Simon Paynton

@regthefronkeyfarmer – what does LLM think of your proof of Dracula?

The best you’ve got are symbolic arguments – “this” symbolises “that” and therefore “the other”.  That’s not enough to prove something is real.

King Iyk wrote:
You cannot reasonably expect me to prioritize your opinion over that of a system more knowledgeable than you and demonstrably superior at processing and validating data. That is precisely the point.

Yes, but:

1. argument from authority never cuts it.
2. AI can’t tell you if the inputs to your argument are real or not: if there…

[Read more]

King Iyk wrote:
The 12-hour clock is not introduced as a mere human preference but as the actual temporal framework in which the crucifixion was recorded by the cultures that carried it out (Roman and Jewish). When Jewish and Roman timekeeping are synchronized at that historical event, the result is not a vague pattern but a specific geometric…

[Read more]

King Iyk wrote:
You could disprove this entire demonstration by conceiving an alternative demonstration of God

We’re not going to do this, because we’re atheists and don’t believe in God, and none of us believes it’s possible to prove (or disprove) the existence of God.

If we’re arguing against your argument for the proof of God’s existence,…[Read more]

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]

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?

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.

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]

@Robert – you’re assuming that the Bible is proposed as proof of God’s existence, when that may be too much burden.  Maybe the Bible is not supposed to make sense, but God does.

The thing is, it’s impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, by logic or any other means, in this world we have.  Evidence would be nice; failing that, it’s unprovable either way.

_Robert_ wrote:
Divine significance to Digital Root Mechanics is often characterized as pseudomath or numerology by the scientific community.

DeepMind has spoken.  The answer’s 42.