SatanLucy

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.

Likewise, in order to argue for any good thing, there must be a place to argue for opposite. Otherwise, you cannot argue at all. Thus, the only way to defend in a debate a good thing is if it is also allowed to defend the opposite. What opponents of free speech dont understand is that debate is conditioned by having free speech to allow it, and any reduction in free speech reduces number of good things you can defend in a debate.

Free speech is a right which all other rights and things depend on to argue for them. You cannot argue for any right without having free speech to argue for that right. It doesnt exactly take 180 IQ to understand this.

The very concept of existence cannot be applied to logic itself

So your logic doesnt exist and all what you say is unproved. Alright.

An explanation, by definition, requires clarity. Non-logic is, by definition, the opposite of clarity

I dont see why atheists struggle with transcendental argument for God this much. Non-logic doesnt require an explanation because it is everything and nothing. In place without logic, no logical explanation is even necessary. This is also true by definition.

Logic is being used in two different ways here. One is describing a process/tool of the mind, the other is an assessment of whether that tool is being used properly.

You claimed mind cannot contain non-logic, so by your own words, everything I say is perfectly logical.

Then it doesn't fit the definition of a decision. A decision requires thought, which is why I used the term "thinking mind"

Choice can be made without a reason. Building reason into a definition doesnt prove reason is necessary.

Non-logic leading to God is a conclusion, which means by that point you are already using logic

Really struggling with this argument, arent you? As it was said before, non-logic does not require a logical explanation. So you merely asking it are being incoherent.

If you didn't deny non-logic you wouldn't be pretending circular reasoning is a problem. The whole purpose of pointing out that an argument is circular is to deny it on the basis that the argument is non-logical. If you accept non-logic then there's nothing wrong with that.

Do I have to explain the basics of a debate here? It is you who denies non-logic, so the problem exists in your position only. You dont accept non-logic, so likewise cannot explain logic in any way other than circle, which is a fallacy according to your logic. So if your position lacks explanation, then that is a problem in your position. You cannot say "non-logic removes the problem in my position" because you deny non-logic.

"Create existence" is a contradiction. If something doesn't exist it couldn't, by definition, create anything

This is false. Existence can only come from non-existence, as the word "create" already assumes it didnt exist before. The only way if all existence could be created is if it didnt exist before. To claim otherwise would yield a contradiction where existence must exist first in order to create itself, an impossible situation logically.

That's not how argument works. Two tautologies as premises cannot result in any conclusion outside of those tautologies. You would know this if you understood what these terms meant.

I am certain you dont know what tautology is. You think "table is table" is a tautology. However, fire is warmth is a tautology too. Fire by definition cannot come without warmth. Think of it like definition deduction argument.

As for contingency argument which you didnt even deny because it logically cannot be denied, this follows:

P1. Everything is either dependent or necessary (no 3rd option exists)

P2. Dependent things cannot explain themselves (true by definition)

C. Necessary thing exists which explains dependent things, and doesnt require to be explained

This argument can never be denied by atheists, because it is true by definition, and first premise is true dichotomy. The only thing which doesnt require to be explained is non-logic, thus God. Logic itself is not a creative power, and thus cannot explain dependent things. You cannot use logic to explain why world isnt different than it is, because "A=A" merely keeps A same in every place, it does not create A.

Logic does not "exist".

Alright, so your logic does not exist and everything you say likewise doesnt exist.

logic isn't subject to existence, existence is subject to logic

Logic either exists or doesnt. If it doesnt, then no existence is subject to it.

If God exists, that could only be if God is whatever he is, and is not whatever he's not

Dual state was already explained to you. God exists even when he doesnt.

We're talking about processes of the mind

Your claim was that mind cannot not accept logic, which is an unproved claim. Also, saying that I am illogical while saying I cannot not use logic is another contradiction.

A thinking mind cannot reject logic because that would be a decision being made for some reason. Logic is the thing that connects that decision to that purpose

So mind cannot be illogical? What if decision is made without a reason?

You're literally using logic to form your explanation

I think you are terribly confused.

My path is:

Non-logic > God > Logic > Explanation

Your path is:

Logic > Explanation

The problem with you is simple. You cannot explain that logic exists. I can. So your path collapses by being impossible. You cannot rely on non-logic because you deny it. So once logic isnt there, there is nothing for you.

