New Video: 8 Unique & Original Proofs Of God

[Yimpa]

1 hour ago, Bufo Alvarius said:

and was that a positive or a negative experience, like what was your reaction to it?

Edited Tuesday at 08:55 PM by Yimpa

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Bufo Alvarius said:

and was that a positive or a negative experience, like what was your reaction to it?

Infinity is Love.

Nothing better can be imagined.

[Leo Gura]

But you guys would probably hate it, given how fond you are of human noise.

[Oppositionless]

17 hours ago, Oppositionless said:

 

1) consciousness is immaterial

2)therefore consciousness does not occupy space 

3) because consciousness does not occupy space it is not limited by anything 

4) therefore consciousness is infinite

5) therefore every possible state of consciousness exists 

6) therefore every possible experience exists 

7) therefore God exists 

 

are these critiques from Grok really holes in the argument or is AI just too dumb to counter it? I'm not sure how to update it to make it stronger.
Grok:

 

Overall Assessment

•  Strengths: The argument is creative and builds on philosophical ideas about consciousness and infinity. It could resonate with idealist or panentheistic worldviews, where consciousness and divinity are closely linked.

•  Weaknesses: Several steps (especially 3, 5, and 7) make unwarranted assumptions or logical leaps. The argument relies on ambiguous terms (“infinite,” “limited,” “God”) and lacks rigorous support for key claims, such as why non-spatiality implies no limitations or why all possible experiences necessitate God. It also ignores competing views (e.g., materialism) that challenge the initial premise.

•  Validity: The argument is not logically valid due to gaps in reasoning (e.g., premise 3’s overreach and premise 7’s non-sequitur). Even if valid, it wouldn’t be sound without proving the premises true, which is difficult given their speculative nature.

•  Alternative Interpretations: The argument might work better as a theological or metaphysical hypothesis within a specific framework (e.g., idealism or theism), but it’s not compelling as a universal proof.

Edited Tuesday at 10:11 PM by Oppositionless

[Rishabh R]

@Leo Gura As per singularity can it be inferred even in non-awakened state that you are already singular as whole as well as even you on the surface appear distinct from the universe you are connected to it on a more fundamental level which takes thinking, intelligence and contemplation to to see ?

[Synchronicity]

2 hours ago, Oppositionless said:

are these critiques from Grok really holes in the argument or is AI just too dumb to counter it? I'm not sure how to update it to make it stronger.
Grok:

There are massive holes in your argument. It’s not just the AI being too dumb for you 

For example, something can be non-spatial (not occupying space) & still be limited 

Biased emotions are one example. They don’t occupy space. They can be limited regardless 

Numbers are another example. Yes, numbers of things occupy space. Like 3 rocks, for example. But numbers themselves don’t, because they are properties/arrangements of items. Numbers themselves don’t occupy space. But many numbers are limited, despite their abstract non-spatial nature 

Points are another example. 0-D points don’t have any extension throughout space, cause they’re zero-dimensional. And yet, they’re limited. They’re incapable of presenting any extension. That’s their limit 

There’s many more examples

There’s also many assumptions in your other premises, but even with just #3, the argument closes itself off from many other possibilities & corresponding objections 

Leo’s video has problems too. His tautologies weren’t actually tautologies. But I don’t know if if he prefers people white-knighting in his forum. That may be disrespectful & deserving of a ban. I don’t know his policies 

But I don’t see any good arguments or proofs in this forum so far 

I’m not sure where everyone is assuming that AI is too unintelligent for them. Sometimes, it is. But I think people here are just over-estimating the validity of their proofs

[Leo Gura]

36 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

I don’t know his policies 

I'm not gonna ban you for criticizing my proofs.

Edited Tuesday at 11:40 PM by Leo Gura

[Oppositionless]

36 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

There are massive holes in your argument. It’s not just the AI being too dumb for you 

For example, something can be non-spatial (not occupying space) & still be limited 

Biased emotions are one example. They don’t occupy space. They can be limited regardless 

Numbers are another example. Yes, numbers of things occupy space. Like 3 rocks, for example. But numbers themselves don’t, because they are properties/arrangements of items. Numbers themselves don’t occupy space. But many numbers are limited, despite their abstract non-spatial nature 

Points are another example. 0-D points don’t have any extension throughout space, cause they’re zero-dimensional. And yet, they’re limited. They’re incapable of presenting any extension. That’s their limit 

There’s many more examples

There’s also many assumptions in your other premises, but even with just #3, the argument closes itself off from many other possibilities & corresponding objections 

Leo’s video has problems too. His tautologies weren’t actually tautologies. But I don’t know if if he prefers people white-knighting in his forum. That may be disrespectful & deserving of a ban. I don’t know his policies 

But I don’t see any good arguments or proofs in this forum so far 

I’m not sure where everyone is assuming that AI is too unintelligent for them. Sometimes, it is. But I think people here are just over-estimating the validity of their proofs

The thing that limits numbers is the law of identity. Numbers can be infinite , but can never cease to be numbers .  Consciousness is also limited similarly, consciousness can never cease to be consciousness. But it's unlimited, like numbers, within its domain. And the domain of consciousness is experience, and God is an experience of the all.

