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

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

So you observe probable gods but disbelieve that you actually see such things? Makes perfect sense.

Exemplification:

Whether or not one BELIEVES in science is rather irrelevant, for science OBTAINS, regardless of one's decision to select belief in such.

Therein, BELIEF is an irrelevant quantity.

One need NOT belief, such that one OBSERVES PROBABILITIES.

---

Fulfill the facing exercise:

Identify ONE opinionated stipulation of mine.

No. 

I don't do face exercises, other than eat and blink. I used to wiggle my ears but pulled a muscle.

Such is quite the theistic mannerism...

[ApeNotKillApe]

So you observe probable gods but disbelieve that you actually see such things? Makes perfect sense.

Exemplification:

Whether or not one BELIEVES in science is rather irrelevant, for science OBTAINS, regardless of one's decision to select belief in such.

Therein, BELIEF is an irrelevant quantity.

One need NOT belief, such that one OBSERVES PROBABILITIES.

Stop right there. What did I JUST say?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Are you of theistic descent?

Why yes. Because I have redefined "God" to mean "dude who types in far too much large colored text on atheistforums.org".

You needn't redifine God.

A particular theistic god property (as encoded in the original post) is likely amidst mortals. 

Therein, God is therein redifinable as such.

[brewer]

So you observe probable gods but disbelieve that you actually see such things? Makes perfect sense.

Exemplification:

Whether or not one BELIEVES in science is rather irrelevant, for science OBTAINS, regardless of one's decision to select belief in such.

Therein, BELIEF is an irrelevant quantity.

One need NOT belief, such that one OBSERVES PROBABILITIES.

---

No. 

I don't do face exercises, other than eat and blink. I used to wiggle my ears but pulled a muscle.

Such is quite the theistic mannerism...

Ouch.

So, tell me. What is it that you appear to be over compensating for?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Exemplification:

Whether or not one BELIEVES in science is rather irrelevant, for science OBTAINS, regardless of one's decision to select belief in such.

Therein, BELIEF is an irrelevant quantity.

One need NOT belief, such that one OBSERVES PROBABILITIES.

Stop right there. What did I JUST say?

Precisely, you express nonsense.

YOUR FAILURE:
You fail to recognize that one need NOT BELIEF, such that one OBSERVES a sequence's VIABILITY.

[ApeNotKillApe]

One needs not BELIEF in the OBSERVATION of PROBABILITIES.

Specify such a contradiction.

PROBABLY.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Exemplification:

Whether or not one BELIEVES in science is rather irrelevant, for science OBTAINS, regardless of one's decision to select belief in such.

Therein, BELIEF is an irrelevant quantity.

One need NOT belief, such that one OBSERVES PROBABILITIES.

---

Such is quite the theistic mannerism...

Ouch.

So, tell me. What is it that you appear to be over compensating for?

It is rather non fortunate, that I am but non omniscient.

I thereafter, in a hobyyist fashion, research such that artificial human exceeding intelligence is logically hypothesized/encoded...

(See 'THOUGHT CURVATURE')

---

Precisely, you express nonsense.

YOUR FAILURE:
You fail to recognize that one need NOT BELIEF, such that one OBSERVES a sequence's VIABILITY.

PROBABLY.

Your failure is but CERTAIN.

[ApeNotKillApe]

---

PROBABLY.

Your failure is but CERTAIN.

Probability, you imbecile.

[purplepurpose]

ProgrammingGod, still, all you have is only probabilities. Any probability is possible, the question is, which you wanna bet on.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

---

Your failure is but CERTAIN.

Probability, you imbecile.

Rather than LIKELY, it is trivially observable that your failure is but CERTAIN.