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

119 posts / 0 new
Last post
ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (mankind is one likely type)

{{{THIS IS READABLE IN FOUR MINUTES}}}
{{{CLICK image to automatically ENLARGE it}}}

.

.

.

.

.

.

Alternatively, see video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SasizIMHKOI

Original article:
https://medium.com/@uni.omniscient.x/god-is-probably-quite-real-a466e9f2...

Author:
https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan
http://folioverse.appspot.com/

[Source Code] Naive Approximation/Basis of God:
https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/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-a466e9f2...

('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

Attachments

Yes

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Nyarlathotep's picture
ProgrammingGodJordan - The

ProgrammingGodJordan - The human brain operates at roughly 1015 floating point operations per second

Uhhh, I bet that is a made up statistic. I don't think a human is capable of 1 floating point operation per second; maybe one of those idiot savants can do 1 floating point operation per second, but no way can they do 1,000,000,000,000,000 per second.

I patiently await the obligatory accusation that I am a troll for "nit picking a small detail"; I mean, who cares about something being wrong by 15 orders of magnitude!

ProgrammingGodJordan - Our universe is at least linear scale [Dirac], AND at most exponential order [inflation]

Straight up gobbledygook. I can't read any more of this.

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
(A.i)

(A.i)
"BioMed – approximately 10^15 synapses in the human brain".

Ironically, via source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(numbers)
[See 10^15]

(A.ii)
Separate noteworthy ESTIMATE:
"the human brain operates at 1 exaFLOP". [= 10^18 FLOPS]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exascale_computing
http://people.uwplatt.edu/~yangq/csse411/csse411-materials/s13/cs_1/bros...

(B)

(B.i)
"Another motivation comes from some of the immediate properties of the Dirac-Milne Universe due to its LINEAR SCALE FACTOR. "

DIRAC UNIVERSE: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S2010194514602725

(B.ii)
"In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation is a theory of EXPONENTIAL EXPANSION of space in the early universe.".

INFLATION, WIKIPEDIA:
Ironically, via source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

Pitar's picture
But...it's scientific.

But...it's scientific.

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
(A.i)

(A.i)

"BioMed – approximately 10^15 synapses in the human brain".

Via source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(numbers)
[See 10^15]

(A.ii)
Separate noteworthy ESTIMATE:
"the human brain operates at 1 exaFLOP". [= 10^18 FLOPS]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exascale_computing
http://people.uwplatt.edu/~yangq/csse411/csse411-materials/s13/cs_1/bros...

(B)

(B.i)
"Another motivation comes from some of the immediate properties of the Dirac-Milne Universe due to its LINEAR SCALE FACTOR. "

DIRAC UNIVERSE: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S2010194514602725

(B.ii)
"In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation is a theory of EXPONENTIAL EXPANSION of space in the early universe.".

INFLATION, WIKIPEDIA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

watchman's picture
It seems we are only third in

It seems we are only third in line for this.......

https://atheistforums.org/thread-46062.html

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Scientific-evidence-of-Go...

(Not sure if we should be insulted or not...)

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
Separately visited area:
ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
I am not omniscient.

I am not omniscient.
I am not simultaneously aware of all atheist forums.
Thus far, I have visited 6 atheist forums...

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
(A)

('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-a466e9f2...

('C')

Albeit, not all beings are as reasonable as Sam Harris, or other scientists, which is quite disappointing.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ ProgrammingGodJordan

@ ProgrammingGodJordan

Are you trying to say that there most likely is a non-omnipotent god or gods? If that is what you are saying, can you define that god or gods?

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
(A)

(A)
God is already defined amidst the original post.

Albeit, I shall do such once more:

"SCIENTIFIC-STATISTICS PAR PROBABLE NON-OMNISCIENT GODS:"
"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."

(B)

Here is the SAME definition, ORGANIZED such that "God is" commences said definition:

God is any likely non-omniscient, entity with 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).

(C)
I express not any OPINION.
Said phenomena are observable/observed, regardless of my notation of such.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ ProgrammingGodJordan

@ ProgrammingGodJordan

That seems like an awfully diffuse definition to me.

Both the simulation hypothesis and the hypothesis of any form of gods, just adds more questions than it answers.

