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

119 posts / 0 new

Using just one entry from the crackpot index, that previous post scored a whopping 95 points: "5 points for each word in all capital letters."

Such is the ONLY expression of yours thus far, that encodes some accuracy; my use of capitalization.

Moore's law is actually defunct, although I fail to see what the speed at which electronic technology advances and the existence of a god have in common. It seems to me you are creating sentences with extraneous and even erroneous words in them to confuse your reader in an attempt to prove something.

It appears you have failed to reduce the original passage.

('A')

('A.1')

Kataclismic Stipulation:
Moore's law is actually defunct...

IRONICALLY, Moore's law is but non-defunct, as PARTICULARLY observed via the prior wikipedia source of thine: .

NOTE: You need REVIEW the definition of DEFUNCT.

.

.

('A.2')

SEPARATELY, as expressed amidst the ORIGINAL PASSAGE, there are likely ALTERNATE PARADIGMS of technological enhancement, beyond the scope of Moore's law, that shall engender the likely emergence of the God-bound:

.

.

ALTERNATIVE SAMPLE:

ALTERNATIVE DISCUSSION VIA THE AFORESAID WIKI-PEDIA MOORE'S LAW-BOUND URL:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

('B')

Kataclismic Stipulation:
...although I fail to see what the speed at which electronic technology advances and the existence of a god have in common.

A SIMPLIFICATION, qua probabilities described, that occur on the horizon of scientifically observed sequences/FACTS, faces:

[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/partially accurate, 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')

Kataclismic Stipulation:
It seems to me you are creating sentences with extraneous and even erroneous words in them to confuse your reader in an attempt to prove something.

.

.
('B.1')

Perhaps it is exigent that you stipulate said erroneous items, RATHER than STIPULATING OF THE EXISTENCE OF said items in error.

.

.
('B.2')

The response-sequence of THINE, of ("PROOF") collapses amidst a RATHER profound ERROR of thine; for the initial stipulation OF MINE , consisted NOT OF ANY PROOF, but RATHER acute EVIDENCE, (on the horizon of FACTS) ~ (as observed amidst the title)

The fact that you continually repeat yourself indicates that I am wasting my time. The fact that you think you can answer my question by asserting the exact same sentences which spurred the question in the first place is very confusing. I'll let you sort it out though, I lose interest when no new information arrives. Makes for a one-sided conversation.

Kataclismic Stipulation:

Moore's law IS actually defunct.

Albeit, it is trivially observable, that the prior stipulation of THINE, is but starkly INVALID.

@ ProgrammingGodJordan

Thine red and green arrows are too vague! Thou should consider exaggerating the arrows, thus making them clearly noticeable.

you state "One doesn't need faith to observe probabilities"
True

However you do need a working model to predict outcomes and probabilities.
For example, predictive models are often used to detect crimes and identify suspects, after the crime has taken place
Do you have a working model of god that we can test our predictions on?
(because all the gods we discovered are flawed under scrutiny)

just for you...SCIENCE 101
Understanding and Using The Scientific Method:

The Scientific Method is a process used to design and perform experiments.It helps to minimize experimental errors and bias, and increase confidence in the accuracy of your results. If your experiment isn't designed well, you may not get the correct answer. You may not even get any definitive answer at all!

OBSERVATION is first step, so that you know how you want to go about your research.
HYPOTHESIS is the answer you think you'll find.
PREDICTION is your specific belief: If my hypothesis is true, then I predict we will discover this.
EXPERIMENT is the tool that you invent to answer the question, and
CONCLUSION is the answer that the experiment gives.

('A')

It seems you have failed to reduce the passage.

A SIMPLIFICATION, qua probabilities described, that occur on the horizon of scientifically observed sequences/FACTS, faces:

[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/partially accurate, 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')

I am indeed quite cognizant, of the scientific method (as is utilized amidst the original passage).

As priorly stipulated, the traditional God definition, collapses amidst scientifically observed sequences; as observed via 'A'.

Qua many a millennia, science has but collapsed nonsense, amidst sensible lemma.
.

.

.

.

