3].

**(3)** The non-omnipotent, non-infinite Gods (human like?) that created our universe stemming from the same way that we simulate more and more detailed universes via **(4)** — constrained paths. (eg illustris)

illustrus is a toy compared to the amounts of data that a real simulation of even a trivial universe would require.  The failures along this path may take the form of political and financial obstacles, but they are none the less real for their being so.

[5]

Nonsense. 
Indeed. Keenly observe Moore's Law. Such models are but only ENHANCING.

**(4)** Mankind; for mankind shall perhaps promptly possess God bound capabilities, via **(1)** and **(2)**.

Are you simply repeating yourself here?

[6]

Nonsense. 
['i']Isolated-Ai-models, [ii] Simulation-bound-Ai, [iii] This universe's creator(s) [iv] Mankind.

SCIENTIFIC-STATISTICS PAR PROBABLE NON-OMNISCIENT GODS


In SUMMARY, probabilistically, the ability to generate artificial intelligence, that surpasses the net intellect of one’s species, AND OR compute simulation of universes (with intellect resembling prior), IS THAT WHICH classifies said species as God-bound.

If you mean this figuratively, well then, so what?  And as noted, there may be difficulties that you simply haven't accounted for in your 'probabilities'.  I notice a lot of talk of probability, but no actual numbers.  Why do you think that is?

[7]

Nonsense. See [0] and [3]. Such difficulties are entailed in the Von Neumannian regime. There are already non-von neumanian paradigms, that begin to reduce such problems. See IBM synapse, and or IBM Phase change device.

INTRODUCTION [A-B]:

['A'] What data purports that SUPER-human ARTIFICIAL INTELLECT [Seen in **(1)** prior] is possible?
The human brain operates at roughly 10¹⁵ floating point operations per second.

Human like intelligence consists of more than raw processing speed.  You can't predict the achievement of Artificial General Intelligence solely on the basis of information processing power.

[8]

Nonsense. Deep Neural Modelings, enhance as parallelism enhances.

NON-TRIVIALLY ACCESSIBLE super-computing platforms already exist, such that this operation cycle is attained.
TRIVIALLY ACCESSIBLE resources shall exist at 2020’s horizon, in tandem with KURZWEIL’S LAW OF ACCELERATING RETURNS, (and perhaps MOORE’S LAW/modern Moore’s law variants).

Kurzweil's so-called law is nothing but speculation.  And predicting that Moore's law will continue to hold is nothing but a groundless assertion.  You don't know that either of these principles are valid for the long haul.  And forecasting that it will occur by 2030 is just crazy stupid.  I've been in the business long enough to know that computer business cycles will likely dictate a longer horizon.

[9]

Nonsense. One shall trivially observe [unless brain damaged] that there has occurred, technological exponential transition, for 50 years. Kurzweil's graphs unavoidably entail such a complexity.

['B'] What data purports that SIMULATIONS [Seen in **(2)** prior] ARE possible?

Our universe is at least linear scale [Dirac], AND at most exponential order [inflation].
Therein, a simulation of such shall require an exponential order capable machine.
Exponential order capable machines exist today. 
These are called quantum computers. (See Dwave)
These quantum computers, though superior, are not yet sufficient to encode detailed universes (that contain intelligence).
However, VIA non-exponential machines (super-computers), THERE EXISTS QUITE DETAILED simulations of our universe. (see illustris)

Dwave is a toy at best, and according to experts, far from being a practical solution.  Exponential in the abstract, MAYBE, but not in the concrete.  And illustris is not "quite detailed" in the relevant sense; in that sense, it's a toy as well.

[10]

Nonsense.
[10.a] Dwave machine has reduced quite profound problems. [ie protein folding]
[10.b] Such problems require the accumulation of all non-quantum computing machines, whence [8.a] is perhaps reducible.

CONCLUSION [C-D]:

Artificial intelligence, together with quantum computers, are enhancing in concurrence with measures such as KURZWEIL’S LAW OF ACCELERATING RETURNS.

Particularly, from these MEASURES, super-human Ai is PERHAPS INEVITABLE, and such shall therein PROBABLY occur within the scope-of 20-40 years. (See Nick Bostrom's super intelligence)

Naive prediction is naive.  As noted, Kurzweil is mere opinion, not well supported by the facts.
[11]

Nonsense. It is rather ironic; Kurzweil predicted the internet, the very construct you have utilized to scribe your silly commentaries. See [9].

At this juncture, mankind shall maintain non-omniscience/non-omnipotence (Ageing yet solved, Energy issues persist et cetera).

[C] What data purports that SIMULATIONS [Seen in **(4)** prior] ARE possible?

Thereafter, man becomes non-omniscient, non-omnipotent Gods, having created super-human artificial intelligence, therein **(4)** is probable.

We don't yet know if its possible (see scaling problem), much less "probable."

[12]

Nonsense. See [5].

[D] What data purports that SIMULATIONS [Seen in **(3)** prior] ARE possible?

SEPARATELY, physicist James Gates’ adinkra postulation, (AND or the simulation hypothesis) shows that our universe, possesses
simulatory features, thereafter our universe may be simulatory.

The jury is still out on the simulation hypothesis, and likely to remain so for some time.  Again, you're engaged in groundless speculation.

[12]

Nonsense. See [2].

If our universe is indeed simulatory, in the same way [C] is probable, our creators are probable, and thereafter probably non-omniscient/non-omnipotent in the like.

This depends on superhuman AGI being achievable, which, while possible, is hardly a foregone conclusion.

[13]

Nonsense. The human intellect (that consists of non-special matter) is proof of general intelligence. Furthermore, See [3.b] and [7].


Besides, as noted, we may destroy ourselves through a man-made disaster long before any of these hypothesized events becomes a reality.  In that case, your probable becomes a question of which is more probable.  Given humanity's anemic response to the challenge of global warming, there's a high likelihood that we won't be around long enough for any of these hypotheticals comes to fruition..

[14]

Nonsense. Keenly observe the usage of 'likely', amidst stipulations of mine. By extension, see original post, whence the likelihood of erasure had long been mentioned.


CONCLUSION:
You have but failed to express a single valid response. Such a profound failure exists on the boundary of IGNORANCE.