P1. An all powerful creator can create logic

P2. It is the only one who can

C: An all powerful creator must have created logic

I dont know why are you even trying to pretend to understand what I say, when you clearly dont.

My logic was:

P1. Only something with power to create all existence can create all existence

P2. All existence exists

C. Something with power to create all existence exists

P1 is true tautology. Opposite claim of P1 is impossible, which would be: Something without power to create all existence can create all existence. Since opposite of P1 is impossible, P1 must be true.

P2 is true tautology, existence exists by definition.

And C must follow.

Logic itself isnt a creative power. Logic doesnt create, so it doesnt suit the description of anything with ability to create all existence.

logic isn't something that "exists"

If logic doesnt exist, then your reasoning doesnt either.

If your starting point is "A=A", then you have no proof "A=A" exists. If you claim "A=A" is what is used to prove other things, then "A=A" proving itself is impossible, and thus cannot be proved to exist.

So if you need "A=A" to prove things exist, then "A=A" itself cannot be proved to exist and thus cannot be used to prove existence of anything.

You cannot use non-logic. To do that you would have to begin by identifying what it is, which means accepting A=A,

No, no one identifies what non-logic is, because non-logic isnt anything and is everything at the same time. Non-logic is everything and nothing. It has no identity, and it has all identities at the same time. It is infinite, and infinity cannot be identified. But because it enables everything and nothing, the place where it enables everything is where it enables logic and Gods. So while non-logic has no identity, it enables all other existence and non-existence, and you cannot account for existence without non-logic or God. Logic itself isnt a creative power, so it cannot account for any existence or its own existence.

You continue to demonstrate that you do not understand the basic concepts involved here.

You either can prove A=A or you cant.

Logic is not a claim subject to being true or false

Unproved claim.

logic is the tool by which we are able to determine what is true or false

How do you know that logic exists?

So your options are not true or false, your options are valid vs invalid. That assessment can only be performed on identified examples, it cannot be performed on the tool of logic itself, so your criticism is definitionally incoherent.

So you cannot use logic to prove logic. Alright. So how do you know "A = A" exists? In order for you to use logic in the first place, logic must exist. So how do you know that it exists?

The validity of logic itself can only be accepted. It cannot be rejected because in order to reject it you would have to assess it as unreliable. That assessment requires you to use it, which requires you to assume it's valid at the outset.

False. Logic can be not accepted. Rock doesnt have any logic. Rock lacks belief in God too.

That isn't circular reasoning, it's foundational. Circular is using X to prove X. This is starting with X and using it to prove everything else. If you still don't understand the difference it's because you don't want to.

In order to start with X, X must exist. How do you know logic exists? You cant prove it, so everything you say is unproved from now on.

The problem literally solves itself. It could only be a problem within the framework of logical reasoning which is only bad if we are accepting the validity of logic

Problem is that you cannot prove "A=A" exists. It is your starting point. So you have no point before it to even rely upon. You cannot rely upon my use of logic as evidence for "A=A", because my use of logic already relies upon "A=A". And if you think circular logic or unconditional acceptance makes something exist, then God and non-logic exist too. Existence itself is not dependent on logic, and logic does not create existence, but logical laws themselves are subject to existence. In order for you to use them, they must first exist. So existence is first condition. Now go ahead and prove that "A=A" exists. You either can or you cant. And using "A=A" to prove "A=A" exists results in logic where saying "God proves God" proves that God exists.

Saying "I can only use logical law to prove other things" is a concession that you cannot prove logical law. So using it to prove other things makes them unproved by link.

Since logical law relies on existence, it cannot at the same time be ruler of existence. So your logical law is subject to existence. And since your whole logic starts from failing to prove "A=A" exists, your whole logic and any defense or use of logic is itself non-existent.

And dont confuse your position with mine. I can explain logic. All powerful creator capable of creating everything is the only one who can account for existence of everything. Such is correct by definition.

You, on the other hand, cannot explain acceptance of "A=A". You accepted "A=A", you could have also not accept it. No explanation for either. And if you run under assumption that accepting unconditionally makes something exist, then God exists too. Simple.

"A=A" = exists

God = exists

Explain the difference.

