SatanLucy

and you assume different from logic cannot exist either

Saying non-logic is a different form of logic is like saying abstinence is a different form of sex

Different from, not different form.

A unicorn is a horse like being that necessarily exists

That it called adding to definition. You can prove necessary being. You cannot prove the added part "unicorn is a horse like". That would be like me saying "Sun must exist, so the Sun in the shape of a bunny must exist. The moment you expand definition, you add things you cannot prove.

Offering God as an explanation for logic is an attempt to convince people through the use of reason that logic itself is valid. That is by definition circular reasoning.

No, saying "Logic is proved by logic" is circular reasoning. Saying "Logic is proved by things outside logic" is by definition opposite of circular reasoning and doesnt violate laws of logic. So if your logic violates itself, and mine doesnt, I can see who is winner.

If you do not know what something is it, by definition, cannot be used as an explanation.

You have reading issues. No one said "unknown is an explanation". But "unknown can be explanation".

An explanation is that which adds clarity and understanding

Unknown thing which can be anything likewise can add clarity and understanding. If it doesnt right now, it doesnt mean it cant. What we know is that:

unknown = can be anything

can be anything = can be explanation

To claim it cannot be explanation would mean it cant be anything, which is a contradiction.

Confirming = conclusion

A conclusion, by definition, is the result of logic.

So you cannot have any conclusions if logic doesnt exist, thus failing to prove logic means no conclusion can be made by you.

There is no definition of proof that does not entail logic, which is why proving logic is a definitionally absurd task. Which is why your argument, no matter how rhetorically clever it could ever be made, will always fail. No matter how hard you pretend you're not using logic to prove logic, that's exactly what you're doing here and throughout this whole thread.

You still dont get it, dont you? In order for your argument to be valid(according to logic), logic must exist in the first place.

The claim "logic doesnt exist" only self destructs if logic exists. So every claim you make here depends on the point that logic exists. If logic doesnt exist, all your claims are meaningless as well as mine.

If I say "logic is unproved", such claim can only be "Not according to logic" IF logic exists.

I am sure you understand nihilist's argument against logic and for meaningless universe, but from your point of you, you cannot respond to it, because every response you make depends on logic to exist in order to be logically valid, and if logic doesnt exist, your responses cannot be according to logic.

Why couldn't something exist at all times, but not at all places? Or why couldn't something exist in all places, but not at all times?

Failing to exist at one place makes things dependent on condition. Likewise, failing to exist at some time makes things dependent on condition.

A thing can either exist always and everywhere, or not. If it doesnt, then it either doesnt exist at all places, or not at all times.

I find nihilism to be most powerful theory I disagree with. I also have so much understanding for anyone who holds such position.

Do you think that's what everybody means when they use the word, "dependent"?

Irrelevant. You can throw out the word dependent and just use the way it was defined, and argument wouldnt change. So counter definition argument doesnt work.

1. things either exist always at all places, or they dont
2. things which fail to exist at some place or some time require condition to create difference
3. condition itself cannot be a thing which fails to exist at some place or some time
4. Condition must always exist and everywhere

What people who try to change definitions in definition argument dont get is that meaning of definition remains true regardless. Definition argument is true by its meaning of definition, irrelevant of which word you give the meaning to. You can define 3 as one and one, so 1 plus 1 = 3. It wont change meaning, and it wont disprove math.

could simply have popped into existence

By that logic, God too could have just popped into existence as infinitely small and make himself infinitely big. If there are laws which make things pop in existence, it raises two problems, who made those laws, did they pop in existence too? And what is the difference between those laws and God? God is defined as ultimate ruler and creator of everything, and such law would satisfy the definition by being creator and by link ruler.

Isn't it possible that God could have been sustaining something in existence from all eternity

Maybe for eternity, but not at all places. And thing is still dependent, because if God chose it to not exist, it would fail to even exist in one place. So it still fails to exist when condition isnt met. In other words, it doesnt exist at all times, only when condition is met.

How would you demonstrate the truth of this premise?

It is definitional premise, it is how dependent things are defined. Imagine this, ice cream exists at one place, but doesnt exist at another place. So it fails to exist at some place. Because it both exists at one place and fails to exist at other, it is dependant on condition which determined it to exist at one place but not in another. Independent thing, on the other hand, exists at all places at all times, thus it can never fail to exist, and thus it is independent of any condition, and it is condition which enables and disables dependent things.

P1. Something can be either independent or dependent

P2. Dependent things are things which fail to exist at certain times or places

P3. Dependent things depend on conditions

P4. Conditions themselves cannot be dependent

P5. Conditions must be independent

P6. Independent thing cannot fail to exist, it exists always and everywhere, and it creates all dependent things, it is their condition.

