I created a logical proof where the conclusion is 'God Exists'

[n01ne]

The proof itself is simple:

Premise 1: An entity that surpasses mankind’s greatest strength is God

Premise 2: Mankind’s greatest strength is its ability to produce logic

Premise 3: AI has currently advanced to the point where it is better than humans in at least some measures of logic, and it is only rapidly improving from there

Conclusion: God Exists

I created it as a word game for myself and because I realized I could. I understand it is not sound under a traditional definition of the word God.

1. That actually creates an argument in and of itself if you actually logic it all the way through.

2. I can come VERY close to actually making this proof 100% sound. Under all definitions of God. There is only one string that blocks me from doing that.

I can easily defend the validity of the proof and easily explain to you why it is actually something of significant interest and is an actual discovery even if you do not think it is sound.

[Agent Smith]

I see what you're getting at. Resonates with me bruh, but so does the claim rain is not just water, it's <insert appropriate qualifier> water.

[Age]

The proof itself is simple:

Premise 1: An entity that surpasses mankind’s greatest strength is God

Premise 2: Mankind’s greatest strength is its ability to produce logic

Premise 3: AI has currently advanced to the point where it is better than humans in at least some measures of logic, and it is only rapidly improving from there

Conclusion: God Exists

I created it as a word game for myself and because I realized I could. I understand it is not sound under a traditional definition of the word God.

1. That actually creates an argument in and of itself if you actually logic it all the way through.

2. I can come VERY close to actually making this proof 100% sound. Under all definitions of God. There is only one string that blocks me from doing that.

I can easily defend the validity of the proof and easily explain to you why it is actually something of significant interest and is an actual discovery even if you do not think it is sound.

Premise 4. Humankind's greatest weakness might be its ability to produce illogic.

As shown and proved above.

By the way, What is that 'string', EXACTLY?

Also, what would you use to 'defend the validity of the proof'? Furthermore, I thought 'proof' and the 'validity of proof' stands all on its own and would not need 'defending'. But maybe I am wrong here?

And why is 'it' actually something of significant interest and is an actual discovery even if I do not think it is sound?

[Gary Childress]

The proof itself is simple:

Premise 1: An entity that surpasses mankind’s greatest strength is God

Premise 2: Mankind’s greatest strength is its ability to produce logic

Premise 3: AI has currently advanced to the point where it is better than humans in at least some measures of logic, and it is only rapidly improving from there

Conclusion: God Exists

I created it as a word game for myself and because I realized I could. I understand it is not sound under a traditional definition of the word God.

1. That actually creates an argument in and of itself if you actually logic it all the way through.

2. I can come VERY close to actually making this proof 100% sound. Under all definitions of God. There is only one string that blocks me from doing that.

I can easily defend the validity of the proof and easily explain to you why it is actually something of significant interest and is an actual discovery even if you do not think it is sound.

So literally, according to premise #1: ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that surpasses humans in the ability to produce logic is God?

[Flannel Jesus]

Yup.

Chimpanzees surpass humans in some mental tasks. Chimps are God. QED

[Gary Childress]

Yup.

Chimpanzees surpass humans in some mental tasks. Chimps are God. QED

Or maybe n01ne is preparing us for our machine overlords or something. Artificial Intelligence for the sake of Artificial Intelligence...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Harbal]

Premise 1: An entity that surpasses mankind’s greatest strength is God

Why do you think that?

[Gary Childress]

Premise 1: An entity that surpasses mankind’s greatest strength is God

Why do you think that?

Probably an AI engineer (or someone in that industry) trying to do philosophy is my guess. I'd be interested to hear if my intuition is correct.

[Ferdi]

Everything comes from the INFINITY of the universe , will return to it and be there forever.

[Gary Childress]

Everything comes from the INFINITY of the universe , will return to it and be there foreve.

Is that essentially the same as saying, the universe is everything that is and everything that is will cease to be what it is when we are gone?

[FlashDangerpants]

I can easily defend the validity of the proof and easily explain to you why it is actually something of significant interest and is an actual discovery even if you do not think it is sound.

You needed the first premise to say "Any entity..." rather than "An entity..." for there to be any chance of deductive validity.
With that fix applied, the premise sadly becomes doubly preposterous and there is no hope of defending it.

the other premises were shit too, but there's no need to prgoress to the second as the first is poisonously stupid.
Your talent does not justify your heightened levels of self belief.

[Dimebag]

You don’t understand what god is. Look into it.

[Skepdick]

The proof itself is simple:

Premise 1: An entity that surpasses mankind’s greatest strength is God

Premise 2: Mankind’s greatest strength is its ability to produce logic

Premise 3: AI has currently advanced to the point where it is better than humans in at least some measures of logic, and it is only rapidly improving from there

Conclusion: God Exists

I created it as a word game for myself and because I realized I could. I understand it is not sound under a traditional definition of the word God.

1. That actually creates an argument in and of itself if you actually logic it all the way through.

2. I can come VERY close to actually making this proof 100% sound. Under all definitions of God. There is only one string that blocks me from doing that.

I can easily defend the validity of the proof and easily explain to you why it is actually something of significant interest and is an actual discovery even if you do not think it is sound.

You are re-inventing the wheel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof

It's not interesting. Any sufficiently expressive (insufficiently constrained) logical system can express self-referential statements (e.g I am greater than X; or X is greater than me) and eventually produce contradictions. From a contradiction anything follows.

The problem, in this case, is that you are talking about "greatest strength" etc.etc.

If you want to deduce the existence of God; and in order to make the argument sound your premise must be an even more powerful God.
Because deduction starts with something general and arrives at somethign specific. So if you generalize God - you get a more general (greater) God.

[Ferdi]

Re Gary Childress of Mar3."Is that essentially the same as saying, the universe is everything that is and everything that is will cease to be what it is when we are gone?
My reply is that everything in the Universe will eventually simply return to wherever it came from, which ultmately is the INFINITE dimension, large and small of the Universe.

[Skepdick]

Re Gary Childress of Mar3."Is that essentially the same as saying, the universe is everything that is and everything that is will cease to be what it is when we are gone?
My reply is that everything in the Universe will eventually simply return to wherever it came from, which ultmately is the INFINITE dimension, large and small of the Universe.

The infinite dimension will also, ultimately return from wherever it came from, which is ultimately is the greater INFINITE dimension.

It's more and more infinite dimensions all the way down. Or is it up?