If we are talking about gods, your definition is almost a definition of what "it" isn't instead of what it is, i.e: Non-omniscient.
Does that mean that Omnipotence is still up for grabs? Omnipresence? Omnibenevolence?
Is it one or many? Invisible, undetectable?

If you don't know what your calculating probability for, how can you calculate it? Seems like grabbing arbitrary numbers from thin air to me...

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
(A)

(A)

The original post (inclusive of scientifically observable/observed sequences) already specifies that one particular property sequence is LIKELY evident in NON OMNISCIENT mankind; thusly THE ABILITY TO GENERATE NON TRIVIAL COGNITIVE INTELLECT, THAT EXCEEDS THE NET INTELLIGENCE OF SAID MANKIND. (Other properties such as omnipotence, are UNLIKELY/UNFOUNDED, on the horizon of said SCIENTIFICALLY OBSERVABLE/OBSERVED EVIDENCE)

(B)

It seems you are ignoring certain sequences.

There already exists efficient, non-cumbersome neurosynaptic chips that yield 10^14 synaptic operations per second. (of the estimated 10^16-18 synaptic operations computed by the human brain)

...

Nyarlathotep's picture
ProgrammingGodJordan - The

ProgrammingGodJordan - The human brain operates at roughly 1015 floating point operations per second

ProgrammingGodJordan - "BioMed – approximately 1015 synapses in the human brain".

Wait, wait wait! Let me get this right. Are you saying that X floating point operations per second is = X synapses per skull? I mean even if you thought 1 synapses = 1 floating point operation (which would already put you in crazy land), what happened to the "per second" part? I told you it was made up.

ProgrammingGodJordan - "the human brain operates at 1 exaFLOP". [= 10^18 FLOPS]

Fake quote is fake. Also using only your brain please divide 54.25626454646 by 0.034565576575656, please give your answer to 16 significant figures; you have 1 second. That is 1 floating point operation. Good luck.

And as far as the "at least linear scale [Dirac], AND at most exponential order [inflation]": the sentence is still gobbledygook; googling up a reference to each part of the phrase can not fix that problem.

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
(A)

(A)
I maintain my initial stipulation, the human brain generates at minimum 10^15 FLOPS.

SEE SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exascale_computing

WIKIPEDIA SENTENCE: "Exascale computing would be considered as a significant achievement in computer engineering, for it is believed to be the order of processing power of the HUMAN BRAIN at neural level (functional might be lower). It is, for instance, the target power of the Human Brain Project."

ALTERNATIVELY, SEE the priorly attached BioMed source.

[NOTE: I had prior stipulated the aforesaid resources. It appears that you had ignored said viable sources. Such is quite the idiotic, theistic behaviour.]

(B)
Simply, time-space complex-wise, at minimum, the universe scales linearly with time.
At most, said universe expands exponentially.
This data is substantiated by the work of physicists, Dirac and Alan Guth.

(C)
Albeit, it is quite likely, that Gods are on the horizon

chimp3's picture
Word of warning: The more

Word of warning: The more rational the argument against PGJordans claims the bigger and brighter the font becomes. Perhaps the limited graphics capabilities of AR will save our eyeballs.I have argued with him elsewhere. My intellect remained unchallenged but my optic nerves were vexed.

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
Sam Harris has emerged,

Sam Harris (an atheist neuroscientist) has emerged, expressing the likelihood of the creation of Ai bound Gods.

I have now detected my ERRORS; for unless one partakes in some profound science (neuroscience, quantum physics etc) it is highly unlikely that one shall recognize the aforesaid likelihoods.

chimp3's picture
I believe we can foresee the

I believe we can foresee the likliehood of musclebound wannebe gods.

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
Such is your error.

Such is your error.
Belief is but irrelevant.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ ProgrammingGodJordan

@ ProgrammingGodJordan

Three questions:

- "Belief is but irrelevant."

Funny you should say so, when it seems very evident that you believe that "God is coming". If not, why would you be posting this? So is your belief about "God is coming" irrelevant?

It also seem strange to me that you specifically call yourself an "atheist" while you simultaneously are more or less chanting "God is coming" to as many people as you can.
Do you not see a conflict in this?

And if your calculations are indeed accurate and it is probable that a non-omniscient god exists, how would that lead to the conclusion "God is coming"?

