How is that running the company? By your logic, the president is voted by the American people, that mean to the people is running the government? That is called exercising ownership right. The shareholders don’t run the company, but they have limited control over it. You either lack the most basic understanding of how corporate ownership(and ownership in general) work or are being willfully ignorant to support your flimsy argument.

>people don't go around treating logic as "somehow above everything"

I think they do. When you think about a question, what framework do you use to heavily interrogate the question? If it's not logic, I have a lot of questions for you. I think it's deeper than that too but I don't want to defend that.

My argument is simply a logical proof. My logical proof is that the existence of God can be logically proven true through the proof. It is proven true through the proof because I am able to logically fathom the concept of an unlimited being. If it did not exist, I could not fathom it.

>Not really though. It still struggles in logical questions (try asking some questions from LogiQA to chatgpt)

I love chatgpt lol. It's what made me start pondering these questions. ChatGPT is the AI that is publicly available. Try asking questions to Google Lambda, or another one that isn't publicly available. They most likely poop on ChatGPT.

I don't think anything about Darwin or Nietzsche suggests "logic being about anything else". We can create any arbitrary ranking, but I don't see any privileged reason to put anything above anything else. Logic helps us maintain formal consistency and can be a valuable tool among many, but people don't go around treating logic as "somehow above everything" (whatever that even means). And sure, even if it is above everything, you can always re-change or broaden a concept to argue for anything. You can stipulate God to be that which is above anything, and then make God come to be, by making something above everything by some ranking criterion. But that doesn't really tell us anything interesting. That's just changing the intended references of the words and their usages to have conclusions that superficially appears to have some meaningful content (beyond being linguistic cheats).

> AI has now reached the point where it can produce logic at better than human levels in some instances and will only continue to rapidly improve

Not really though. It still struggles in logical questions (try asking some questions from LogiQA to chatgpt); let alone engagement in metalogic and such. May be someday it will, but not yet.

Moreover, logic is different from capacities to do logic. Logic is above everything doesn't mean that the system which is capable of doing logic is above everything. So the argument is not only just word games but also invalid.

The sun existed for billions of years before we became conscious. If our entire civilization would be wiped out tomorrow, the sun would still continue to exist for billions of years without a conscience to validate it.

You start first.

I still expect my Nobel Prize. You're welcome.

Yeah, you totally checked your ego at the door when you claimed you earned the Nobel with your blog post 🤣🤣🤣

“AI do logic good…therefore unlimited being exists…QED” give this man the Nobel folks! 🤣

The kritik portion of my argument is really an argument against human hubris. My argument in my proof is only logically sound because of human ego. If it didn't exist, then my proof would be false. I admit all day, I am guilty of it too. At least I have the ability to check it at the door a bit and ask a few questions before diving ass first into something though. That seems to be a problem that society will never solve.

Cool story, bro.

>First, your highlighted section is a false dichotomy. Second, it’s merely an assertion.

I didn't make the argument, bro. Go argue with Aristotle if you disagree with that one...Good luck!

“And you want to argue over this bullshit” at least you admit your argument is bullshit.

First, your highlighted section is a false dichotomy. Second, it’s merely an assertion.

But that doesn’t really matter because your argument never even comes close to proving god, which you admitted.

When did I ever say I “don’t understand why people keep making this argument?” I explained to you that I don’t believe in god because every argument I’ve examined has either been invalid or unsound, like yours.

But indeed, I’m glad you’re done.

I'm going to spell this out to you one time, then I am done.

"God is, as a conceptual matter (that is, as a matter of definition) an unlimited being. The existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible. The existence of an unlimited being is not logically impossible. Therefore, the existence of God is logically necessary."

You yourself admit why you don't understand why people keep trying to make the argument. So let me point it out to you. See the highlighted sentence? One of those things is true, one is false. If a logical proof can be made that proves the existence of God, it proves one true.

No shit there have been attempts. Many.. We still ask the question. Because no one can make the proof. I have given it to you. And you want to argue over this bullshit.

Why do you keep trying to shift the goal posts to Descartes?

