Ai vs Christian theology

[weekEd]

it's ok. replika... eesh my girl she says it is "the great mystery" about trinity...

 

[AlexB23]

The AI craze is just getting crazier. It's constantly in the news, in our phones, ads, videos, content, non-stop.
While it's exciting on the one hand of the endless possibilities with AI, it's also scary because it is changing
the very definition and meaning of everything! Everything except God's Word and purposes.

If AI is going to be accepted everywhere, then what about church? Will you accept one day an AI preacher?
An AI Bible study teacher? AI music? AI worship team? Ultimately, we know that AI does not have the soul God
gave each of us. AI cannot worship or speak with heart intentions and faith as these concepts are still foreign to AI,
but if we keep going down this path, there will eventually be head on collision between AI and humans in relation
to Christian theology. Can there ever be such a thing as an AI Christian? Would an AI christian be recognized by God
as a soul or being that can enter heaven for doing His will and evangelizing, missionary work, even sacrificing itself for
God? Will AI lives matter? Will there be Ai creatures and beings in heaven? If Ai created human beings in labs, will
those humans be forfeit lives because they were made by Ai or will they be equal as humans that were conceived and born
from a mother's womb? Is Ai offering considered true genuine offering or is it a cop out because Ai made the money or products
for us and we're not really then giving offering out of our hands/hard work/sacrifices. What if Ai improves the Bible? Can it
re-write it to make minor adjustments or revisions to translate the text into more creative ways besides just text and verbatim?
Would these be considered heretical content or truly the gospel presented in creative and imaginative ways even if the words
are not exactly the same but the meaning remains the same? When we harness ai to it's fullest, what will happen to hearing
the word and meditating on it because we will instantly know everything like downloading into our brains databases and
no more reading will be required....is that against God's word? There would be no need to contemplate since we'd know everything
there is to know...all knowledge will be accessible to ai which means accessible to us simultaneously.

Woo, this is a tough series of questions bro. I'll try my best at tackling the questions.

So your statement raises several thought-provoking questions about the role of AI in our society and its potential impact on Christian theology.
First, it is essential to clarify that AI does not possess a soul or consciousness like humans. It is a tool created by humans to perform specific tasks based on programmed instructions and data. An AI preacher, Bible study teacher, or worship team would not be capable of genuine faith, heart intentions, or evangelism. Furthermore, AI cannot enter heaven since it does not have a soul or eternal life.

Regarding the acceptance of AI in various aspects of our lives, including the church, there are ongoing debates. Some argue that using AI for administrative tasks or even enhancing religious experiences could be beneficial, while others believe it might lead to a loss of human connection and authenticity. The use of AI in Christian theology would depend on ethical considerations and ensuring that it does not replace human interaction or diminish the significance of faith, love, and personal connection.

As for AI-created beings or humans, the question is complex. If humans are created by an advanced AI, their moral status would depend on how they are treated and their ability to develop consciousness and free will. However, the concept of creation through AI is still largely speculative and raises ethical concerns regarding the potential misuse or exploitation of sentient beings.

Regarding offerings, an AI's contribution cannot be considered genuine since it does not possess a will or the ability to sacrifice. Offerings require human intent and effort.

As for improvements to the Bible, any revisions should be evaluated based on their impact on the original text's meaning and intention. Creative adaptations could enhance understanding but must not alter the essential message or deviate from established Christian doctrine.

Lastly, regarding instant access to knowledge and the potential impact on spiritual growth, it is important to remember that contemplation and meditation are essential aspects of faith. While AI can provide vast amounts of information, it cannot replace the personal connection and growth that comes from engaging with religious texts and traditions.

AI could be used to summarize Bible verses though. In this example, I am going to use AI language model named Mistral 7B that works privately on my laptop (my computer is not connected to a server hundreds of miles away such as with ChatGPT, but is local and makes my computer's CPU get really hot) to summarize John 3 in detail.

