{{{THIS IS READABLE IN FOUR MINUTES}}}
{{{CLICK image to automatically ENLARGE it}}}
.
.
.
(http://i.imgur.com/vNvaWxL.png)
.
.
.
Alternatively, see video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SasizIMHKOI
Original article:
https://medium.com/@uni.omniscient.x/god-is-probably-quite-real-a466e9f24a0b#.e7t3se5be
Author:
[Source Code] Naive Approximation/Basis of God:
.
.
.
.
.
.
**INTRIGUING NOTE**
('A')
I had tweeted to Sam Harris (an atheist neuroscientist), notifying him of my ATHEISTIC nature, WHILST stipulating of his closed mindedness (I had used expletives) - in NOT recognizing the likely hood of non-omniscient Gods, (on scientific observation).
A few weeks after said tweet, Sam conceded of the serious possibility, that mankind shall likely compose a type of 'God' in this video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nt3edWLgIg&nohtml5=False
SEE video section "14:08".
('B')
I have not any certainty, whether I had influenced his video, but I had tweeted him the article stipulated in the original post.
Here is the article once more:
https://medium.com/@uni.omniscient.x/god-is-probably-quite-real-a466e9f24a0b#.gew83ll3i
('C')
Albeit, not all beings are as reasonable as Sam Harris, or other scientists, which is quite disappointing.
('D')
Albeit, it is quite likely, that Gods are on the horizon: http://god-is-coming.appspot.com/
Links edited out by PickelledEggs
Too many words and videos, dude!
I have my right hand (working with my left hand) typing this. This is impossible in nature, it is a miracle of intention and execution. Atoms can't do that, they just bump around semi-randomly. No semi-random pattern is equal to my right hand typing this ... even if letters appeared, they would be in semi-random order like this ... dieuduejsu.
Quote from: Baruch on November 20, 2016, 11:13:40 PM
Too many words and videos, dude!
I have my right hand (working with my left hand) typing this. This is impossible in nature, it is a miracle of intention and execution. Atoms can't do that, they just bump around semi-randomly. No semi-random pattern is equal to my right hand typing this ... even if letters appeared, they would be in semi-random order like this ... dieuduejsu.
Well the first four letters in dieuduejsu spell god in French. It couldn't have been semi-random; a god had a hand in it unless the second part was random in which case it was semi-random.
So you've found scientific evidence of gods by redefining what a god is?
I guess I am a god if a god is someone that plays The Sims.
Quote from: Jason78 on November 21, 2016, 04:35:52 AM
So you've found scientific evidence of gods by redefining what a god is?
I guess I am a god if a god is someone that plays The Sims.
According to the geniuses on the W Coast ... we are Sims ... and they plan on doing a Ctrl-Alt-Del on reality.
Quote from: sasuke on November 21, 2016, 03:38:47 AM
Well the first four letters in dieuduejsu spell god in French. It couldn't have been semi-random; a god had a hand in it unless the second part was random in which case it was semi-random.
Correct! Any random text contains hidden messages (hence Bible Code). But this is coincidence only. What I am saying, and you are responding, is way too intellectual for most folks. In The Imitation Game (in the real world) they had ways of semi-empirically determining, thru Baysian statistics, what about a string of German communication was random and what was pseudo-random ... the signal to noise ratio was decreased by their methods ... so they had a better chance of knowing what was being communicated. The message of humans ... is deterministic (willful) but the true random is non-deterministic. Every text communication ... if you don't know the language, is an exercise in cryptanalysis. Just because we learned to read as children, in our native language ... we don't realize what our brains do every day. And in spite of Google Translate ... is still takes a human brain to understand what is correct or incorrect in the output of Google Translate ... and what the final human corrected version means.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/038/094/0a1.jpg)
It's fairly possible we'll eventually see (not us we'll be long dead) god-like entities in the future but that still refers to "god-like" as in like the gods in the ancient myths. Those are still myths, and by the way non of this was "scientific".
oy vey
Quote from: Absurd Atheist on November 21, 2016, 04:40:25 PM
It's fairly possible we'll eventually see (not us we'll be long dead) god-like entities in the future but that still refers to "god-like" as in like the gods in the ancient myths. Those are still myths, and by the way non of this was "scientific".
(A)AN ERROR OF YOURS, persists such that you IGNORE scientifically OBSERVED/OBSERVABLE sequences, perhaps on emotional bias.
SOLELY, I have but stipulated scientifically OBSERVED/OBSERVABLE sequences, of FACTS/PROBABILITIES,
ABSENT opinion/faith/emotional bias.
(B.i)FACTS:
+ Mankind has already composed brain based models that exceed human performance in individual, cognitive tasks\task groups.