('C')

SEPARATELY, herein faces distributions (disparate betwixt the scope of that of the original passage) of mine, abound the utilization of the scientific paradigm:

[ii] "A programming language of my own creation": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/CONSCIENCIA

[iii] "A deep residual neural network framework par HEART IRREGULARITY DETECTION": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/EJECTION-FRACTION-IRREGULARITY-DET...

[iv] "A.... n fold orthographic quasicrystal-structured neural network scan behaviour pattern routine": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/MORPHING-SOMATIC-QUASICRYSTAL-NEUR...

[v] "A scratch written, regressive/progressive propagation therein gradient descent aligned model": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/SYNTHETIC-SENTIENCE

[vi] "An error-space complex optimal datum sequence inference mutation schematic": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/FRAGMENTARY-INTEMPERATE-INFERENCE-...

[vii] "Quantum computing experimentation":

[viii] "An operating system interface of my creation":
https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/BRAIN-UNIVERSE-SYNONYMOUS-INTERFACE

[ix] "A soft warping of a quite modicum variation of Newton's calculus":

ProgrammingGodJordan - [ix] "A soft warping of a quite modicum variation of Newton's calculus":

Friends don't let friends smoke crack while using the chain rule! Hey Greensnake, you have got to check out that page!

Friends don't let friends smoke crack while using the chain rule! Hey Greensnake, you have got to check out that page!

I am unable to parse said command.

Albeit, on the boundary of the chain-bound stipulation of yours, it is perhaps pertinent that you observe the facing FACTS:

1) Quintessentially, the chain sequence may subsume trigonometric functions.

2) However, the lemma of mine (as observed amidst the 'Trigonometric Rule Collapser Set'), HAS NOT any persistence, abound the quotidian chain sequence.

ProgrammingGodJordan --> Quintessentially, the chain sequence may subsume trigonometric functions.

A chain sequence is not the chain rule. For the moment let's assume you are not batshit crazy and that this was just a typo (that you made twice) and you mean chain rule.

ProgrammingGodJordan --> ∫ [ xⁿ · √ ( aⁿ - xⁿ ) ]

Three times you wrote an integral without telling us which variable we are integrating (the quoted above is one of the times). Again, for the moment I'll assume you aren't batshit crazy and just forgot the dx.

ProgrammingGodJordan --> x = √ aⁿ · sin(θ))

Three times you gave a equation (substitution) with more closing brackets than opening brackets. Again, I'll assume you aren't batshit crazy and assume you meant x = √(aⁿ · sin(θ)); although I don't see how this substitution is going to be helpful, but we'll see.
Next you omitted a step (three times): the substitution for dx (three times). Which should be (for the first example)
dx = aⁿ * cos(θ) * dθ/[2*√(sin(θ)*aⁿ)]. But again, I'll just assume you were lazy and skipped writing this out explicitly, no biggie.

ProgrammingGodJordan - ∫ [ xⁿ · dx/d theta · dx ]

Ho-ly shit. You did each of these 3 times:

• You switched from using θ to theta (causing confusion but just a trivial matter)
• You are telling us to integrate with respect to x twice, but there is only one integral sign (madness)
• Notice that a is missing from the integral now! Clearly it must depend on a, so how can it be missing? (sheer madness)
• Where is your cos(θ), what happened to the chain rule?
• You failed to banish x and dx (or θ and dθ) from the integral, so you are making it worse, not better
• Your lemma was supposed to show that this substitution was useful, but then as far as i can tell, you never actually used it!
• And finally, it is just wrong.

('A')

Sequence is a synonym par 'rule':

('B')

Simply, one shan't misapply the chain sequence, betwixt the trigonometric integral distribution.

Here are accommodating sources:

http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/CalcII/IntegralsWithTrig.aspx

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/560727/why-cant-i-use-the-chain-...

No matter how many sites you link too, it won't change the fact that what you have written is totally wrong. So wrong in fact that anyone who knows the subject can spot it right away. As if it was written by a lunatic.

('A')

A chain sequence is not the chain rule. For the moment let's assume you are not batshit crazy and that this was just a typo (that you made twice) and you mean chain rule.

