Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-11-2016, 12:10 AM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2016 12:25 AM by ProgrammingGodJordan.)
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(19-11-2016 09:55 AM)Fireball Wrote:  This guy is getting his ass handed to him over at Atheist Forums.org on this very topic. 28 pages and counting.

Ninja'd by one minute! Laugh out load

(A)
It seems you have failed to observe said thread.
Every argument postulated by the discussion's responders have been demonstrated as nonsense.

The largest responders have appeared to concede.

(B)
Simply, purge your emotional bias, and observe.


Make not the same errors others have made.


Therein, here is a listing of separately visited areas:

"Ted The Atheist"
https://www.reddit.com/r/TedTheAtheist/c...h=cac5f223

"Drunken Peasants"
https://www.reddit.com/r/drunkenpeasants...h=2125c271


"TAA Official"
https://www.reddit.com/r/TAAOfficial/com...h=02ee3528


"Atheist Republic"
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/de...ikely-type
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 12:15 AM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2016 12:18 AM by ProgrammingGodJordan.)
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(19-11-2016 08:36 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Thinking it's some simulation hypothesis spin-off, but I ain't parsing the 90s web page presentation. Dodgy

Invalid.
This primarily concerns the creation of non-trivial cognitive artificial intelligence.

Simply, purge your emotional bias, and observe.


Make not the same errors others have made.


Therein, here is a listing of separately visited areas:

"Ted The Atheist"
https://www.reddit.com/r/TedTheAtheist/c...h=cac5f223

"Drunken Peasants"
https://www.reddit.com/r/drunkenpeasants...h=2125c271

"TAA Official"
https://www.reddit.com/r/TAAOfficial/com...h=02ee3528

"Atheist Republic"
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/de...ikely-type
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 12:17 AM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2016 12:26 AM by ProgrammingGodJordan.)
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(19-11-2016 12:38 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  On Saturday when I'm taking a nap, it's scientifically proven that I have more influence over the universe than a fictional god, thus, I must be a god.

(A)
Unless you are an artificial intelligence programmer, chip maker (such as nvidia, intel...) you are not god-bound.

You do however likely possess the ability to become an artificial intelligence programmer etc.

(B)
Simply, the general consensus on God is likely FALSE.

The general consensus on God includes [omniscience, omnipotence, the ability to create universes/human intellect etc]

ONE property is LIKELY accurate, that is, the ability to generate non-trivial human intellect.

[Where mankind has already developed cognitive models that exceed human performance, in individual cognitive tasks, and shall likely develop models that exceed humans on all tasks by 2020, when brain based hardware approximates the human neuronal cycle]


('C')
Simply, purge your emotional bias, and observe.

Make not the same errors others have made.

Therein, here is a listing of separately visited areas:

"Ted The Atheist"
https://www.reddit.com/r/TedTheAtheist/c...h=cac5f223

"Drunken Peasants"
https://www.reddit.com/r/drunkenpeasants...h=2125c271

"TAA Official"
https://www.reddit.com/r/TAAOfficial/com...h=02ee3528

"Atheist Republic"
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/de...ikely-type
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 12:22 AM
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(20-11-2016 12:02 AM)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:  
(19-11-2016 11:16 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  [Note 1] No opinion, faith, emotion, or bias was used in this thread.

I lol'd. No facts were used either. Also it's an image, not a thread, dipshit.

(A)
All that has been presented is nothing but observed phenomena/FACTS.

(B)
FACTS/observed phenomena:

+Moore's Law

+Brain based models have already exceeded/equaled human performance on cognitive individual tasks/task groups

+As time diverges, computational parallelism increases. As such increase, brain based models enter more cognitive fields.

etc. Not a single opinion has been utilized.

(20-11-2016 12:08 AM)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:  
(19-11-2016 08:28 AM)Velvet Wrote:  What's the deal with saying ''I have evidence for a god'' only to be shortly after unveiled that's not a god?

If I call my dick a God and provide evidence for the existence of my dick, how this is relevant to anyone aside from some very nerdy atheist girls with bad sense of pick-up line quality?

(A)
It appears that you have failed to absorb any of the scientifically observed/observable phenomena described.

(B)
Simply, the general consensus on God is likely FALSE.

The general consensus on God includes [omniscience, omnipotence, the ability to create universes/human intellect etc]

ONE property is LIKELY accurate, that is, the ability to generate non-trivial human intellect.