+ Brain based models have enhanced/entered more cognitive fields, as computational parallelism/more computational bits per second enhanced.
+ Brain based models already compute 10^14 synaptic operations per second, (of the estimated total, 10^+16).
+ Computing power has doubled yearly, for 50 years.
(B.ii)PROBABILITIES:
Brain based models shall likely approximate the human neuronal cycle, 10^+16 synaptic operations per second, by 2020. (Moore's Law)
At this juncture, brain based models shall likely (as observed in FACTS prior) enter all human cognitive fields, at minimum, by 2020.
(C)RATHER than 'god-like', such entities shall be entirely entitled 'God'. (on the horizon of scientifically observed/observable sequences)
Whence theistic God characteristics are REDUCED amidst scientific observation, A PARTICULAR PROPERTY sequence is likely EVIDENT amidst mankind; non-omniscient mankind shall likely possess the ability to generate non trivial intelligence. [Separate theistic God characteristics ~ omniscience, omnipotence etc SHAN'T likely obtain, on the horizon of said scientific observation]
In
simpler expression,
mankind partially satisfies the theistic definition qua God,
particularly possessing the ability to likely generate non trivial intelligence.
However, mankind, of non-omniscient, non-omnipotent quality, predominantly disregards the theistic God definition.Thusly, the
theistic traditional God definition is likely quite wrong, or rather very
minutely accurate;
God is thereafter, NATURALLY ACCURATELY any likely NON-OMNISCIENT, NON-OMNIPOTENT entity with the ability to generate non trivial intelligence, as seen in the likelihood of mankind's (of non-omniscient, non-omnipotent quality) said ability.
Quote from: Jason78 on November 21, 2016, 04:35:52 AM
So you've found scientific evidence of gods by redefining what a god is?
I guess I am a god if a god is someone that plays The Sims.
(A)Incorrect. You fail to recognize that I have not any ownership of said scientifically observed/observable sequences; for it is not I that has redefined God, but rather, God is naturally properly definable on the horizon of said scientific sequence.
(B)Mankind partially satisfies the theistic definition qua God,
particularly possessing the ability to likely generate non trivial intelligence.[/size
Therein, the theistic God definition simply likely fails to entirely obtain, on the boundary of said scientific sequence; whence mankind (of non-omniscient, non-omnipotent quality) partially satisfies the theistic definition qua God, particularly possessing the ability to likely generate non trivial intelligence.
However, mankind, of non-omniscient, non-omnipotent quality, predominantly disregards the theistic God definition.
Thusly, the theistic traditional God definition is likely quite wrong, or rather very minutely accurate; God is thereafter, NATURALLY ACCURATELY any likely NON-OMNISCIENT, NON-OMNIPOTENT entity with the ability to generate non trivial intelligence, as seen in the likelihood of mankind's (of non-omniscient, non-omnipotent quality) said ability.
so....tl:dr......man is just as much as god as we have achieved the ability to match the intellect and power of the imaginary god that never existed.....pretty much what many humans have suggested for millenia.
I agree that omnipotence and omniscience are red herrings ... but are OK if you happen to be a god worshipping herring ;-)
Quote from: aitm on November 21, 2016, 09:34:00 PM
so....tl:dr......man is just as much as god as we have achieved the ability to match the intellect and power of the imaginary god that never existed.....pretty much what many humans have suggested for millenia.
Summary:
[A]We shall likely become non-omniscient Gods, forging more powerful, albeit non-omniscient brain based artificial intelligence aligned Gods.
['B']On Moore's law, by 2020, non-human machines will likely be able to approximate human level brain cycles (10^15 flops).
Therein, human intellect is shown to be 'creatable':
Today, brain based models already equal/exceed human intellect, in task/task groups ranging from language translation to disease diagnosis. (And likely all tasks by 2020)
https://medium.com/@uni.omniscient.x/god-is-probably-quite-real-a466e9f24a0b#.efngp2v9d
Quote from: Baruch on November 21, 2016, 09:34:53 PM
I agree that omnipotence and omniscience are red herrings ... but are OK if you happen to be a god worshipping herring ;-)
Worship is of negative value:Here are some quick FACTS to think about:
1) It is a FACT is that the HAPPIEST PLACES in the world have the LEAST RELIGION.
2) It is a FACT that the places with the LEAST CRIME have the LEAST RELIGION.
3) It is a FACT that the WEALTHIEST nations have the LEAST RELIGION. [Eg: Singapore no religion=18%, Niger no religion=0-0.3%]
4) It is a FACT that the MOST EDUCATED people are the LEAST RELIGIOUS.