I dont see any argument from atheists on modern day debate on this, so I post it here. How does an atheist disprove necessity for independent thing which creates dependent things?

Same argument is about containing reality.

P1. Reality exists

P2. What exists, exists in some place

P3. Place which contains whole reality exists.

So it is not possible to believe reality isnt contained in something, and that something itself must be maximally great, and thus maximally great in power.

Hate to break it to you, but the ancient Egyptians ate honey-coated fruit on a stick thousands of years ago

I am sure they dont have video of Hitler doing it.

As for new knowledge, new videos and songs are by definition new knowledge. Your original claim wasnt about how to do things, but AI can make tutorials too, for things which never existed before. Just imagine thing which never existed before and ask AI to make tutorial on it. I even succeeded in creating omniscience argument thanks to AI, and I never heard of it before. Also, AI is literally used to translate ancient texts no one translated before, so to claim AI makes nothing new is about as coherent as saying that AI is nothing new. And you do realize AI girlfriends didnt exist before? AI therapists also didnt exist before. So to say AI makes nothing new when it literally enabled 24 hour daily free therapy for anyone with no effort, and countless free companions who also are always available quickly and dont even need rest... sure, thats nothing new according to you. So a thing which literally enabled countless new things is somehow nothing new. Alright.

New songs, new videos is not adding to the body of knowledge

Sure it is. I now have knowledge of new songs.

Step 1: Place definition in description, definition which makes topic extremely easy to prove.

Step 2: Pick topic where opposite position is impossible to be true, such as "true claims exist", or such as "Every claim is true" (as Con) or such as "logic exists", or "reality exists". Any topic where opposite claim is false by definition, such as cats are animals, or animal agriculture sometimes causes pain to animals. Or you can pick known topics which are easily won and known to be won easily. You can also choose to be Con as instigator in case you cant be Pro.

Also, you can choose to always be contender, always accept topics which by definition cannot be true.

The reason why contender has advantage is 2x:

One is burden of proof, which is on Pro. So if you go as Pro, you have burden of proof. Even if Con doesnt prove his side of topic, you failing to prove yours means you lose.

Second thing is, last word. In debates, person with last word is always considered to have ultimate advantage. The ultimate advantage is that person with last word can save best counter argument or best claim for last round, and such must be accepted by voters due to no possible negation. This is the biggest problem in all debates. As long as Contender can mask his last round as relevant while also bringing out his best relevant claims then, Contender wins by default.

But will people be 'convinced by AI?

As someone who made ChatGPT learn about concept of argument claim which is true by definition, as well as hidden assumption which all non-definition arguments suffer from, I can say for sure AI will take approach on debating as if it was math. Math is based entirely on 3 things: law of identity, definitions and whatever is built using those two. Likewise, debating can be built with definitions. Arguments which are true by definition cannot even be logically questioned. I am working with ChatGPT because its most advanced AI and so far the only one capable of making definition based arguments, which are basically deduction definition arguments. It means if person agrees to specific definition, argument cannot be not true. It is entirely independent of any observation evidence, so it is more like math principles being applied in a debate. Math itself doesnt require observation. It is true by definitions it uses. Likewise, this idea of arguments which are true by definition and law of identity, I made ChatGPT learn such concept and to be able to repeat it into arguments. Tho most arguments cannot fit such concept, but the ones which can are the ones which become true by mere agreeing to definition. So the only way person can disagree with those is by challenging definition. Kinda like how you can disagree that 1+1=2 if you redefine 2. But once definitions are from dictionary, it is much more difficult for other person to disagree with it. Thus, two main concepts exists in definition based arguments: true by definition and false by definition. Both can be used to make argument which can only be denied if definition is disagreed with. So AI is on the path of making debating into a science like math, and once that project is completed, ordinary person will have about 0% chance to beat AI in a debate.

Meaningless, definitionally irrational, and a non-sequitur

Necessary thing by definition doesnt require explanation. By modal logic, which at this point I am sure you are unfamiliar with, possible explanation is explanation which contradicts with no known fact. Unkown explanation logically contradicts with no known fact. Non-logic is unknown, as you admitted. God likewise is unknown. So these are all possible explanations for logic.

"Don't need to be explained" is subjective first off all. But more importantly, this is a meaningless conclusion. An explanation is what which provides clarity. Calling something necessary does nothing to enhance our understanding of why and how it came to be

Necessary by definition is a thing which doesnt require "why". The one suiting description of such is "unknown" and the ones suiting description of unknown are Gods and non-logic.

So I can ask "Why logic exists? What created logic"?

Likewise, I can say for entire existence, what created it?

