ysumlin

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.

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 at some point, AI rea…[Read more]

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, all to prove his…[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]

@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.

King Iyk wrote:
the validity of the proof

Can you run it past a “theorem prover”?  I’m told they exist, for proving mathematical theorems.

Should a proof of God’s existence be that complicated?  Is there a “should” about it at all?  When I write about morality, it’s complicated to say anything.  There’s a complicated story to it.  But what I can do is sum things up in a paragraph, requiring further illumination or unpacking.