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

[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)

[The Grand Nudger]

Obviously you're not going to fix this mess.  Some things just won't accept help when it's offered. Carry on.

/shrugs

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Obviously you're not going to fix this mess.  Some things just won't accept help when it's offered.  Carry on.

/shrugs

Here is a listing of your failures:


[0] 
You fail to observe that the aforesaid statistics, persist on the boundary of theism's prominently described Gods.

Prominent Theistically Described Gods:
[0.a] Christianity - consisting of aforesaid [creator]  property.
[0.b] Islam - consisting of aforesaid [creator] property.
[0.c] Hinduism - consisting of aforesaid [creator]  property.


[1]
You fail to observe that such prominently described Gods, are thereafter theism's most profound distribution.

As an initial reference, observe the selection rule, en quantum mechanics.

Therein, aforesaid statistics persist as such.

[Mudhammam]

Your gibberish is really colorful, but not in a good way.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Your gibberish is really colorful, but not in a good way.

Such pabulum, is solely statistically observable sequences...

[The Grand Nudger]

Here is a listing of your failures:

snipped, because LOL.

Thanks for the list, you're so very good at lists, you have the best lists, no ones lists are better than your lists.  This isn't an opinion.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Here is a listing of your failures:

snipped, because LOL.

Thanks for the list, you're so very good at lists, you have the best lists, no ones lists are better than your lists.  This isn't an opinion.

Incorrect.


Said listing is rather trivial.

One need simply halt emotional bias, such that the aforesaid probabilities shall subsume.

[ApeNotKillApe]

[purplepurpose]

On topic of God you can only speculate, as atheists here like to point out. If you like particular theory it doesnt make it necessarily true.

ProgrammingGod, you might be just bag of chemicals, which laso happen to have counsciousness.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

On topic of God you can only speculate, as atheists here like to point out. If you like particular theory it doesnt make it necessarily true.

ProgrammingGod, you might be just bag of chemicals, which laso happen to have counsciousness.

I need not speculate.


Prominent Statistical Evidence:


Non-omniscient Gods/non trivial creators|creations (human-exceeding brain based models) are likely on the horizon of Moore's Law..., at 2020's boundary....

Such shall likely occur, absent human extinction....