[Where mankind has already developed cognitive models that exceed human performance, in individual cognitive tasks, and shall likely develop models that exceed humans on all tasks by 2020, when brain based hardware approximates the human neuronal cycle]



(20-11-2016 12:10 AM)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:  
(19-11-2016 09:55 AM)Fireball Wrote:  This guy is getting his ass handed to him over at Atheist Forums.org on this very topic. 28 pages and counting.

Ninja'd by one minute! Laugh out load

(A)
It seems you have failed to observe said thread.
Every argument postulated by the discussion's responders have been demonstrated as nonsense.

The largest responders have appeared to concede.

(B)
Simply, purge your emotional bias, and observe.


Make not the same errors others have made.


Therein, here is a listing of separately visited areas:

"Ted The Atheist"
https://www.reddit.com/r/TedTheAtheist/c...h=cac5f223

"Drunken Peasants"
https://www.reddit.com/r/drunkenpeasants...h=2125c271


"TAA Official"
https://www.reddit.com/r/TAAOfficial/com...h=02ee3528


"Atheist Republic"
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/de...ikely-type

(20-11-2016 12:15 AM)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:  
(19-11-2016 08:36 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Thinking it's some simulation hypothesis spin-off, but I ain't parsing the 90s web page presentation. Dodgy

Invalid.
This primarily concerns the creation of non-trivial cognitive artificial intelligence.

Simply, purge your emotional bias, and observe.


Make not the same errors others have made.


Therein, here is a listing of separately visited areas:

"Ted The Atheist"
https://www.reddit.com/r/TedTheAtheist/c...h=cac5f223

"Drunken Peasants"
https://www.reddit.com/r/drunkenpeasants...h=2125c271

"TAA Official"
https://www.reddit.com/r/TAAOfficial/com...h=02ee3528

"Atheist Republic"
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/de...ikely-type

(20-11-2016 12:17 AM)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:  
(19-11-2016 12:38 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  On Saturday when I'm taking a nap, it's scientifically proven that I have more influence over the universe than a fictional god, thus, I must be a god.

(A)
Unless you are an artificial intelligence programmer, chip maker (such as nvidia, intel...) you are not god-bound.

You do however possess the ability to become an artificial intelligence programmer etc.

(B)
Simply, the general consensus on God is likely FALSE.

The general consensus on God includes [omniscience, omnipotence, the ability to create universes/human intellect etc]

ONE property is LIKELY accurate, that is, the ability to generate non-trivial human intellect.

[Where mankind has already developed cognitive models that exceed human performance, in individual cognitive tasks, and shall likely develop models that exceed humans on all tasks by 2020, when brain based hardware approximates the human neuronal cycle]


('C')
Simply, purge your emotional bias, and observe.

Make not the same errors others have made.

Therein, here is a listing of separately visited areas:

"Ted The Atheist"
https://www.reddit.com/r/TedTheAtheist/c...h=cac5f223

"Drunken Peasants"
https://www.reddit.com/r/drunkenpeasants...h=2125c271

"TAA Official"
https://www.reddit.com/r/TAAOfficial/com...h=02ee3528

"Atheist Republic"
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/de...ikely-type


Thank you for being a stunning example of both how not to have a conversation, and how to present your arguments in the least persuasive way possible. You truly are a shining example for all.

[Image: giphy.gif]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
20-11-2016, 12:23 AM
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(19-11-2016 09:16 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Saturday, November 19, 2016

Dear Celestial_Wonder,

This is why we get pissed off when you start playing those kinds of word games. Just so you know.

Wait another six to eight days, we'll have another one wander on in. I've been waiting to show you.

Oh, it varies a bit, but they're all based on the same essential premise of equivocation-- the same sort you've been using.

It's difficult to remain civil in the face of an endless barrage of this drivel.

Hope you stick around long enough to join us in our derision for such types.

Cheers,

-Rocket


(A)
Nonsense.
It appears that you have failed to absorb any of the scientifically observed/observable phenomena described.

Every sequence postulated amidst my stipulations are of scientific/observed nature, ABSENT opinion, emotional bias, faith.


(B)
Simply, purge your emotional bias, and observe.

Make not the same errors others have made.