Evidence[1] - HAPPIEST PLACES...:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/03/report-worlds-happiest-countries-are-also-least-religious/
Evidence[2] - LEAST CRIME...:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2010/06/global-peace-index-shows-least-religious-countries-far-more-at-peace-than-the-most/
Evidence[3] - WEALTHIEST nations...:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/12/how-do-americans-stand-out-from-the-rest-of-the-world/ft_15-03-10_religiousgdpscatter/
Evidence[4] - MOST EDUCATED...:
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/01/why-are-educated-people-more-likely-to-be-atheists/
Quote from: CodeGodJordan on November 21, 2016, 09:46:34 PM
Worship is of negative value:
Here are some quick FACTS to think about:
1) It is a FACT is that the HAPPIEST PLACES in the world have the LEAST RELIGION.
2) It is a FACT that the places with the LEAST CRIME have the LEAST RELIGION.
3) It is a FACT that the WEALTHIEST nations have the LEAST RELIGION. [Eg: Singapore no religion=18%, Niger no religion=0-0.3%]
Cherry-picking data is not always valid. But I suspect you are probably right in general.
4) It is a FACT that the MOST EDUCATED people are the LEAST RELIGIOUS.
Evidence[1] - HAPPIEST PLACES...:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/03/report-worlds-happiest-countries-are-also-least-religious/
Evidence[2] - LEAST CRIME...:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2010/06/global-peace-index-shows-least-religious-countries-far-more-at-peace-than-the-most/
Evidence[3] - WEALTHIEST nations...:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/12/how-do-americans-stand-out-from-the-rest-of-the-world/ft_15-03-10_religiousgdpscatter/
Evidence[4] - MOST EDUCATED...:
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/01/why-are-educated-people-more-likely-to-be-atheists/
(http://static1.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/This+makes+me+uncomfortable+_eae69f194f0ebb0026a2e7b57bdaef18.jpg)
I can't even.
Quote from: CodeGodJordan on November 21, 2016, 09:02:15 PM
[spoiler](A)
AN ERROR OF YOURS, persists such that you IGNORE scientifically OBSERVED/OBSERVABLE sequences, perhaps on emotional bias.
SOLELY, I have but stipulated scientifically OBSERVED/OBSERVABLE sequences, of FACTS/PROBABILITIES, ABSENT opinion/faith/emotional bias.
(B.i)
FACTS:
+ Mankind has already composed brain based models that exceed human performance in individual, cognitive tasks\task groups.
+ Brain based models have enhanced/entered more cognitive fields, as computational parallelism/more computational bits per second enhanced.
+ Brain based models already compute 10^14 synaptic operations per second, (of the estimated total, 10^+16).
+ Computing power has doubled yearly, for 50 years.
(B.ii)
PROBABILITIES:
Brain based models shall likely approximate the human neuronal cycle, 10^+16 synaptic operations per second, by 2020. (Moore's Law)
At this juncture, brain based models shall likely (as observed in FACTS prior) enter all human cognitive fields, at minimum, by 2020.
(C)
RATHER than 'god-like', such entities shall be entirely entitled 'God'. (on the horizon of scientifically observed/observable sequences)
Whence theistic God characteristics are REDUCED amidst scientific observation, A PARTICULAR PROPERTY sequence is likely EVIDENT amidst mankind; non-omniscient mankind shall likely possess the ability to generate non trivial intelligence. [Separate theistic God characteristics ~ omniscience, omnipotence etc SHAN'T likely obtain, on the horizon of said scientific observation]
In simpler expression, mankind partially satisfies the theistic definition qua God, particularly possessing the ability to likely generate non trivial intelligence.
However, mankind, of non-omniscient, non-omnipotent quality, predominantly disregards the theistic God definition.
Thusly, the theistic traditional God definition is likely quite wrong, or rather very minutely accurate; God is thereafter, NATURALLY ACCURATELY any likely NON-OMNISCIENT, NON-OMNIPOTENT entity with the ability to generate non trivial intelligence, as seen in the likelihood of mankind's (of non-omniscient, non-omnipotent quality) said ability.[/spoiler]
You smell reminiscent of Mozartlink. Did you happen to step in a pile of his shit on your way in?
Quote from: Cavebear on November 21, 2016, 10:19:18 PM
Cherry-picking data is not always valid. But I suspect you are probably right in general.
('A')Selective data analysis/presentation, is
of emotionally biased descent.I
avoid such activities.
Herein, generally, one finds (
on non-selective analysis) that religion is predominantly
negative ).
('B')It is pertinent that your perception is not perturbed
(such that you conceptualize of non-existent, selective behaviour of mine) by the single Singapore bound example enlisted prior. There are hundreds of examples (whence there exists hundreds of countries wholly) that express the same degree, as expressed in the singly expressed sample prior.
