Scientific evidence of God (by an atheist)

[Cavebear]

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/

[Blackleaf]

I can't even.

[PickelledEggs]

[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?

[CodeGodJordan]

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.

[PickelledEggs]

[Mr.Obvious]

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.

[fencerider]

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.

[Baruch]

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) ;-)

[widdershins]

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.

[Blackleaf]

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.

[Baruch]

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.

[Cavebear]

Deities are perfect.
Mammals have perfect fur.
Whales are mammals.

Shave the whales...

[SGOS]

Deities are perfect.
Mammals have perfect fur.
Whales are mammals.

Shave the whales...

I dunno.  There may be a non Sequitur in that.

[widdershins]

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.

[Mike Cl]

I dunno.  There may be a non Sequitur in that.

Hmmm..........I don't see it.  Or do you mean the comics?