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! 🤣

Cool story, bro.

“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.

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.

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

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

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.

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’m sorry they banned you

Once again, it is not on someone else to refute your premise. You’ve now moved on to “I honestly don’t know how you could…”. That’s literally the textbook definition of an argument from incredulity/ignorance. You don’t get to assume premise 1 simply because you can’t imagine something.

And now you’re asserting a truth value of a premise in the FUTURE? Please man, put down whatever you’re smoking and go back to reading.

Just going through a couple of your comments after our exchange below.

As to this comment; you know this isn’t how it works right? You don’t get to just assume victory until someone disproves your premises, it is on you to demonstrate them.

Otherwise you could simply start with P1 god is outside of time. It’s inherently unfalsifiable, but that doesn’t mean you get to assume it true.

The burden of proof is an incredibly basic level when discussion logic/reason, and for you to immediately attempt to reverse it shows you either aren’t taking this seriously, haven’t actually dedicated time to educating yourself, are very naive/young, or you’re arguing in bad faith.

Mind linking to a screenshot of the ban message?

Why did you delete this from r/atheism?

As other have pointed out to you already, your premises are poorly formed, incredibly vague and subjective, and even if they were 100% demonstrably true, they don’t lead to your conclusion.

Nothing wrong with trying, and don’t take all this negative feedback and give up. If anything, I’d say your attitude is what most people are reacting negatively to. Lots of ego in your posts while on such shaky foundation, even for a layman.