[Synchronicity]

4 minutes ago, Oppositionless said:

The thing that limits numbers is the law of identity. Numbers can be infinite , but can never cease to be numbers .  Consciousness is also limited similarly, consciousness can never cease to be consciousness. But it's unlimited, like numbers, within its domain. And the domain of consciousness is experience, and God is an experience of the all.

The Law of Identity is “things are themselves” 

Tell us how that implies limitation to numbers, when even you just said that numbers can be infinite 

Infinities can also be themselves (which is Law of Identity). So clearly, Law of Identity doesn’t automatically limit things 

Show me your reasoning, because there appears to be a gap in what you’re doing 

Also, you didn’t acknowledge the fact that some numbers are finite & still don’t occupy space. Which already shows a gap in your 3rd premise 

Even if the number line is infinite, there are still many examples of things which are non-spatial & not boundless 

If being non-spatial is the single deciding factor in what makes God, God, then that seems like a very powerless idea of God 

God would be more than just non-spatial. So non-spatiality alone doesn’t prove God. Finite numbers are merely one example of this 

[Synchronicity]

23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I'm not gonna ban you for criticizing my proofs.

Gotcha, good to know 

I may write up something in a bit then, while being respectful 

I understand that the point of the video was that Awakening comes prior to the logic. So I’d take that into account while looking at what tautologies are 

[Oppositionless]

21 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

The Law of Identity is “things are themselves” 

Tell us how that implies limitation to numbers, when even you just said that numbers can be infinite 

Infinities can also be themselves (which is Law of Identity). So clearly, Law of Identity doesn’t automatically limit things 

Show me your reasoning, because there appears to be a gap in what you’re doing 

Also, you didn’t acknowledge the fact that some numbers are finite & still don’t occupy space. Which already shows a gap in your 3rd premise 

Even if the number line is infinite, there are still many examples of things which are non-spatial & not boundless 

If being non-spatial is the single deciding factor in what makes God, God, then that seems like a very powerless idea of God 

God would be more than just non-spatial. So non-spatiality alone doesn’t prove God. Finite numbers are merely one example of this 

Numbers that are finite, and don't occupy space, but there is a crucial difference between numbers and consciousness. The difference is that numbers are discrete, whereas consciousness is not. To create a consciousness that is discrete in the way a number is, you'd have to isolate consciousness to just one moment of conscious experience. But there is no such thing as a single moment of consciousness, because you can divide time and moments forever.

Now there is the case of numbers such as pi, and they appear to go on forever. But I maintain that pi is really only a representation of a discrete number. that is, a representation of pi to a specific number of decimal places.

however the point about emotions being non spatial and also limited does seem like a tough one that I'm honestly unsure of how to answer. except to defer back to the first point about there not being a discrete "moment" of experience, of which emotion is a subset.

I might need a couple hours of contemplation to respond to your whole inquiry but this is the first point that came to mind.

Edited Wednesday at 12:19 AM by Oppositionless

[Leo Gura]

20 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

Gotcha, good to know 

I may write up something in a bit then, while being respectful 

I understand that the point of the video was that Awakening comes prior to the logic. So I’d take that into account while looking at what tautologies are 

Perhaps present your own best proof and we can compare.

It's easy to criticize any proof of God because logic only goes so far.

If you have a proof of God that is better than mine, I would like to hear it.

Edited Wednesday at 12:20 AM by Leo Gura

[Rishabh R]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Perhaps present your own best proof and we can compare.

It's easy to criticize any proof of God because logic only goes so far.

If you have a proof of God that is better than mine, I would like to hear it.

Can I try ?

[Synchronicity]

19 minutes ago, Oppositionless said:

Numbers that are finite, and don't occupy space, but there is a crucial difference between numbers and consciousness. The difference is that numbers are discrete, whereas consciousness is not. To create a consciousness that is discrete in the way a number is, you'd have to isolate consciousness to just one moment of conscious experience. But there is no such thing as a single moment of consciousness, because you can divide time and moments forever.

I might need a couple hours of contemplation to respond to your whole inquiry but this is the first point that came to mind.