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
(A)

(A)

I have NOT any belief. God is likely coming, that is, mankind shall likely become non-omniscient Gods, and thereafter forge more powerful, albeit non-omniscient god-like artificial intelligence. (On the HORIZON of SCIENTIFICALLY OBSERVED/observable sequences [See 'B.i' and 'B.ii'], RATHER than CHANTING/OPINION)

.

.

.

(B)

One need not BELIEF/CERTAINTY, such that one recognizes FACTS/PROBABILITIES.

.

.

.

(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)

Recall, that one need not BELIEF/CERTAINTY, such that one recognizes FACTS/PROBABILITIES.
Thusly, it is indubitably regular, that an atheist may recognize probabilities, and thereafter, likelihoods of the existence of Gods..

chefu's picture
Lol I wonder what we need to

Lol I wonder what we need to do to get a change of font style then ;P
Sympathy for vexed nerves!

ThePragmatic's picture
@ ProgrammingGodJordan

@ ProgrammingGodJordan

Thank you for linking to your other attempts at communication.
A quick browse of them and it's quite clear that you lost your marbles and that there is no hope of regaining them.

I will wast no more time, therefore... I cancel all my questions to you, and have no expectations of getting any further answers.

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
(A)

(A)

AN ERROR OF YOURS, persists such that you IGNORE scientifically OBSERVED/OBSERVABLE sequences, perhaps on emotional bias.

.

.

.

Such is quite the IDIOTIC, theistic behaviour.

.

.

.

(B)

REVIEW:

(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/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.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ ProgrammingGodJordan

@ ProgrammingGodJordan

If you're actually talking about ONLY non-supernatural but powerful entities, created by naturally arisen and evolved life, then I would agree that in principle you are right: god/gods are coming.
At least according to your definition of "god".

That raises the question, why would you use such contrived and exaggerated language to try to get your point across?

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
(A)

(A)

I own not any opinion/say on said matter.
Gods are likely on the horizon of scientific observation, absent my notation of such..

(B)

Such is not any definition of mine.
Said definition persists, absent my notation of such, on the boundary of the aforesaid scientific observation.

(C)

One need not agree, as such probabilities occur absent agreement/disagreement/belief/faith/opinion.

Sir Random's picture
I see we have gained ever

I see we have gained ever more theistic warhorses in my absence. Oh dear. This one can't even use language the common person would understand. Perhaps a repeat of the priests of old who kept the bibles locked away from public eye?

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
As priorly described, I am of

As priorly described, I am of course, atheistic. (I have not any beliefs)

Sir Random's picture
Ah! Forgive me. Now that I

Ah! Forgive me. Now that I have re read, I see that I have misinterpreted. Carry on.

Kataclismic's picture
So there's a possibility that

So there's a possibility that an ignorant god exists? Isn't that the same possibility that fairies live in my garden?

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
It seems you have failed to

(A)

It seems you have failed to reduce the passage.

The probabilities described, occur on the horizon of scientifically observed sequences/FACTS:

[a] The traditional God definition includes OMNISCIENCE, OMNIPOTENCE, ..., the ability to generate NON TRIVIAL intelligence/generate universes.

[b] On Moore's Law (or other graphs), MAN SHALL likely build brain based models that entirely exceed man, while having already built models that exceed man on individual cognitive task/task groups. (NON TRIVIAL intelligence)

[c] On Moore's Law (or other graphs), MAN SHALL likely build complex, precise simulations of the cosmos, while having already built sophisticated models, with non-trivial properties, see ILLUSTRIS. (UNIVERSE construction)

[d] Man partially satisfies the traditional God definition, possessing the ability to likely generate non-trivial intelligence, and or generate universes.

[e] The traditional God definition is likely WRONG, for man, is NON-OMNISCIENT, NON-OMNIPOTENT, but yet possesses the ability to generate non-trivial intelligence and or generate universes.

[f] Thusly, God is likely any NON-OMNISCIENT, NON-OMNIPOTENT entity, with the ability to generate universes, and or generate non-trivial intelligence.

.

.

.

(B)

Ergo, the probability of fairies is UNFOUNDED, utilizing the same scientific method used to re-define God/collapse the traditional God definition amidst scientifically observed sequences/FACTS ...

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.