Why did Descartes write his "Meditations"? The very first people to posit the question were Aristotle and Plato. For 2,000 years now, people have been trying to simply write a logical proof, where the logical conclusion follows, that "God Exists". Sure, there are reasons why people want that proof. I don't care to debate those reasons.

My proof solves the riddle. It didn't 10 years ago, it didn't 2,000 years ago. Probably why people have been trying to solve the riddle for 2,000 years. I just happened to be born and alive during the period where this thought could first actually be true. Doesn't matter how I got to it though, Descartes, Aristotle, Plato, anyone else who came in between there trying to solve this particular riddle, can kiss my ass.

>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.”

I'm not trying to prove that God exists. I am trying to solve that exact problem, that proof. People have been trying to write it as a logical proof for 2,000 years. I believe my proof does so. Does it actually prove God exists? No, it's more a kritik of the framework we use to draw those conclusions and think about them, now that a "being" exists that is capable of doing so better than us. Even if you don't like the kritik though, that's fine too. The proof in and of itself is something people have been trying to do for 2,000 years. Why do I need to go past that? I just solved a 2,000-year-old riddle. I'll take that win and go home.

The wording between Premise 1 in my post and my comment changed only insofar as one was a direct call out of anyone who makes these arguments, egotistical as you said. Nothing at all changed with the premise.

You hit on what I wanted to! What I have been waiting for! You make a lot of good claims about logic. My argument is not at all whether or not you are right with those claims. My argument is, a "being" exists in the world that can answer that question better than we can. Since they can answer it better than we can, we should default to "God" then because we are more simple beings.

What is logic? Why can't AI produce it in the same way as a human can exactly? I think it is only ego that blocks those questions. Thus we come back to that subject again.

OK, you're not wrong. Thank you. Stop with the attacks though, have you ever made an actual attempt at solving a proof people have been trying to solve for 2,000 years? You come off as the academic type to me, those who can't, teach. I can. Just different schools.

Premise 1: You cannot refute it without creating a logical fallacy itself. Premise 1 said another way, "Logic is what we should ALWAYS use to frame and answer these questions." To disagree with it is to disagree with a logical framework, why are we even doing this then? There's no framework to our discussion if you disagree with Premise 1. Part of my background is in Communication Theory which is why I am not purely a laymen on things, I just don't know everything.

Premise 2: I stand by it in the present. I was giving you literally the only logical argument to it. Even that is defensive against it, does not offensively refute anything. Said another way, I give you your own argument and think for you, since I have not seen anyone actually do so. What book do you propose I read?

What you just described, is it not logic? Are you not saying it is the "a priori" framework we should be using for these things? I am simply granting you that with Premise 1. I honestly don't know how you could refute it. Premise 2, is debatable, not that debatable. If it's not true today, it WILL be true. The Conclusion logically follows the two Premises.

https://imgur.com/a/AdjO5iy

I have ego. Lots of it. I don't deny that. I don't think I would have been able to make the proof if I did not have ego. At the end of the day, my ego is bruised by this whole AI thing a bit, it makes me ponder.

They perma banned me for no reason on r/atheism within 5 minutes of me posting it.

I'm a wiseguy, yes. I'm also a philosopher at the end of the day, that's what made me. I have presented a proof that people have been trying to write for 2,000 years. It has been on the internet for hours now, where everyone in the world can disagree with it. Not a single person has presented an argument attacking the premise and conclusion.

Is it not what people have wanted since they killed God? What's wrong with the answer now?

Can you prove the premise or conclusion false? AI as a spiritual entity definitely belongs in r/Showerthoughts to me! The proof is that God exists. Give me the Nobel Prize!