Therein, here is a listing of separately visited areas:

"Ted The Atheist"
https://www.reddit.com/r/TedTheAtheist/c...h=cac5f223

"Drunken Peasants"
https://www.reddit.com/r/drunkenpeasants...h=2125c271

"TAA Official"
https://www.reddit.com/r/TAAOfficial/com...h=02ee3528

"Atheist Republic"
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/de...ikely-type
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 12:29 AM
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(20-11-2016 12:02 AM)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:  
(19-11-2016 11:16 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  [Note 1] No opinion, faith, emotion, or bias was used in this thread.

I lol'd. No facts were used either. Also it's an image, not a thread, dipshit.

(A)
All that has been presented is nothing but observed phenomena/FACTS.

(B)
FACTS/observed phenomena:

+Moore's Law

+Brain based models have already exceeded/equaled human performance on cognitive individual tasks/task groups

+As time diverges, computational parallelism increases. As such increase, brain based models enter more cognitive fields.

etc. Not a single opinion has been utilized.


A fact is something indisputable, an independently verifiable piece of information.

Moore's Law is not a fact, it is a observation of the relative increase in transistors per square inch over time.

Models are not themselves facts, they are used to try to give an explanatory framework to a group of facts.

Your assertions between the parallelism of brain models and computer power is also not a fact.

Simply calling something a 'fact' does not make it so. You have demonstrated a very basic and fundamental misunderstanding of one of the most basic scientific concepts. In other words, you have spectacularly failed at making your point; and in your ineptitude, have utterly destroying any semblance of credibility you may have otherwise started with. Congratulations.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-11-2016, 12:29 AM
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(20-11-2016 12:22 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Thank you for being a stunning example of both how not to have a conversation, and how to present your arguments in the least persuasive way possible. You truly are a shining example for all.

[Image: giphy.gif]


These phenomena are but not mine.
Such phenomena are scientifically observed/observable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 12:33 AM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2016 12:42 AM by ProgrammingGodJordan.)
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(20-11-2016 12:29 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(20-11-2016 12:02 AM)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:  (A)
All that has been presented is nothing but observed phenomena/FACTS.

(B)
FACTS/observed phenomena:

+Moore's Law

+Brain based models have already exceeded/equaled human performance on cognitive individual tasks/task groups

+As time diverges, computational parallelism increases. As such increase, brain based models enter more cognitive fields.

etc. Not a single opinion has been utilized.


A fact is something indisputable, an independently verifiable piece of information.

Moore's Law is not a fact, it is a observation of the relative increase in transistors per square inch over time.

Models are not themselves facts, they are used to try to give an explanatory framework to a group of facts.


Simply calling something a 'fact' does not make it so. You have demonstrated a very basic and fundamental misunderstanding of one of the most basic scientific concepts. In other words, you have spectacularly failed at making your point; and in your ineptitude, have utterly destroying any semblance of credibility you may have otherwise started with. Congratulations.

(A)

Such is why I entitled the passage "FACTS/observed phenomena", as such consists of both FACTS, and or Observed phenomena.

(20-11-2016 12:29 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Your assertions between the parallelism of brain models and computer power is also not a fact.

(B)

Such are not assertions.

Such are simply observed phenomena.

It has been unavoidably observed, that as computational parallelism enhanced, brain based models gained the ability to reduce more cognitive tasks.

Unless one is brain dead, one may trivially absorb such observed phenomena.


('C')

See HISTORY OF DEEP LEARNING https://devblogs.nvidia.com/parallelfora...-training/


Quote:Simply calling something a 'fact' does not make it so. You have demonstrated a very basic and fundamental misunderstanding of one of the most basic scientific concepts. In other words, you have spectacularly failed at making your point; and in your ineptitude, have utterly destroying any semblance of credibility you may have otherwise started with. Congratulations.


(D)

It seems you are simply non-knowledgeable.

HEREIN, FACTS are as follows (as stipulated in the original post):

+Mankind has indubitably generated brain based models, that have ALREADY EXCEEDED/EQUALED human performance on cognitive individual tasks/task groups.

+As time diverged, computational parallelism indubitably increased. With said increases, brain based models have indubitably reduced more cognitive fields.

+Illustris' existence is FACTUAL.

etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 12:42 AM
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(20-11-2016 12:29 AM)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:  These phenomena are but not mine.
Such phenomena are scientifically observed/observable.

Besides the point. Even assuming you are true, you present your argument about as well as a drunken rhinoceros dances a waltz. There was a lot of pain, suffering, and embarrassment to go around, and everyone feels dumber for having witnessed it.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-11-2016, 12:50 AM
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
Banned already? Somebody is on the fuckin' ball tonight.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: