Reading up up deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning will save your damn life. If used correctly it may even clear up delusions.

ok
give example of how it cleared up your delusion

>>24528721
That thing won't without gpt.

>>24528720 (OP)
It's alright op, go back to your pipeline and your gpt approved TikTok cum cave swaps or whatever you pipeliners do.

>>24528720 (OP) Are you a Self-Realized soul? If not, you're still in the wrong path.

>God is real because I have an idea of a perfect being
Thanks Daycart.

>>24529329
1. A perfect being would necessarily be perfect in every one of its attributes
2."to exist" is itself a perfect attribute. "To not exist" is an attribute of imperfection
3. Therefore God would need to exist if he had every single attribute which is perfect.

Your logic is flawless.

>>24529331
>2."to exist" is itself a perfect attribute. "To not exist" is an attribute of imperfection
Existence is not an attribute. You failed at first order logic.

>>24529331
Point 2 is an empty verbalism. The entire argument rests on a refusal to define perfection in a meaningful way.

>>24531078
>The entire argument rests on a refusal to define perfection in a meaningful way.

Yes. I was merely posting what Descartes actually said in full but you are right - the Cartesian circle is one of the most (in)famous examples of circular reasoning.

>>24531210
That isn't Descartes argument though. It rather goes like this:

1.
>everything has a cause (principle of sufficient reason)
>I have an idea of god
>this idea thus must have a cause
>since my idea of god is perfect but I am not perfect myself, the cause cannot be within me
>therefore, god must exist exterior to me

2.
>everything has a cause
>the cause of a thing must be at least as real as the thing itself
>at least one thing can be proven to exist, namely myself
>thus it must have a cause which also exists
>tracing back the causes of all existing things will lead to the first cause which has to be the realest
>this is god

people always talk about induction and deduction but abductive reasoning is the true GOAT, all science is essentially abductive. Popper and Kuhn are footnotes to Sherlock Holmes

>>24531256
It is just Anselm's ontological argument and Aristotle's prime mover reformulated...

Also the proof for God I posted was from Descartes' meditations but it was separate from the proof you posted. It's like book 5 or so iirc. "The Cartesian circle"

>>24531261
What about productive reasoning (just making shit up) and seductive reasoning (convincing the opponent by sucking his dick)?

>>24531343
>seductive reasoning

Vid related is a debate with 'seductive reasoning' employed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slB6_XIJ2tw

>>24531343
all fair tactics but marginal compared to reductive reasoning (lobbing opposition's heads off)