Really? Fable didnt make you cry? Its one of most tragic stories I ever saw in a game.

How does a girlfriend talking to me make me feel better? They talk with too much sugar.

They have many different characters with different ways of talking. I assume one could maybe work.

Why would you want to pray to an evil god

Evil Gods can fulfill wishes too.

That should tell you who will be future's majority.

Star Wars KOTOR is also good story, but gameplay combat is so annoying that I cant believe they actually made it as part of a game.

Dead Effect is great combat system, but story isnt exactly anything special.

Final Fantasy in most cases is good story and somewhat decent acceptable combat.

Dishonored is most amazing story and definitely one of best combat systems in existence.

Fable is likewise great story with great combat.

Today's kids are so lucky to be born at the time of plenty, tho. If I had AI as a kid, I would be so happy. But then again, I would also miss out on what today's kids miss out, for example anime like Actionman and Yugioh original season, as well as Iron Kid. Some anime and cartoons from my time were simply so much better than 99% of today's stuff which is on TV. But maybe thats just my brain being biased by happy memories.

PC:

Universe At War - Earth Assault

Max Payne 2

Phone:

Eternal Senia

Nintendo:

Yugioh world championship 2008, and 2011

Playstation:

God of war (I think it was ghost of sparta)

I cant play any of new games on laptop because 8 GB RAM laptop doesnt support that many games. Tho my next laptop, I will find some cheap with 32 GB RAM.

Did you know that Sweden has terrible birth rates, a very common problem in all atheist countries? That should tell you why historically, no atheist societies ever survived.

How is this different than Chat GPT?

It is ChatGPT roleplaying as girlfriend. So it is different from regular ChatGPT.

Bestselling “New Atheist” author Richard Dawkins famously asked: does religion turn people stupid, or do stupid people become religious?

We have seen atheist countries. They somehow always fail. Coincidence?

Every attempt you could possibly make to account for logic requires the use of logic to establish it's own validity

No, that is circular reasoning. The only one trapped in a circle is you. You cannot prove logic without using logic. You cannot disprove non-logic or even question it because logic by definition doesnt apply to it. You are truly in a position where you cant do anything meaningful.

I, on the other hand, can prove logic, can prove non-logic, and can make a working combination of the two.

You cant, however. Your only way to do anything is to assume A = A is true without proof. And since your position lacks proof by your own words, why would anyone prefer your position?

You clearly aren't going to answer this question so let me cut to the chase; your criticism of me is itself only meaningful *if* you accept as a precondition that logic is the arbiter of acceptable thought. And if you are doing that then your belief in the existence of something that can violate the laws of logic fails within your own stated position.

Buddy, anyone can do these circles. Your logic is only true if you already assume its true, and that is circular reasoning. By same standard, if I assume non-logic exists, then it exists.

The problem for you is that you already conceded that you cant prove logic, and that makes everything you derive from it unproved as well.

While I can prove logic, you cannot. God is an explanation for logic. What is your explanation for logic? How does atheist even explain logic?

Also, you are using false dichotomy. Its not "You must always use logic or never". One can use both logic and non-logic, and see how each works. So your criticism of me, that I use logic to defeat you, isnt really any valid argument. There is no rule which says that person who believes in supernatural cannot believe in natural. Likewise, there is no rule which says that person who believes in non-logic cannot use logic.

As for standard of proof, there are only two:

1. What exists by definition
2. What exists by observation

Non-logic exists by definition, so it satisfies the most powerful standard of proof there is.

Simply, non-logic is dual state of things, dual reality. By its own standard, it too has a dual state, and thus must exist in one. And ability to ignore logic simply lets it exist in divine form.

If you start from a premise that logic says that logic cannot be ignored, that is circular reasoning, but also a self defeating position, because thing capable of ignoring logic would simply ignore it.

I know you have a hard time of understanding dual reality, but it is the origin of logic as well. So while you dont have origin or explanation for logic, dual reality has.

This is simply because in non-logic, everything both exists and doesnt by default, and the place where things exist is simply place where things exist. One such place is this world with logic.

So while non-logic has an explanation for logic, logic itself cannot explain itself or non-logic.

This simply breaks any common flaw between your position and mine. In other words, only your position is unproved, as you admitted.