Simon Mathews

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]

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]

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]

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.

@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]

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.

TheEncogitationer wrote:
It puts out affirmation for every bit of nonsense

I think that AI flatters people.

@Simon – “They don’t share their entire beings, yet they share their God-nature.”

This is not Nicene Trinitarianism. The orthodoxy explicitly says that ‘Each person is fully God”. Not partially god, not a piece of God and certainly not overlapping subsets. When you say “The Venn diagram doesn’t fully overlap” you are asserting partial identit…[Read more]

I wonder what Arius who make of this version of Who by Fire (Leonard Cohen). I think Arius would be allergic to metaphysical inflation and ask Christians to stop smuggling mystery in where clarity will do. He would say that there is one ultimate source (God the Father). Creation runs largely on order, consequence, and necessity and there is no…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
If Father = fully God

And Son = fully God

And Father ≠ Son

Then “God” is both identical and non-identical.

You now have:

God = Father

God = Son

Father ≠ Son

This violates the basic identity logic: If A = C and B = C, then A = B.

You can’t escape bad logic with theological wordplay.

I’m not sure I agree that your refu…[Read more]

King Iyk wrote:
explain how a precise, formal model of it could be extracted from the immutable fabrics of reality: immaterial time and immaterial mathematics, converging at the crucifixion?

Coincidental synthetic patterns.  We can join the dots however we like.

King Iyk wrote:
explain why the foremost advancement of the human race in the…

[Read more]

Why do you reject what the Bible says about God and His son Jesus?