The problem for your position is NOT limited to logic alone. Even if you were to prove that logic doesnt need to be proved (an absurd claim where you cannot avoid using logic alone to defend existence of logic), you still would fail to account for existence of other things.

Why do atoms exist? No explanation...

Why do things which exist exist and why different things dont exist instead? Why does movement exist?

In other words, your problem starts with logic, but doesnt end there, but extends to all what exists.

Design of the world is such that you cannot explain why different design doesnt exist instead, and who made this design in the first place.

The mere idea that different world can be imagined, asks the question: why doesnt different world exist? What are conditions for existence?

Now, some atheists have offerred a simple argument:

P1. Things which exist cannot not exist at the same time

P2. Things which dont exist cannot exist at the same time

P3. Any imagined world different from real one is impossible at present moment by definition

However, the main issue with argument is that while it is a counter-contingency definition argument, it relies on idea that everything which exists is necessary and requires no explanation, and likewise provides no way to determine existence in the first place, while at the same time not even disproving God.

So eternal universe truly doesnt work as explanation, no matter how you put it, because existence itself, if needing no conditions, enables everything, including Gods.

So the only theory which can disprove God is that all other existence is contingent on something which at the same time prevents God from existing. But such necessary something would still be creative power which is capable of creating everything which exists, power which by definition still only suits God.

The idea there is that I'm supposed to be consistent, but that's only a problem within logic. You claim to accept non-logic, so that's still not a problem within your world view. It is only a problem from your view if you're beginning with logic, which you pretending you're not.

It is a problem for your position, which is: only logic and logical things exist. So if you concede to inconsistency or circular logic, you concede that your logic is flawed by laws of logic you use.

Already explained to you multiple times the difference between foundational and circular, and which one applies to my position. This isn't confusion by this point, you're just lying because you know your position is not defendable.

The problem, again, is that you accept foundation and build using it. But once foundation needs to be proved to exist, it fails to do so on its own. Truly, on their own, all definitions are either circular either undefined. All logic is either circular or unproved. Your foundation (A=A) cannot withstand any questioning, and the fact that it cannot be proved to exist by itself already shows flaw: thing which is used to prove existence cannot be used to prove its own existence, and thus any existence it proves likewise becomes unproved.

The mere action of identifying "non-logic" as a concept which can be conveyed and discussed already means you're using (and therefore accepting as valid) the first law of logic.

What a silly argument. And the one which was defeated about 10 times now. But here it goes again. Yes, I use logic. I also have explanation for why logic exists. You dont.

P1. Non-logic cannot be identified

P2. Thing which cannot be identified cannot be known

P3. Thing which cannot be known can be explanation for existence of logic.

C. Non-logic can be explanation for logic

Now, this is the argument you cannot disagree with because it was made out of your claims throughout all this conversation.

P3 is true by modal logic, no known fact can contradict non-logic as possible explanation for logic.

And since you provided no fact which makes non-logic impossible as explanation, it stands as possible explanation.

Explanations definitionally require logic to qualify, you cannot explain why logic is valid, only why it is necessary. Non-logic isn't valid by definition and isn't possible to rely on because you would have to first identify it, putting you in the camp of relying on logic before you've even started

Ok, so you cannot identify non-logic. If you cannot identify it, then you cannot know what it is. If you cannot know what it is, it can be explanation for logic while not requiring explanation of its own.

Saying that explanation is by definition using logic fails to understand one key point: logic must exist in order to be used. So since you cannot confirm existence of logic in any way, using logic to confirm logic violates principles of logic, making logic, from your position, impossible. Since you have no way to determine if logic exists, and you assume different from logic cannot exist either, what you end up with is nothing. To use logic requires logic to exist in the first place. And that is your unsolvable problem. Your starting point cannot be verified to exist using logic alone.

So again, a simple question, how do you know logic exists? It either does or doesnt, and to use it by its own standards requires it to exist in the first place.

You cannot use logic if it doesnt exist, and knowing it exists requires external validation which you as atheist lack.

Unproved according to someone who does not understand what proof means

Proof means:

1. There exists a system for determining whether thing exists or not
2. System confirmed that thing exists

Existence of such system itself cannot be proved by system itself.

So these premises follow:

P1. System for determining if things exist must itself exist

P2. System for determining if things exist cannot determine itself to exist, unless it uses external validation which requires no determination of its own

P3. External validation is non-logic, which requires no determination of its own

C. Non-logic validates system for determiming existence.

Now, remove non-logic and God from this, and all what you are left with is a system for determining existence which ironically cannot determine its own existence.

