God is in our hearts?

[Ostronomos]

Could the qualities of omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience be possible without intelligent lifeforms to conceive it?

Does God, in the religious sense, acheive these qualities by existing "in" our hearts in times of need? But how do we define "need". Is "need" merely the feeling that arises as a defence mechanism against the horror of unreality and "anti-creation"?

Their seems to be an emotional tendency towards God where science is absent. But if God possesses the above qualities (the three O's), science cannot bereft God despite our claims.

The argument from transhumanism suggests that intelligence is inevitable and that it can evolve to the point that it eventually embodies the three O's.

[C C]

Could the qualities of omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience be possible without intelligent lifeforms to conceive it? [...] The argument from transhumanism suggests that intelligence is inevitable and that it can evolve to the point that it eventually embodies the three O's.

A simulated reality arguably approaches that in terms of data collection about events in the program, the universal presence (behind appearances) of the medium that renders the artificial world, and the external capacity to violate the normal rules and functioning of it.

But the knowledge acquisition might still not be absolute -- some unexpectedly emergent complexities may lack a devoted subsystem for distinguishing and recording them. And the prior-in-rank level could sport institutional rules or some ethical credo that limits blatant interference (miracles and magic).

Any intelligent species with a progressive, technological bent will apparently reach the capacity to be "god-builders" at some point (if such survives long enough). Thus, opening up the proliferation of intentionally manufactured realms -- those becoming more numerous than supposed involuntary cosmic realms. (If we reside in one, then we might be one of the most resource-strapped ones -- possibly scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of the simulations we can produce.)

"Russian doll" situations are rationally repugnant, however, from the standpoint of the circularity of explaining the genesis of _X_ by repeating a general concept of _X_ (homunculus argument). However, the prudent distaste that fallacies have for their objects does not prevent the latter from contingently being the case. Sometimes the mob is right, the slippery slope is legit, and authorities do have to be appealed to.

Life itself is a continuously repeated situation of like having to beget like. But just as evolution requires abiogenesis rearing its head at some point in the deep past, so the Matryoshka doll of ontological strata must have an outer one that finally ends the sequence. Presumably that ultimate "vertical cause" of the "next set of other worlds" would at last be the non-intelligent, devoid of intention provenance that non-theists or naturalists advocate. Rather than one where sapience is fundamental and eternal (without origin).

[Ostronomos]

Could the qualities of omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience be possible without intelligent lifeforms to conceive it? [...] The argument from transhumanism suggests that intelligence is inevitable and that it can evolve to the point that it eventually embodies the three O's.

A simulated reality arguably approaches that in terms of data collection about events in the program, the universal presence (behind appearances) of the medium that renders the artificial world, and the external capacity to violate the normal rules and functioning of it. 

But the knowledge acquisition might still not be absolute -- some unexpectedly emergent complexities may lack a devoted subsystem for distinguishing and recording them. And the prior-in-rank level could sport institutional rules or some ethical credo that limits blatant interference (miracles and magic).

Any intelligent species with a progressive, technological bent will apparently reach the capacity to be "god-builders" at some point (if such survives long enough). Thus, opening up the proliferation of intentionally manufactured realms -- those becoming more numerous than supposed involuntary cosmic realms. (If we reside in one, then we might be one of the most resource-strapped ones -- possibly scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of the simulations we can produce.)

"Russian doll" situations are rationally repugnant, however, from the standpoint of the circularity of explaining the genesis of _X_ by repeating a general concept of _X_ (homunculus argument). However, the prudent distaste that fallacies have for their objects does not prevent the latter from contingently being the case. Sometimes the mob is right, the slippery slope is legit, and authorities do have to be appealed to.

Life itself is a continuously repeated situation of like having to beget like. But just as evolution requires abiogenesis rearing its head at some point in the deep past, so the Matryoshka doll of ontological strata must have an outer one that finally ends the sequence. Presumably that ultimate "vertical cause" of the "next set of other worlds" would at last be the non-intelligent, devoid of intention provenance that non-theists or naturalists advocate. Rather than one where sapience is fundamental and eternal (without origin).

CC,

Bless up.

There are those who make the compelling case that all existent things are finite and that only non-existence is infinite and eternal. Since it has no external background. The primacy of God by its very nature would be the prior-in-rank that you advocate.