No, numbers aren’t discrete. I realize that God is a topic beyond mathematics, but since we’re discussing numbers, we can look at those mathematically 

The number line is fluid (meaning, non-discrete) in mathematics. That’s why even finite numbers can be divided infinitely. That’s the paradox. They have a boundary (e.g. 3 stops at 3, instead of going further to 3.1+) & therefore, because they have a boundary, they’re finite 

But because they’re fluid, they can still be divided infinitely, despite their finitude 

If instead, numbers were discrete - as you claim - then they wouldn’t be infinitely divisible like that 

Now, here’s my overall point. I’m not saying that I believe that consciousness is some finite non-discrete thing like some numbers are. That’s not my point 

My point is that, your proof hasn’t even looked at the possibility that consciousness is 

Again, I’m not saying consciousness is. But we’re talking about logical proofs here. Not just awakening. And in order for your proof to qualify as a proof, it needs to show us how it’s impossible for consciousness to be that way

And I’m sorry, but saying “consciousness is non-spatial,” isn’t enough, because there’s soooo many non-spatial things that are still bounded 

Therefore, non-spatiality doesn’t automatically prove infinity 

And that’s just looking at your 3rd premise, let alone the rest of your argument 

But I hope I’m not being too much of an asshole here. I’m glad that you were open-minded on the emotions example. So I hope I’m not coming across as a douchebag 

Edited Wednesday at 12:28 AM by Synchronicity

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Rishabh R said:

Can I try ?

I encourage all of you to try.

I am not here to defend my proofs. Invent your own, if you dare.

If you can come up with a better proof than mine, I'm all for it.

Edited Wednesday at 12:31 AM by Leo Gura

[Rishabh R]

@Leo Gura Challenge accepted. How about this one .Since proof is infinitely imaginary God is also infinite imagination. For example when one is arguing with another person and trying to prove something to that person and let's say that no matter how hard they try they cannot prove them which they are trying to , so they are going on and on. 

With the person trying to prove a certain thing but since two persons live in a different imaginary reality in their head. The person trying to prove something is coming up with sub-proofs to their proof according to their imagination which goes like an infinite loop in their head

 Thereby, with proof being imaginary one is trying to prove God such as an orthodox religious person trying to prove to an atheist about the existence of God. He can go on and on with the imagination of God implanted in his mind from which he can derive his proofs as opposed to the atheist have different imagination and the atheist arguing from his imaginary world view from which he can anchor his reality based on infinitely imaginary proofs.

[Synchronicity]

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Perhaps present your own best proof and we can compare.

It's easy to criticize any proof of God because logic only goes so far.

If you have a proof of God that is better than mine, I would like to hear it.

We can build to that if we want. But it’s more productive if I start here 

So let me steelman the first part of your first argument. The one on Oneness 

You’re saying that all real things are unified by their realness, right? They’re all - of course - real. So, reality is all one in that regard 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

31 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I encourage all of you to try.

I am not here to defend my proofs. Invent your own, if you dare.

If you can come up with a better proof than mine, I'm all for it.

I exist. 

[Leo Gura]

@Synchronicity That is what I said. Why repeat it? Just state your objections.

[Synchronicity]

7 minutes ago, Rishabh R said:

@Leo Gura Challenge accepted. How about this one .Since proof is infinitely imaginary God is also infinite imagination. For example when one is arguing with another person and trying to prove something to that person and let's say that no matter how hard they try they cannot prove them which they are trying to , so they are going on and on. 

With the person trying to prove a certain thing but since two persons live in a different imaginary reality in their head. The person trying to prove something is coming up with sub-proofs to their proof according to their imagination which goes like an infinite loop in their head

 Thereby, with proof being imaginary one is trying to prove God such as an orthodox religious person trying to prove to an atheist about the existence of God. He can go on and on with the imagination of God implanted in his mind from which he can derive his proofs as opposed to the atheist have different imagination and the atheist arguing from his imaginary world view from which he can anchor his reality based on infinitely imaginary proofs.

You would have to prove that proof is infinitely imaginary, as you’re saying. Or if not prove it, you’d at least have to show that it’s a logical necessity & that therefore, it’s strong enough to accept it without prior proof 

For example, maybe you’ve had Awakenings that proof is imaginary. And sure, that’s all well & good 

But in order for it to qualify as a logical proof, you would need to either prove your foundational claim or show it to be a necessity 

My point isn’t to invalidate any Awakenings you may’ve had. My point is simply that if you want this to also be a logical proof, then you would need to show how the foundation is logically there, in addition to being something you Awakened to 

And maybe people here will say that it can’t be done. And fair enough, that’d be fine. I’m not trying to force logic onto Awakening 

But my point is that this is how logical proofs work. You either prove them or show that they’re a necessity & therefore, strong enough to be prior to proof even within the scope of logic (let alone your Awakening) 

So an example of my next question would be, do you have something which shows us that it’s logically necessary for proof to be infinitely imaginary? 
 

If you did, then that would add some power to your proof, given that your proof builds on top of the foundation of proof being infinitely imaginary