Sequence is a synonym par 'rule':

Thereafter, the facing phrases, are but equivalent:
[i] "the chain sequence"
[ii] "the chain rule"

.

.

.

('B')

Three times you wrote an integral without telling us which variable we are integrating (the quoted above is one of the times). Again, for the moment I'll assume you aren't batshit crazy and just forgot the dx.

Albeit, ∫[xⁿ·√(xⁿ+aⁿ)], ∫[xⁿ·√(xⁿ-aⁿ)], ∫[xⁿ·√(aⁿ-xⁿ)] manifest as STANDARD trigonometric integral FORMS/FRAMES; whence the structure of said frames, SELF-INDICATE interchange-boundaries.

.
.

As such, the aforesaid lemma of mine, rationalizes the default cycle, such that the outcome process is 'COLLAPSED'.

This rather large error of THINE, had but SELF-CONSTRUCTED that of the entire regime of SELF-BAFFLEMENT.

...

By extension, I maintain (or, rather, it is of mathematically-non-perturbed standard description) that: "Simply, one shan't misapply the chain sequence, betwixt the aforesaid trigonometric integral distribution."

.

.

.

('C')

You switched from using θ to theta (CAUSING CONFUSION but just a trivial matter).

'Theta' and 'θ' are but equivalent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theta

.

.

.

('D')

Ergo, solely non-issues permeate that of the cognition of thine, abound 'TRcS'; on the horizon of 'C'.

It appears you have failed to reduce the trigonometric RULE set of mine, on the boundary of 'C'.

.

.

.

('E')

Herein, an emergence in clarity permeates; the lemma OF MINE is simply, BEYOND that of your synonymous mental capabilities. (on the horizon of prior profound errors of THINE)

Perhaps it is pertinent that you construe the facing sequence:

Such an exercise shall perhaps enhance the cognition of thine, such that the aforesaid 'trigonometric RULE collapser set', of mine, is trivially reducible.

Nyarlathotep,

I take it that you are getting in a bit of recreation here. Indulging, as it were, in the sheer joy of popping pretentious bubbles! That probably explains why you are even addressing this stuff. (In another post on this thread I've formulated a Debate Forum Bill of Rights for those of us who are constantly bombarded by canned "proofs" by newbies.)

Greensnake Stipulation: "I've formulated a Debate Forum Bill of Rights for those of us who are constantly bombarded by canned "PROOFS" by newbies."

(1)
The response-BASEIS/entirety of THINE, ("PROOF") collapses amidst a RATHER profound ERROR of thine; for the initial stipulation OF MINE , consisted NOT OF ANY PROOF, but RATHER acute EVIDENCE, (on the horizon of FACTS) ~ (as observed amidst the title)

.

.

.

.

(2)

Perhaps, it is exigent that one absorbs mathematically, at minimum, the premise par QUANTUM COMPUTING.

Herein, is a 4-line mathematical QUANTUM COMPUTING summary of mine: https://www.quora.com/How-does-quantum-computing-work/answer/Jordan-Benn...

Any other sufficiently complex sequence of maths is feasible. Larger complexities are likewise feasible.﻿

That is an interesting term: "canned proofs".

Thanks, Nyarlathotep! Being in a mini-war to clear my desk, I'll save it for a boring, rainy day!

The fallacy of Proving Too Much is when you challenge an argument because, in addition to proving its intended conclusion (which a few here disagree the accuracy of your argument and evidence), it also proves obviously false conclusions. For example, if someone says “You can’t be an atheist, because it’s impossible to disprove the existence of God”, you can answer “That argument proves too much. If we accept it, we must also accept that you can’t disbelieve in Bigfoot, since it’s impossible to disprove his existence as well.”

Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (mankind is one likely type) fits into this fallacy.

('A')

...in addition to proving its intended conclusion (which a few here disagree the accuracy of your argument and evidence)

Said FACTS (as stipulated via myself) maintain, regardless of agreement/disagreement/emotion.

.

.

.

.

.

.

('B')

it also PROVES obviously false conclusions.