State cannot calculate prices effectively, because that requires profit driven motive. And it cannot calculate costs either. I know what you are thinking, "I will place someone in charge and that someone will be responsible". The responsible only exists in profit driven buisness. Profit driven buisness has every motive to improve in every way to secure profit. State driven buisness has no motive to research prices, constantly seek cost reduction, managing workforce effectively(sometimes requires firing lots of workers)...

There is a reason public schools are shit compared to private schools. Private schools have every incentive to try to improve maximally, their survival as buisness depends on it.

And as for quality of production, if you are buyer who has any brain, you will research which brand offers most quality at decent price. If you are buyer without brain, you will seek cheapest stuff and of course you will end up disappointed because cheapest stuff is most often the worst.

Has AI ever created completely new knowledge

Yes, new songs, new videos... I can even give you omniscience argument made by AI which I dont think anyone ever thought of before. Also, AI is a pattern learning machine, but it is not a copy paste machine. This is why AI making Hitler come to life in video and eat a lollipop is probably a video which didnt exist before.

Future is great for me.

I will have AI workers to work for me. Robot cleaner to clean for me. AI sex robot for sex. AI debater to make my arguments. AI maid to make my lunch and to run my economy while I sit back and grab her by the butt from time to time.

Selling my soul to Satan is the best deal I ever made!

Praise!

I enjoy telling people that AI will replace them.

After testing ChatGPT 5 on modern day debate and seeing how most people not only cant argue against it, but dont even understand the arguments it gives, I realized something.

AI has replaced them as debaters. They are no longer necessary because ChatGPT 5 is a better debater.

Now, AI is simply computer program based on human brain. Human brain learns patterns, and AI learns patterns too. The difference is that AI learns better, faster and more precise than most people.

In only 3 years of its existence, AI can already answer more questions than any human on Earth, can speak more languages than any human on Earth, and once AI agent develops more, AI will be able to basically work on its own and be as functional as a human being and more.

Now, compare that to average 100 IQ human. AI will be able to solve 160 IQ problems. But average human cant and wont ever be able to.

AI will also be able to be worker who works at efficiency hundreds of times above human, because AI machine isnt limited by human strength and speed. If you think about it, robot factories already increase production. However, AI robots improve speed and precision, and AI itself designs factory in most optimal way, reducing costs.

What is the need for average 100 IQ human? He is not needed intellectually at all, and he is not needed as a worker.

He is replaced by a more superior productive machine.

I sometimes think the state should manufacture various products such as cars and computers

State doesnt have a way to calculate prices, and state doesnt have a motive. This is why even military production is private in USA, and of course its most superior. I wouldnt trust government to make a decent sandwich, as proved by USSR's food shortages.

And how unaware they are of their own existence

Dont worry, AI will replace them.

How soon people forget

Its because they dont write down. I always write down so I dont forget.

The opposition have no rights, that is one of the core principles of authoritarianism

You have same rights as MAGA. You have a right to support Trump. You have a right to wear MAGA hat. You only dont have right to be opposition, but no one has that right, so there is no inequality.

Here is ChatGPT 5 defense of free speech as crucial for all other rights to be debated:

Here’s a tight formal version of such an argument, built so that each premise is true by definition, and its negation is false by definition:

Argument: All rights depend on free speech to be debated

1. By definition, a right is a claim that must be understood, asserted, or defended.
2. By definition, understanding, asserting, or defending requires communication.
3. By definition, communication of claims is free speech.
4. Therefore, by definition, every right requires free speech in order to be debated, understood, or defended.

Why the opposites are false by definition:

1. To deny (1) is to deny that rights involve claims, which cancels the very meaning of “right.”
2. To deny (2) is to say claims can exist without being expressed or understood, which contradicts what it means to “assert” or “defend.”
3. To deny (3) is to say communication of claims is not speech, which contradicts the definition of speech.
4. To deny the conclusion is to say rights can be debated without debate, which is self-contradictory.

Would you like me to expand this into a hierarchy of rights, showing free speech as the “meta-right” that makes all other rights functionally possible?

Granted, AI is still stupid, routinely following into the trap of Paradoxical Premises

If you ask AI to make argument where premises are true by definition, and premises opposite of premises in argument are false by definition, it makes some really cool arguments as long as topic isnt too difficult. Tho ChatGPT 5 works better than other AI. Local AI are so weak in comparison.

At some point I would like to see an option to just openly debate an AI here

AI cannot be debated if it makes arguments where premises are true by definition. I noticed this in new ChatGPT 5. There is simply no way to make decent counter argument on some topics. Argument is simply with premises which cannot be false, because they are true by definition. You can challenge the definition and thats about it, but even that is issue if it uses dictionary definitions, and it does.