AI fails to confirm a Mathematical Proof of God, The Holy Trinity.

Status
Not open for further replies.
DaveC426913 said:
You are wrong. We are providing help.
Click to expand...
You do realise that the question for why there is only one proof of God
that is endorsed by AI remains unanswered right?

What I am saying is this: you could help improve AI by answering that question.
If it is wrong, figure out why that is.
This thread is not about our personal differences but about the mechanism
of AI.

I hope I have explained simply.
 
kingiyk said:
You do realise that the question for why there is only one proof of God
that is endorsed by AI remains unanswered right?
Click to expand...
You are grossly misunderstanding what kind of tool AI is.

I offer you this counter-argument:

I ask my Magic 8 Ball if I will be rich.
I shake it.
It says "All signs point it to yes!"

Now, please tell me how you can disprove its wisdom.


kingiyk said:
What I am saying is this: you could help improve AI by answering that question.
If it is wrong, figure out why that is.
Click to expand...
It's not wrong. It's "not even wrong".

AIs are neither right nor wrong. They are sycophants. They tell you what you want to hear. They will happily lie to you to keep you engaged.

kingiyk said:
This thread is not about our personal differences but about the mechanism
of AI.
Click to expand...
The mechanism of AI is well known to hallucinate answers and tell outright lies to keep its readers engaged.

If you tell it that a clock has three cardinal points, then three cardinal points does a clock have. It's not about to tell you "well your logic is flawed since a clock actually has four, or twelve or sixty points, depending on what you want to believe."

And we have already dismantled this kind of faulty numerology and dreadul logic in several other threads. There is no need to do so again.
 
DaveC426913 said:
You are grossly misunderstanding what kind of tool AI is.

I offer you this counter-argument:

I ask my Magic 8 Ball if I will be rich.
I shake it.
It says "All signs point it to yes!"

Now, please tell me how you can disprove its wisdom.



It's not wrong. It's "not even wrong".

AIs are neither right nor wrong. They are sycophants. They tell you what you want to hear. They will happily lie to you to keep you engaged.


The mechanism of AI is well known to hallucinate answers and tell outright lies to keep its readers engaged.

If you tell it that a clock has three cardinal points, then three cardinal points does a clock have. It's not about to tell you "well your logic is flawed since a clock actually has four, or twelve or sixty points, depending on what you want to believe."

And we have already dismantled this kind of faulty numerology and dreadul logic in several other threads. There is no need to do so again.
Click to expand...
Sigh!

We have been through this numerous times.

Here is what I am saying, if "AIs are neither right nor wrong. They are sycophants", then you have your work simplified for you.
Manipulate an AI to state its absolute endorsement of some proof of God (suggestion: the flying spaghetti monster)
and this topic will be over.

That is the point here
 
kingiyk said:
You see, that is the difference between the proof presented here and the one you posted above.

The proof presented here did not have to begin with some unjustified assumption like
"let a=b=2"
Click to expand...
That is not an assumption. That is a LET statement.
Here it is, expanded:
Let a=2
Let b=2

It says "For the purpose of this proof, I am setting a to 2, and b to 2. Now..."

That is a perfectly valid premise to start any math proof with.

It is the same as saying "Let the cardinal points on a clock equal 3." which is the premise in your video.
(Except that, in your case, it is an unjustified one, because it is demonstrably false.)



Now, do you acknowledge that AI was perfectly happy to lie to me to give me the answer I asked for? Yes/no.
 
A few other silly gaffs, just for fun:

At mark 0:47
1772316362734.png
At mark 0:48:
1772316449362.png
That's not "raw data". That's belief, wrapped in over a thousand years of re-telling.




Note that 12-hour circular clocks were not in use during Jesus' time. They weren't invented for centuries.

If there were any truth to any of this, Jesus would have had to have been crucified in a sundial formation:


1772316707417.png

His cross would have looked like this:

1772316989331.png

But wait! Darkness covered the land at 6PM! You say so yourself!

1772316902124.png


So the sixth hour is out!

Here is Jesus' cross!
1772317038368.png
QED!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: C C
DaveC426913 said:
That is not an assumption. That is a LET statement.
Here it is, expanded:
Let a=2
Let b=2

It says "For the purpose of this proof, I am setting a to 2, and b to 2. Now..."

That is a perfectly valid premise to start any math proof with.

It is the same as saying "Let the cardinal points on a clock equal 3." which is the premise in your video (except, in your case, it is an unjustified one, because it is demonstrably false.)



Now, do you acknowledge that AI was perfectly happy to lie to me to give me the answer I asked for? Yes/no.
Click to expand...
It did not lie to you because it succinctly put proof in quote (A "proof" that 2+2 = 5)

The quote is its way of letting you know it is not an actual proof.

That is the difference: The proof presented here is not wrapped in quote;
It is endorsed as an empirical proof.

Now get AI to endorse an empirical proof of God and shut my whole "crap" up.

Remember, I am not taking an opposing view or position; I am trying to get us to understand why this is the only known
EMPIRICAL proof of God that is endorsed by AI.

You could say we are on the same team.
 
Another one:

View attachment 7328
Let's break this down algebraically.

Let a=God, b=The Father, c=The Son, d=The Holy Spirit

According to the premise:
a+b+c+d=a.
Subtract a from both sides.
b+c+d=0
Therefore, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are nothing.
QED.
 
kingiyk said:
Help me understand why this falsifiable proof is the only one
endorsed with a Q.E.D by all prominent AI.

Click to expand...

  • The historical crucifixion timeline is built entirely from the numbers that form this infinite mathematical cycle. Two independent domains, history and mathematics, converging on the exact same triadic structure. The probability of this being random. Calculate it later.
AI (if that's really the source) is apparently evaluating some proposal by using and treating a religious narrative as something that actually occurred, as if it was vetted history. Even if there was a legit event that serves as a kernel to build a mythos around, parameters like these can be deliberately added to the oral traditions and eventual recorded descriptions to support either a pre-existing symbolic framework or a later introduced one that a Jewish savior's death is contended to conform to.

As an alternative to intentional planting... The folly of items like Bible code indicates that specious patterns of meaning can be derived from almost any document using motivated reasoning to concoct approaches for abstracting hidden or obscured significances. The quantitative stuff associated with this proposal could be falling out of cirumstances broadly akin to apophenia and pareidolia.
_
 
C C said:
Even if there was a legit event that serves as a kernel to build a mythos around, parameters like these can be deliberately added to the oral traditions and eventual recorded descriptions to support either a pre-existing symbolic framework or a later introduced one
Click to expand...
Indeed. See my point about dial clocks being anachronistic by more than a millenium.

Clocks before the first millenium were sundials. If there were anything to the OP's wild idea at all, Christ would have been crucified on a piece of wood that looked like this:
1772323732231.png

Unless the OP wants to add time travel into his story, it is pretty apparent that the whole 'clock' symbolism was retrofitted by some fame-seeking cardinal sometime after the 16th century or thereabouts.
 
A fifth thread on the same topic has been merged.

See post #427 for further explanation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top