@simonpaynton

You are right about one thing, but wrong about what it implies.

Yes: AI can verify internal logical consistency.
No: that does not mean what is being evaluated here is “mere formal validity detached from reality.”

Your critique assumes a sharp divide between logical validity and empirical reality, and then assumes this proof liv…[Read more]

It may well be that @kingiyk‘s “proof” is logically consistent, i.e., logically valid.  When AI checks it, it validates it on the grounds of internal logical consistency.

But that’s not the same as being empirically valid – valid in the real world.  To be valid in the real world, all the premises have to be real (I don’t know – I assume) and t…[Read more]

Besides LLM’s being bootlicking suck-up sycophants at least in my experience they lie and lie. One thing in particular has stood out. It kept telling me that it does not recall prior conversations. So i catch it and it says something like “oh ya caught me.” Most recently i told it where i live both city and state. Next day i asked for weather…[Read more]

King Iyk wrote:
@Reg, The bottom line of our exchange is this: I was able to get the foremost intellectual advancement of the human race (AI) to attest to the validity of my demonstration—you were not. Simple.

(Reg, it’s hard for me to resist responding here.)

Seems to me, you’re openly not interested in considering intellectual or p…[Read more]

It is patently clear you are incapable of reasoned debate. I am only replying for the sake of others that might be reading this from the sidelines.

“AI attested to it” is not a meaningful claim. LLMs are not intelligent systems. Just ask one if it is. They echo coherence, not correctness.  If AI affirmations counted as validation, then nume…[Read more]

@Reg, The bottom line of our exchange is this: I was able to get the foremost intellectual advancement of the human race (AI) to attest to the validity of my demonstration—you were not. Simple.

You will not be able to produce an alternative demonstration of God that claims empirical and mathematical certainty and is independently affirmed and a…[Read more]

You said in the parting gift of your last paragraph that “The Bible’s God is Triune, demonstrated not assumed”.

But demonstrated how? All you have done is to show that patterns can be extracted from a text and that symbolic triad can be (re)arranged, Nothing is demonstrated.

 “When treated as data rather than prose”….once again, this is a catego…[Read more]

There is so much wrong here that I am not sure where to start. I will pick some points out. The whole piece reminds me of what Dan Dennett called a ‘deepity’. Lots of big words too so I will try not to be too much of a sesquipedalian.

‘But conceptual analysis still carries a burden: a concept that does not exist in its source domain cannot gen…[Read more]