[GoLUG] LLMs can't reason

[Ron]

When Steve's quote from a chatbot makes more sense than *anything* 
you've written, you might want to pause a moment and have some 
introspection.


Kyle Terrien wrote on 2025-06-17 23:39:

>> No, the proponents of the original theory don't get to claim some 
>> kind of squatters' rights just because they (claim they) were 
>> there first.
>> 
>> 
>> The original "theorists" never provided evidence in the first 
>> place.
>> 
> Never heard of Aquinas, Socrates, or Aristotle?

Again you haven't provided empirical *evidence*.






> The humanists who argue against the existence of a soul can’t 
> provide positive evidence that a soul*doesn’t* exist.

THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.

You made the claim, *you* have to back it up.






> Just because something isn’t directly observed does not 
> automatically mean it doesn’t exist.

And just because you say it does exist does not mean it does (or even
that it's a reasonable or rational idea).


Using your "logic", prove there's not a teapot in orbit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot




> Consider the humble ext4 filesystem.  You’ll never know about it or 
> how it allocates blocks if all you use is open(), read(), write(), 
> and close() to observe it, but the ext4 filesystem still exists 
> under the hood.

This is a ridiculous analogy. "We" know exactly how it works, it was
created by humans and is documented. "We" have a pretty good idea how 
lots of things in nature work because we measure things and develop and 
test theories.

You can point to no measurements or even theories - just wild 
speculation based in philosophy.

You're really stretching to make a reasonable real-world analogy to your 
fairy tale beliefs, which indicates just how silly these beliefs are.



>> Hindus might differ, but I suppose their religion is wrong because 
>> (hand waving)... We've arrived at our predetermined conclusion!
> 
> There is an answer to this specific question, but I won’t waste my 
> breath.  (Yep, it’s in the book.)

Which book? Bhagavad Gita?

I've read lots of books that are not true. Some fictional, some lies.

Shockingly, being printed in a book does not make something true.



> Once someone is long gone, it doesn’t matter how many times 
> you zap him.  He won’t resurrect.

I guess it's now settled; neither did Jesus resurrect.


>>> (If you want the hard details, then see the above link.)
>>> 
>> The "Catholic Apologetics Online"?  A pathetic link lacking in any 
>> evidence whatsoever.
> 
> Certainly more credible than recycled arguments from /r/atheism.

Wait, "recycled arguments from r/atheism"? Are you f**king serious?

Your points are recycled from *thousands* of years ago and you allege 
that they're valid *because* they're so old they predate non-belief 
(another unsupported claim).

But now "recycled" is bad.


You are not a serious person debating in good faith, you're using any 
logical fallacy to reach the conclusion you've been indoctrinated into.




> See Question/Answers 1-2 in the same book.

Oh, we've got a real, live "I saw it on TV so it must be true" guy here.

s/TV/book/g




> But, oh, you don’t want to hear it.  Do you?

I might listen, but you haven't provided anything but gibberish and my 
patience has run out for dealing with nonsense.



> That’s too bad, because Mr. Spock would find it (in his words) 
> fascinating: root cause, uncreated creator

He'd probably say such dark ages beliefs are "Most illogical" but who knows.



> universal moral constants

More facts asserted without evidence.


>, etc.  It means something to a coldly
> logical Vulcan like Mr. Spock, even if it means nothing to a typical
> earthling in 2025.

You assert it would mean something to Spock, because it means something 
to you?





I don't know if I'm seeing a massive failure of the American school 
system or a disturbing success of religious indoctrination (or if those 
are the same things *cough* Pledge of Allegiance *cough*)


But it sure sheds light on the current state of affairs down there.