PopeBeanie

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]

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]

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]

@ Robert

“This conservative move toward antisemitism was predictable.”

Yeah totally. I predicted it years ago.

And agree regarding rest of your take. Similarly it was true of the Iranian revolution. The stupid socialists/marxist were executed once the Shah was overthrown. No such thing as a “good….fill in the blank for racist ideologues.

King reminds me of the Progressives/Woke in their pathetic intellectualizing of their racism against Jews and in how they try to discredit state of Israel. Just give me a theist who is honest. I have faith which means i got nothing dude. Absolutely nothing. Give me Nazis. Sure there is a mythology but at base nobody gonna take it seriously. Give…[Read more]

If I was on that flight I would start singing “Allahu Akbar” and if asked to stop,would then sue the airline for religious discrimination.

You guys have ripped King a new one.

Chances he admits he is wrong?

@Simon – I am not trying to prove it false. I am evaluating whether it is textually grounded and conceptually coherent. I was doing conceptual analysis, not arguing metaphysics. The doctrine of the Trinity is not derivable from the text it claims as its source. My claim stands, irrespective of the existence or not of the Christian God. I’m not c…[Read more]

Our democracy and its institutions are only as strong as we are. And it is plain obvious that ideology is running amok and imprinting human minds as efficiently rrr nearly as Konrad’s ducks. These mofos on either side can critique the other side but are utterly incapable of seeing the pile of shit they stand by.

Ai and its incorporation into the…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
The Trinity presupposes a God-concept that the Bible itself never articulates.

But that doesn’t prove the Trinity is wrong.

Can we atheists recognise the wrongness of a description of something we think doesn’t exist?  Not even wrong?

The Trinity presupposes a God-concept that the Bible itself never articulates. The God presented in the Bible is a single personal agent, whereas the Trinity redefines God as a “tri-personal” being which is a category shift not made by the biblical authors.

Simon Paynton wrote:
An AI proof isn’t proof.

Unless it’s a dedicated theorem prover, or an AI program which has specifically been asked to prove a theorem, without flattering the user.