(1)

Your response's BASEIS/entirety ("PROOF") collapses amidst a RATHER profound ERROR of thine; for the initial stipulation OF MINE, consisted NOT OF ANY PROOF, but RATHER acute EVIDENCE, (on the horizon of FACTS) ~ (as observed amidst the title)

(2)

FACTS:

[i] Man-made brain based models have reduced larger numbers of cognitive fields as time diverged. [Moore's Law]

[ii] Moore's Law has progressed for 50 years.

[iii] Man partially satisfies the traditional God definition. [the ability to generate non-trivial intelligence(i)]

PROBABILITY:

On the horizon of [i] and [ii]/any rate of enhancement, mankind shall likely generate general intelligence.

OBSERVATION:

God is thereafter, accurately definable as any likely mortal, non-omniscient, non-omnipotent entity [sample: [iii] ~ mankind], consisting of the ability to generate non-trivial intelligence.

.

.

"beep", PERHAPS IT IS PERTINENT, that you stipulate the 'FALSEHOOD' amidst said FACTS/probabilities, rather than MERELY stipulating of the existence of such.

.

.

.

.

.

.

('C')

http://www.logicalfallacies.org/

The fallacy of 'PROVING TOO MUCH' refers to an argument that reaches a conclusions which CONTRADICTS things that are KNOWN to be TRUE, or CONTRADICTS the PREMISES in that argument.

In STARK CONTRAST, the FACTS/PROBABILITY/OBSERVATION stipulated betwixt (1) and (2), occur SOLELY on the HORIZON OF scientifically KNOWN/OBSERVED sequences.

PERHAPS IT IS PERTINENT, that you stipulate A SINGLE unknown.

Why do I keep hearing ProgrammingGodJordans texts in Will Ferrell voice when I read it?

## Attach Image/Video?:

Yes

..."Simply, one shan't misapply the chain sequence, betwixt the trigonometric integral distribution."

I actually thought it was more like charle's dickens :P
with the great use of one's betwixts and shan'ts

MathJax.Hub.Config({tex2jax: {inlineMath: [['$','$'], ['\$','\$']]}, displayAlign: "left"});

Consider the value of:
$$\int_0^1 x^n \sqrt{a^n - x^n}dx\bracevert a=1, n=1\tag{1}$$
According to your "lemma" that should be equal to:
$$\int_{x=0}^{x=1} x \frac{dx}{d\theta} dx\bracevert x = \sqrt{a sin(\theta)}\tag{2}$$
Please use the results of your "lemma" and calculate the value of Eq#2. Please be explicit. Do you see the problem yet?

I had long demonstrated the accuracy of said lemma, amidst the University of the West Indies (abound a diplo-presence of professors of Calculus), 4 years prior.

Albeit, you need:

Construct the form "∫ [ xⁿ · dx / d theta · dx ]", on the horizon of the aforesaid value sequence...

ProgrammingGodJordan - I had long demonstrated the accuracy of said lemma

See the thing is, a lemma is a proof. That is why what you posted isn't a lemma. But forget the semantics and the proof; I just want to see a single example of it! In the time you took to write that post, you should have been able to do it (took me perhaps 2 minutes without using your "lemma"). I'm still waiting.

See the thing is, a lemma is a proof.

Incorrect.

Lemma definition: "a heading indicating the subject or argument of a literary composition or annotation."

Sorry no. In mathematics a lemma is a simple theorem with proof. But again, I'm still waiting for you to calculate that value. Shouldn't take you more than 60 seconds to demonstrate how wrong I am. Why do you continue to refuse to do so?

See the thing is, a lemma is a proof.

...

Sorry no. In mathematics a lemma is a simple theorem with proof.

LEMMA DEFINITION: In mathematics, a "HELPING THEOREM" or lemma (plural lemmata or lemmas) is a PROVED PROPOSITION which is USED AS A STEPPING STONE TO A LARGER RESULT rather than AS A STATEMENT OF INTEREST BY ITSELF.

PROPOSITION DEFINITION: A proposition is a theorem OF NO PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE. This term sometimes ***CONNOTES*** a statement with a SIMPLE PROOF, while the term theorem is usually reserved for the MOST IMPORTANT RESULTS OR THOSE WITH LONG OR DIFFICULT PROOFS.

## Pages

Donating = Loving

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.