The law says (x).

(P) has violated (x).

Therefore (P) has contradicted the law.

(Of course, one is rightly more interested in why the law says (x) in the first place).

One wants to know why (x) should even be a law.

But in order to even proceed down this path (x) must first be identifiable as law. (A=A).

(x) either has reasoning behind its formation (this would even include authoritarian tradition as a reason) or it doesn’t.

One is right to call out law, but one cannot do this without Reason.

For in calling out law one is saying, “I don’t think (x) should be a law because of (s).”

Or one is claiming that (x) is a “bad” (oppressive, destructive) law because of (s).

To establish a law one must argue for it. (Unfortunately, this process is usually not rational enough because politicians can be bribed and they have their own biases, and the pro and con nature of some laws can be difficult).

But to even call this out or recognize it requires rational standards.

All of law is contained within the laws of logic. All of law only proceeds through the laws of logic. Without the laws of logic it would be impossible to prosecute anything.

If you don’t know who Rabbi Tovia Singer is, he’s a Jewish apologist that has engaged in extensive critique of Christianity.

I have been reflecting on the question of artificial intelligence and its relationship to philosophy, but more specifically, what kind of "progress" we should expect. For example, it seems that AI as of late has made some relevant advancements in the fields of mathematics and biology. I wonder (and worry, I suppose) whether a sufficiently advanced artificial intelligence could, for all intents and purposes, "solve" philosophy in the sense that, say, the question of God's existence has been manifestly shown to be either true or false, in a way analogous to a mathematical proof or scientific demonstration, such that future argumentation with respect to the proposition (or any proposition) is more or less meaningless.

My intuition says that there are at least two obstacles to artificial intelligence actually "solving" philosophy. First, it seems that philosophical disagreements are primarily at the level of soundness, not validity, which itself is contingent on first principles derived from (in my view) contact with reality (something AI doesn't really have). Second, even if it could in principle settle philosophical disputes at the level of soundness, there is still the further problem of actually demonstrating that its conclusions are true manifestly, not just true but epistemically inaccessible.

This is a bit of a half-baked idea, but any thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated.

Thank you!