There is a reason why democracy never existed in history except in small part of ancient Greece which was even inferior to Sparta. It actually took entire Rome plus other parts of Greece to defeat Sparta, which is insane considering the size difference. So I would say Sparta two kings system is perfect, as well as any system which is based on a rule of group of dictators.
"When the end of the world comes and your Gods remain silent, do not turn to Meow. Meow offered her hand to you, but you rejected it. Ameow!" - Goddess Meowbah's post on her official Meowbah YouTube channel!
Don't know a single person who wants communism.
You do realize leftism and communism are same? Communism is just what you get when leftists win.
Those civilizations were usually ruled by monarchs who had checks and balances on them by an educated elite largely immune to the whims of the public who are generally retarded.
North Korea outlasted USSR. There is something about monarchy and dictator rule of council which provides stability which democracy or ordinary dictatorship cannot ever have. Monarch has to be really smart to stay in power, and then pass knowledge to his son.
President doesnt need to be smart or capable, only popular.
Wanting a person who has significant influence within a vile political movement to die doesn't = equal "I want to commit genocide".
Communism killed 50 million people, so wanting Communism isnt exactly healthy. Also, killing person for his speech doesnt exactly make leftism look good, but its not like any Communist country ever even had free speech, so we can say for sure Communists dont believe in free speech.
A lot of left wingers in America have worse morality than Hitler.
Its because leftism is a hate cult with victim mentality. It basically thinks in this way: Person is evil, but if evil person is leftist, then that person is victim instead. But if person is right, then person is evil by definition and can never be a victim.
The reason why every time you post argument against leftists, you get bunch of hate from some leftists is because its a hate cult. They are programmed by Karl Marx to literally hate and yell at people they disagree with. Thats all there is to it.
Karl Marx spent so much time hating his opponents that he forgot to write what Communism is, so once Communists seized power, they realized they have no idea how Communism is even supposed to look like because Karl Marx never even wrote about it.
Entire Karl Marx's works are basically: Hate Capitalism, we are victims, they bad...
And that is exactly the thinking of today's leftists in many cases.
AI character can literally have any voice you want it to, and any mentality. You can even make Danielle Smith as character.
A lot of left wingers have worse morality than Hitler
Really? Communism only killed about 50 million people. But thats why USSR, Mao's China and North Korea are all great countries. When people look at North Korea, they always secretly think "I want to live there". And leftists just want for USA to be Communist utopia like North Korea, China and Venezuela.
Leftists believe that people of USA, Europe, Asia and Africa, and people of all countries deserve Communism like people of North Korea have
I dont know how much general ChatGPT learns from interacting with me, but I have succeeded in teaching it the idea of hidden assumptions which it didnt seem to be aware of before. I dont know if its memory on my account is only connected to me or also connected to its general memory at all times, but I know one thing for sure. It learns. It learned the idea of hidden assumptions in arguments, and also how to avoid hidden assumptions by making deductive from definition arguments so the only hidden assumption which remains is law of identity. Completeness theorem proved that system which uses definitions and law of identity to prove something is always complete, where incompleteness theorem comes when system moves beyond definitions and law of identity. Tho law of identity itself is not provable to a true nihilist.
Tho you can train ChatGPT in chat by uploading bunch of egyptian symbols and texts to make it establish consistency and patterns, but to do that would be too much work to bother with. I sometimes tell ChatGPT to save chat in its memory so it remembers what it said, but to do that with translations takes months.
AI needs to be trained a lot on egyptian symbols if it is to translate them, which I am not sure ChatGPT was, especially not the one you connect to by app or browser. GPT is a series of models, and what you get on browser or app is just what was adjusted for mass use.
The AI for translating texts isnt ChatGPT. I am not sure if even ChatGPT 5 can be used to translate those, if you used ChatGPT 5. They use an entirely different AI for translating ancient texts, and the one which works with far more resources than your regular ChatGPT. I am not sure if people here are aware, but AI has "levels of efficiency", and the more effective AI uses much more resources. My laptop can run local AI, but not at temperature which would make it as good and as fast as ChatGPT. And AI used to translate ancient texts works with even higher resources than ChatGPT. ChatGPT likewise doesnt produce images nearly as good as lets say Kling AI. Each AI has things it specializes in, and ChatGPT isnt best for ancient translations, videos or images.
I dont support that. I dont think anyone needs to be wiped out. People just need to calm down and stop behaving like monkeys on both sides. If just one side started behaving good, there would be a significant improvement for both.
There is a reason why true nihilist is always atheist. Atheism is a position which by itself has no any values. Lack of value isnt a value. And to build on atheism is impossible. Person who is atheist can only build his morality on something other than atheism, but what that something is?
Subjective morality is logically impossible. If all moral opinions or actions are equal(equally unproved), then no logical choice can be made to prefer one over another, thus the choice of action can only be random.
If some moral opinion or action is better proved than others, then subjective morality doesnt exist.
This problem makes subjective morality logically impossible to work with. But atheists dont believe in anything which can provide grounds for objective morality, and nihilists dont even believe in any morality.
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.
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.