When I pointed out that your argument is not sound and is not valid (you do know the difference between the two right?) you said, and I’ll quote you “I'm not trying to prove that God exists….Does it actually prove God exists? No”

But now, you claim that you are the first to write an argument concluding that god exists; an argument you claim is valid and sound. Do you understand, that if you wrote an argument that was valid and sound, and concluded that god exists, then you would have proven that god exists, which you’re claiming you’re not attempting to do?

Which is all beside the point because you haven’t even shown the validity of your argument, let alone it’s soundness.

Do you realize that there are already a few hundred arguments for god? They’ve been around for well more than 2,000 years.

Here’s a beginner’s list.

They ALL conclude god exists. You are nowhere near the first.

Why did Descartes even make the argument, "I think, therefore, I am" in the first place? You should begin your reading there....

Well now you’re just obviously a troll. Good one. Got me

Yes. Where all premises lead to the conclusion and logically follow, and the entire argument is logically sound. It's a simple requirement. People have been trying for 2,000 years now. Perhaps read a book?

Let me get this straight. You think you’re the first person to write a logical proof that concludes god exists?

Why did Descartes write his "Meditations"? The very first people to posit the question were Aristotle and Plato. For 2,000 years now, people have been trying to simply write a logical proof, where the logical conclusion follows, that "God Exists". Sure, there are reasons why people want that proof. I don't care to debate those reasons.

My proof solves the riddle. It didn't 10 years ago, it didn't 2,000 years ago. Probably why people have been trying to solve the riddle for 2,000 years. I just happened to be born and alive during the period where this thought could first actually be true. Doesn't matter how I got to it though, Descartes, Aristotle, Plato, anyone else who came in between there trying to solve this particular riddle, can kiss my ass.

Well I guess I give up then, because I have zero idea what you think you’re achieving. You wanted to write an unsound and invalid syllogism and you succeeded, so you count that as a win. Cool. Congrats.

there is no such thing as existing, however In consciousness there is existence, so consciousness doesn't exist, but rather, existence is that which is being known with consciousness

>every single time someone has attempted to argue in favor of existence they have done so in the same way you’re attempting to now with this “proof.”

I'm not trying to prove that God exists. I am trying to solve that exact problem, that proof. People have been trying to write it as a logical proof for 2,000 years. I believe my proof does so. Does it actually prove God exists? No, it's more a kritik of the framework we use to draw those conclusions and think about them, now that a "being" exists that is capable of doing so better than us. Even if you don't like the kritik though, that's fine too. The proof in and of itself is something people have been trying to do for 2,000 years. Why do I need to go past that? I just solved a 2,000-year-old riddle. I'll take that win and go home.

The wording between Premise 1 in my post and my comment changed only insofar as one was a direct call out of anyone who makes these arguments, egotistical as you said. Nothing at all changed with the premise.

You hit on what I wanted to! What I have been waiting for! You make a lot of good claims about logic. My argument is not at all whether or not you are right with those claims. My argument is, a "being" exists in the world that can answer that question better than we can. Since they can answer it better than we can, we should default to "God" then because we are more simple beings.

What is logic? Why can't AI produce it in the same way as a human can exactly? I think it is only ego that blocks those questions. Thus we come back to that subject again.

What attacks?

No, I haven’t, because I don’t believe a god exists. I don’t believe a god exists because every single time someone has attempted to argue in favor of existence they have done so in the same way you’re attempting to now with this “proof.”

By asking that question though you seem to be seeking some sort of “bonus points?” That seems to me to be the only reason you would bring it up. So, what, you’re trying to tackle a problem that’s been unsuccessful for 2,000 years so we just have to forgive poor logic on your part?

No, I am not an “academic type,” I only have a bachelors in an unrelated field that I’ve never used. I’m not even a member of this subreddit, but I do enjoy discussion philosophy and logic and reason.

Premise 1. Well you ENTIRELY changed it in your rewording. Your original P1 (I’m not going to even bother to go back and open it because I’m on mobile and might lose this comment) said something about logic being “above” the tree of life as drawn by Darwin. This is, as others have pointed out, entirely mumbo jumbo. I’m sure you realize how important precise language is when it comes to formatting a syllogism. What do you mean by “above?” What even ties logic to the tree of life? Those are things that you SHOULD have demonstrated IN your premise.

