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

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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. (likely non omniscient, non-omnipotent)

So not a god, just 'god-like' in relation to you.

Simplification:

Tradition (theistic deity definition) contains (on the horizon of scientifically observable probabilities/statistics) non-evident properties (ie: omniscience, omnipotence)

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)

[Edwardo Piet]

Wonderful argument; this is the same thing:

'Bananas' are now defined as humans; therefore, humans are bananas.

Are you theistic?

..for theists tend to reference silly anecdotes. 

That was an analogy, not an anecdote.

It was an analogy to illustrate the fallacy that you were making.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Are you theistic?

..for theists tend to reference silly anecdotes. 

That was an analogy, not an anecdote.

It was an analogy to illustrate the fallacy that you were making.

I have solely stipulated scientifically observable statistics.

Separately, your banana bound commentary classifies appropriately in the anecdotal domain; no-logical comparison occurred.


Definitions:

anecdotal
ˌanɪkˈdəʊtl/
adjective

1. (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
   

analogy

əˈnalədʒi/
noun

1. a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
   "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
   

[Edwardo Piet]

lol

Dude it wasn't an anecdote. It was an analogy. We're saying you're committing the equivocation fallacy.

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).
Albeit in common parlance it is used in a variety of contexts, when discussed as a fallacy, equivocation only occurs when the arguer makes a word or phrase employed in two (or more) different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning throughout.[1][2]
It is therefore distinct from (semantic) ambiguity, which means that the context doesn't make the meaning of the word or phrase clear, and amphiboly (or syntactical ambiguity), which refers to ambiguous sentence structure due to punctuation or syntax.[3]
A common case of equivocation is the fallacious use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time.

Examples

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
In the above example distinct meanings of the word "light" are implied in contexts of the first and second statements.

All jackasses have long ears.
Carl is a jackass.
Therefore, Carl has long ears.

Here the equivocation is the metaphorical use of "jackass" to imply a stupid or obnoxious person instead of a male donkey.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

lol

Dude it wasn't an anecdote. It was an analogy. We're saying you're committing the equivocation fallacy.

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).
Albeit in common parlance it is used in a variety of contexts, when discussed as a fallacy, equivocation only occurs when the arguer makes a word or phrase employed in two (or more) different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning throughout.[1][2]
It is therefore distinct from (semantic) ambiguity, which means that the context doesn't make the meaning of the word or phrase clear, and amphiboly (or syntactical ambiguity), which refers to ambiguous sentence structure due to punctuation or syntax.[3]
A common case of equivocation is the fallacious use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time.

Examples

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
In the above example distinct meanings of the word "light" are implied in contexts of the first and second statements.

All jackasses have long ears.
Carl is a jackass.
Therefore, Carl has long ears.

Here the equivocation is the metaphorical use of "jackass" to imply a stupid or obnoxious person instead of a male donkey.

Your banana aligned commentary is unavoidably of anecdotal decent, for your commentary lacks logical comparison.

Separately, I need not commit, for I have simply stipulated scientifically observable statistics. (See note atop original post, encompassing the absence of faith|opinion|belief, amidst my stipulations)

[Edwardo Piet]

I addressed that. It's an analogy not an anecdote.

Redefining "God" doesn't create God.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I addressed that. It's an analogy not an anecdote.

Redefining "God" doesn't create God.

Simplification:

[*A*]
[0] Your banana-bound commentary lacks logical comparison.
[1] Anecdotes lack logical comparison.
...

[*B*]
Mankind satisfies (non-omniscient, non-omnipotent entity approaching the ability to generate non trivial intelligence that shall likely entirely exceed mankind)  such a scientifically statistically observable definition qua God.



NOTE [1]: Brain based models have already equaled/exceeded mankind in tasks/task groups, ranging from language translation to disease diagnosis. 

NOTE [2]: Such redefinition (reduction rather) occurs on the horizon of scientifically statistically observable statistics, absent opinion/emotion/faith/bias/belief.

[Edwardo Piet]

How is that relevant to what I said?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

How is that relevant to what I said?

Therein, mankind is likely God-aligned, on the horizon of scientifically statistically observable sequences.

Redefining "God" doesn't create God.

Thereafter, your prior commentary is quite wrong, for such a redefinition/reduction particularly likely classifies mankind in the God-bound, regime, as described in the original post.



Herein, such a reduction identifies (rather than creates) God's likely existence.

[chimp3]

No amount of graphic embellishment is going to offset your weak ideas, ProgrammingDudeJordan!