:popcorn:
I'm not a mod and I am not going to tell you what to do.
However I Will give you one piece of advice: chill, and take it slow.
Barging in with big and strangely formed Posts is not going to get you much positive attention around here.
well if somebody get around to makin this god-computer, I guess we can ask it where the hell god is. If we give it some wheels, maybe we can ask it to take us to where god is.
Quote from: fencerider on January 22, 2017, 10:41:00 PM
well if somebody get around to makin this god-computer, I guess we can ask it where the hell god is. If we give it some wheels, maybe we can ask it to take us to where god is.
Computer science problem ... the bootstrap. I can pull myself into the sky, by pulling upward on my own bootstraps. I can do that, for another person, if they aren't too heavy (a kid). Can't do it for myself. So myself, and the other, are not symmetrical.
So basically you are asking, for a powerful computer to contemplate its own navel ... and that produces a non-halting condition, a broken "do" loop. That is one way to sabotage the Internet Of Everything (IoE) ;-)
So did anyone actually wade through the OP to see what the hell he was talking about? I did not. The title didn't make sense. If I thought there was scientific evidence of God I would, by definition, no longer be an atheist. So I assume, with the banning and all, it was just some dumbass.
Quote from: widdershins on January 24, 2017, 11:07:25 AM
So did anyone actually wade through the OP to see what the hell he was talking about? I did not. The title didn't make sense. If I thought there was scientific evidence of God I would, by definition, no longer be an atheist. So I assume, with the banning and all, it was just some dumbass.
Nope. I tried, but it's just a long string of text diarrhea. I think some posts were deleted too.
Quote from: widdershins on January 24, 2017, 11:07:25 AM
So did anyone actually wade through the OP to see what the hell he was talking about? I did not. The title didn't make sense. If I thought there was scientific evidence of God I would, by definition, no longer be an atheist. So I assume, with the banning and all, it was just some dumbass.
Too much like the great and terrible Oz! Didn't even get one like from even me.
Deities are perfect.
Mammals have perfect fur.
Whales are mammals.
Shave the whales...
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 09:18:33 AM
Deities are perfect.
Mammals have perfect fur.
Whales are mammals.
Shave the whales...
I dunno. There may be a non Sequitur in that.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 09:18:33 AM
Deities are perfect.
Mammals have perfect fur.
Whales are mammals.
Shave the whales...
I can refute the first two premises.
You used the plural "gods". Unless all gods are equally perfect then one is more perfect than another. This is not possible since there is nothing better than perfect. A perfect being would by necessity be one-of-a-kind (<<this is the part where I start arbitrarily making shit up). Therefore gods cannot be perfect.
And the for second premise I have just three words. Whale pattern baldness.
Quote from: SGOS on January 31, 2017, 09:26:48 AM
I dunno. There may be a non Sequitur in that.
Hmmm..........I don't see it. Or do you mean the comics?
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 31, 2017, 09:39:05 AM
Hmmm..........I don't see it. Or do you mean the comics?
Nothing follows. It has the appearance of a syllogism that is going somewhere, except none of the parts have a connection to each other. Nothing follows, least of all, the conclusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic))
Quote"Often, in fact, 'non sequitur' is used when an irrelevancy is showing up in the conclusion."
Quote from: SGOS on January 31, 2017, 11:27:43 AM
Nothing follows. It has the appearance of a syllogism that is going somewhere, except none of the parts have a connection to each other. Nothing follows, least of all, the conclusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic))
Actually, I prefer the comics. Since the Far Side and Calvin wend down, I rely on Non Sequitur for my chuckles.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 31, 2017, 12:44:55 PM
Actually, I prefer the comics. Since the Far Side and Calvin wend down, I rely on Non Sequitur for my chuckles.
I depend on Dilbert mostly. But then I WAS an office type for 35 years...
Quote from: widdershins on January 31, 2017, 09:38:12 AM
I can refute the first two premises.
You used the plural "gods". Unless all gods are equally perfect then one is more perfect than another. This is not possible since there is nothing better than perfect. A perfect being would by necessity be one-of-a-kind (<<this is the part where I start arbitrarily making shit up). Therefore gods cannot be perfect.
And the for second premise I have just three words. Whale pattern baldness.
The 2 perfect deities are clones... In fact, that is how the previous deities made them to keep the pattern. As clones, they are logically only one deity and never argue with themself.
Well, I tried...
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 09:18:33 AMMammals have perfect fur.
A sasquatch also has fur:
A sasquatch with fleas in his fur
Scratched so fast that his hands were a blur
He had hair when he started
But soon it departed
Then it was obvious -
he was a
her.