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

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Bestow or don' t ! My statement stands. All you are doing is embellishing human activities with comic book jargon and begging people to find your words amazing.

Facing, are your failures:

[0] You fail to recognize, that said stipulations are but non-opinionated. [Such occur on globally scientifically observable statistics]

[1] You persistently invoke anecdotal nonsense. [ie illogical comic book references]

Are you thereafter of theistic descent?



Perhaps it is exigent that you fulfill the facing exercise:

Identify ONE opinionated sequence of mine.

---

Man in 2016 BCE: IT'S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN.

Man in 2016 CE: IT'S SIMULATIONS ALL THE WAY DOWN.

Albeit:

The universe simulation hypothesis (particularly relating to our universe) is the least relevant scenario mentioned. (As seen in solely ONE god-tier, #3, original post)

Primarily, A God bound entity likely has the ability to create non-trivial intelligence  (The most complex constructs in the known universe - human level, and likely beyond)

Thereafter, on Moore's Law etc, we are likely on the horizon of creating such non-trivial intelligence.  

(NOTE: Brain based models already exceed/equal humans on non trivial cognitive tasks, ranging from language translation to disease diagnosis)

---

This is the trouble with the field of AI, it suffers the same problem as Quantum Mechanics today, or nuclear physics 80 years ago. Because there are currently way more questions than answers it allows any crackpot to come in and insert their god into the gap. It gives them the means to give scientific sounding names to the magic they need for their fantasy beliefs. When scientists start making some form of progress and the theory gets too complicated for the average person to even contemplate pretending they understand, the fantasists move onto something. This thread is a perfect example of it.

Nonsense.
It is likely [On Moore's Law], rather, that mankind shall perhaps promptly generate general artificial intelligence [particularly non-trivial brain-bound hardware, at the human neuronal capacity 10^15 flops].

Thereafter, your commentary is quite worthless.





Observations:




[0] Moore's Law is a half-century long, observed phenomenon.

[1] Brain based models, this day, exceed/equal human performance in non trivial, cognitive tasks.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Well I'm giving up talking about AI on this forum because it's clear to me that many if not most people aren't actually interested in AI as a field but as a way to fantasize. And like with religion, people only figure out what they need in order to argue why they should hold onto their personal fantasies.

It's like using physics to explain to someone why Santa Claus can't exist. No matter what you say, the child just won't want to accept it. So why bother? Let them believe their magic otherwise they'll hate you for it and all you'll get in response will be ad-hominems.

Just because you've given up a belief in a god doesn't mean that you are a critical thinker.

[The Grand Nudger]

This one's braindead, lol.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Well I'm giving up talking about AI on this forum because it's clear to me that many if not most people aren't actually interested in AI as a field but as a way to fantasize. And like with religion, people only figure out what they need in order to argue why they should hold onto their personal fantasies.

It's like using physics to explain to someone why Santa Claus can't exist. No matter what you say, the child just won't want to accept it.  So why bother? Let them believe their magic otherwise they'll hate you for it and all you'll get in response will be ad-hominems.

Just because you've given up a belief in a god doesn't mean that you are a critical thinker.

[*A*]
You needn't submit.
You need simply observe said statistics.
Said statistics, are albeit, not of my invention.

[*B*]
I have not any belief , and thereafter, I have not any belief in God or gods.

Perhaps it is exigent that you fulfill the facing exercise:

Identify ONE opinionated sequence of mine. (Amidst the original post, or otherwise)

---

This one's braindead, lol.

brain death
noun

1. irreversible brain damage causing the end of independent respiration, regarded as indicative of death.
   

Query:
Are you of theistic descent? 
..for theists predominantly reference nonsensical anecdotes/worthless scriptures...

[I_am_not_mafia]

Well I'm giving up talking about AI on this forum because it's clear to me that many if not most people aren't actually interested in AI as a field but as a way to fantasize. And like with religion, people only figure out what they need in order to argue why they should hold onto their personal fantasies.

It's like using physics to explain to someone why Santa Claus can't exist. No matter what you say, the child just won't want to accept it.  So why bother? Let them believe their magic otherwise they'll hate you for it and all you'll get in response will be ad-hominems.

Just because you've given up a belief in a god doesn't mean that you are a critical thinker.

[*A*]
You needn't submit.
You need simply observe said statistics.
Said statistics, are albeit, not of my invention.

[*B*]
I have not any belief , and thereafter, I have not any belief in God or gods.

Perhaps it is exigent that you fulfill the facing exercise:

Identify ONE opinionated sequence of mine. (Amidst the original post, or otherwise)

That's nice dear ...

[Angrboda]

Dear ProgrammingGodJordan, you are the fifth crank in the queue. Your approximate wait time will be 4 minutes 32 seconds.

[brewer]

Well, I see Lite Brite is back. Didn't read a damn word of it. 

Whats up with the over the top flamboyance with font, size and color? Afraid no one will pay attention to you with out it? That your words alone are not enough? Or is there some other insecurity you need to tell us about?

Go stand on a corner with a bull horn. It's about the same effect.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Well, I see Lite Brite is back. Didn't read a damn word of it. 

Whats up with the over the top flamboyance with font, size and color? Afraid no one will pay attention to you with out it? That your words alone are not enough? Or is there some other insecurity you need to tell us about?

Go stand on a corner with a bull horn. It's about the same effect.

Such an endeavour is perhaps futile; for your prior expressions are narrow in nature..

[brewer]

Well, I see Lite Brite is back. Didn't read a damn word of it. 

Whats up with the over the top flamboyance with font, size and color? Afraid no one will pay attention to you with out it? That your words alone are not enough? Or is there some other insecurity you need to tell us about?

Go stand on a corner with a bull horn. It's about the same effect.

Such an endeavour is perhaps futile; for your prior expressions are narrow in nature..

Yep, that's what I'm trying to get across to you. Your text manipulations are futile. They mean nothing, except to demonstrate a vain attempt to draw attention to yourself. That is why I don't read them. 

What do you call (think of) individuals that go out of their way to draw attention to themselves? Do these individuals often have underlying insecurities? Or often over inflate their ego as a cover up?

BTW, nice Deepak.

[chimp3]

Such an endeavour is perhaps futile; for your prior expressions are narrow in nature..

I am imagining your speaking voice as Darth Vader's. It goes with the graphic exaggerations.