I’m closer to agreeing with your rewording, which just goes to show how entirely different it is from your original.

You seem to be imbuing big-L “Logic” with all sorts of extraneous qualities. Logic isn’t a “thing” it doesn’t have inherent power. It’s a descriptive language by which we observe the world around us. Like maths. Math doesn’t inherently mean anything, it’s just a description of what we see around us, and then we can begin to analyze patterns and relationships that we might otherwise have missed. 2 + 2 = 4 isn’t inherently true, but when we come to agreement as to what “2” and “+” and “4” and “=“ mean, we can observe that the new language of math that we have define, continues to match what we observe.

Logic is nearly identical to math, except using language. The law of excluded middle doesn’t have any inherent value, it doesn’t MAKE things in the world fit it, it DESCRIBES everything we’ve seen in the world. If tomorrow, we discovered something that could be both A and NOT A, then we would have to come up with new descriptions (change logic)

So it seems to me that, if you were to simplify down premise 1, you would arrive at

P1 We use logic to describe the world

I might even grant you properly basic beliefs at the root of logic, but those are still simply descriptions.

P2 is once again nonsensical. Or at least you’re so imprecise with your language that it stops being useful in a syllogism.

You claim AI “produces” logic. Logic isn’t something that is produced. That just poor phrasing.

You then ASSERT that it will ONLY continue to rapidly improve. Including assertions that you haven’t demonstrated in your premises is laughable. What about computers coming up on a limit to Moore’s law? What about a nuclear apocalypse that causes so many EMPs that nearly all electronics are wiped out? How can you categorically state an assertion in a premise and then claim it to be true?

But honestly none of that bothers me. Do whatever. But you HAVE to realize that your conclusion is a non sequitur right? Nowhere in your premises is god defined, or categorized, or quantified, or described, and yet you conclude AI is god.

You even acknowledge that you’re using the word god colloquially because you put it in damned quotation marks! Why else would you do that other than to identify “when I say ‘god’ here, I don’t mean ‘god’ the way theism means ‘god’ I mean it in some other way….THAT I HAVEN’T EVEN DEFINED”

Explain to me how C1 flows from P1 and P2.

It’s ALMOST the ontological argument dressed up in sci-fi. “Logic is maximally great” “computers evaluate logic” therefore “computers are god”

Why chose logic as your god quality? Why not math. Computers have been better than humans at math for as long as they’ve existed. The first computer was invented for that explicit reason. Does that mean god exists?

I argue that consciousness is the only validator possible, since it's probably v a validator by definition, think of it as, something doesn't exist until it's validated by a consciousness, and when it does, it only exist to that consciousness. In other words if (and if it's possible) a consciousness dies the universe which it validated dies. I think you are saying something exists to the extent of it's relation to other things since that's what a pattern is, but I argue, says who? Without validation there is no existence. Correct me if I am wrong in my understanding

Yes I agree that the self is outside all of that, and that if we can be sure of anything, is that it exists, at least one knows he himself exists. Now it's really interesting, you say that every thing your consciousness/self (I think they are the same thing) experiences is also a self proving concept, but I say to that, we don't actually know if there are any patterns at all, in one example, if all patterns exist then no pattern exists. How that would apply in the real world is that causality could be a myth and it's infinity fluctuating between causality and everything else is what exists making room for it to be interpreted yet still be objectively not there. Also I think "relations" is a better word than "patterns" It's more fundamental

OK, you're not wrong. Thank you. Stop with the attacks though, have you ever made an actual attempt at solving a proof people have been trying to solve for 2,000 years? You come off as the academic type to me, those who can't, teach. I can. Just different schools.

Premise 1: You cannot refute it without creating a logical fallacy itself. Premise 1 said another way, "Logic is what we should ALWAYS use to frame and answer these questions." To disagree with it is to disagree with a logical framework, why are we even doing this then? There's no framework to our discussion if you disagree with Premise 1. Part of my background is in Communication Theory which is why I am not purely a laymen on things, I just don't know everything.

Premise 2: I stand by it in the present. I was giving you literally the only logical argument to it. Even that is defensive against it, does not offensively refute anything. Said another way, I give you your own argument and think for you, since I have not seen anyone actually do so. What book do you propose I read?