Simon Mathews

King Iyk wrote:
here, AI is not inventing; it is verifying a convergence of real-world data that no human forced. the proof is not just consistent, it is grounded. The data speak. The convergence stands. Q.E.D. still holds. If the premises are real, fixed, and independent, and they are, then a necessary structure arising from them is not merely…

[Read more]

King Iyk wrote:

• historically attested timestamps (3rd, 6th, 9th hour)
• independently defined timekeeping systems (Jewish and Roman)
• mathematically necessary properties of digital roots (3-6-9)
• geometric constraints of a 12-hour clock (3-6-9-12)

This proof does not operate on visual noise or perceptual ambiguity. It operates on two immater…

[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]

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.