Strega

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:
Robert:

The real beneficial power of AI is medical diagnosis, genetic medicine, battlefield management, software development, etc. It is just as useless as an apologist, priest, preacher, or rabbi when it comes to the non-existent supernatural or the nebulous field of “metaphysics” that theists love to abuse.

I’m sure…

[Read more]

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

I think that AI flatters people.

TheEncogitationer wrote:
Reg, Robert, PopeBeanie, and Simon: Now do you see why I am simply non-plussed by AI as it is currently constructed? It puts out affirmation for every bit of nonsense King Iyk asserts. He’s turned AI into an “Eliza” program that guzzles every Kilowatt the power plants can crank out until the lights start flickering out,…

[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
In simple terms, the concept of the Trinity was introduced to force monotheism upon the new religion. Without it, Christianity would be a polytheist cult. It is not mentioned in the Bible. The Trinity only survives by never being stated clearly but it fails because it asks identity to do something identity cannot do.…

[Read more]

@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]

King Iyk wrote:
Robert has failed to provide a counter-proof that could be attested and validated by AI, admitting the uniqueness of this proof. So I will go over to you, RTFF; If the Trinity does not exist – as you claim, rooted in Arianism and denying co-equal persons—then explain how a precise, formal model of it could be extracted from the…

[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?

King Iyk wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:
I consider it just a mythological motif, many predating Jesus. Egypt’s Osiris, Greece’s Dionysus, the Near Eastern Tammuz/Adonis, and Hinduism’s Ganesha were all resurrected as well.

You could have your work cut out for you by formulating a proof for Osiris, Dionysus or Ganesha, that is empirically and mathe…

[Read more]

@King Iyk –  I reject Trinitarianism, not because I am an atheist but because I have studied the Bible. The word “Trinity” does not appear anywhere in the Bible. The fully formed doctrine of ‘one God in three co-equal, co-eternal persons’ as described to me in Catholic school, is not explicitly stated in either the Old or New Testamen…[Read more]

King Iyk wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:

Simon Paynton wrote:

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

Here is the magic: A + B + C + D = A, using modulus arithmetic. It’s beyond circular stupidity.

You will respond with further supposed objections. B…

[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.

Simon Paynton wrote:
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.

It’s not an atheists’ task to disprove a claimed god, but when contradictory claims are made about a god, that particular version of tha…[Read more]

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.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
I am going to called this “Rube Goldberg” theology. Finding a pattern after the fact doesn’t explain anything. Your post-hoc pattern mining can make any number appear special if you look long enough.

Exactly. Here this pattern is supposed to teach us that circular logic proves itself, LOL. That’s so fucking brill…[Read more]

I am going to called this “Rube Goldberg” theology. Finding a pattern after the fact doesn’t explain anything. Your post-hoc pattern mining can make any number appear special if you look long enough.