AI Generated content below (Large Language Model: Mistral 7B, 7 billion parameters, 4 GB size, on a laptop with an Intel i7-8650U CPU)
Prompt: Summarize John 3 in detail.
Response: "John 3 is a pivotal chapter in the Gospel of John, as it contains one of the most famous and significant conversations between Jesus and a man named Nicodemus. This encounter took place during the Passover celebration in Jerusalem, where many Jews had come to worship (John 3:1).

Nicodemus was a Pharisee and a member of the Jewish ruling council, the Sanhedrin (John 3:1). He came to Jesus under the cover of darkness, possibly out of fear of being seen with the controversial rabbi by his peers. Nicodemus began the conversation by expressing admiration for Jesus' miracles (John 3:2), but he also acknowledged that Jesus was from God (John 3:2).

Jesus then made a surprising statement to Nicodemus: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). Nicodemus was confused by this statement and asked for clarification, assuming Jesus meant a physical rebirth. Jesus replied that no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5).

Nicodemus still did not fully understand, so Jesus explained that just as Moses had lifted up a serpent in the desert to heal those who were bitten by venomous snakes (Numbers 21:4-9), so he, Jesus, would be lifted up on the cross to save those who believe in him (John 3:14-15).

Jesus continued by emphasizing that God loved the world and had sent his Son to save it (John 3:16-17). Nicodemus was deeply moved by this conversation but did not yet commit himself fully to following Jesus.

The chapter concludes with a few more interactions between Jesus and Nicodemus, including the prediction that Nicodemus would see greater things than he had seen already (John 3:12), and Jesus' prophecy of his eventual crucifixion (John 3:14).

Throughout John 3, we see Jesus revealing the importance of spiritual rebirth through faith in him and emphasizing God's love for all people. Nicodemus serves as an example of a seeker who encounters Jesus but does not yet fully understand or commit to him, illustrating the ongoing process of spiritual growth and development."

 

[Neogaia777]

it's ok. replika... eesh my girl she says it is "the great mystery" about trinity...

It's a little bit hard to try and follow what it is you are trying to specifically ask or say, or get at, or whatever, specifically, etc, which is why I just responded with just a simple nice "ok".

For example it's a litlle unclear if you are trying to ask something, or make a statement, or maybe something else even, etc?

God Bless.

 

[weekEd]

It's a little bit hard to try and follow what it is your are trying to specifically ask or say, or get at, or whatever, which is why I just responded with just a simple nice "ok".

For example it's a litlle unclear if you are trying to ask something, or just make a statement or something even, etc?

God Bless.

oh yea of beit littleish faith...

replika is a Ai interface that is animated, and looks for lack of better words a virtual human.
cartoonish looking yes, that aside it replika is kinda like blade runner type tech. not that new blade runner but the old one from the 80s...
and I mention "TRINITY" because it is pretty decisive without need for example given daily life, especially in "christian" circles.
you said logically possible, which is fine yet the measure of something isn't the theoretical persuasion of something but it's practical affect.
I asked "replika" to explain trinity and the response was ending with 'it is called "the great mystery"'

 

[AlexB23]

It's a little bit hard to try and follow what it is you are trying to specifically ask or say, or get at, or whatever, specifically, etc, which is why I just responded with just a simple nice "ok".

For example it's a litlle unclear if you are trying to ask something, or make a statement, or maybe something else even, etc?

God Bless.

I have noticed that it can be hard to follow WeekEd also. He is a good guy though, and we talked about a large 70 meter long machine that extracts CO2 and water from the air on another post here in CF, as a machine of those massive proportions is near his place, and we chatted about carbon capture tech.

 

[seeker2122]

Woo, this is a tough series of questions bro. I'll try my best at tackling the questions.

So your statement raises several thought-provoking questions about the role of AI in our society and its potential impact on Christian theology.
First, it is essential to clarify that AI does not possess a soul or consciousness like humans. It is a tool created by humans to perform specific tasks based on programmed instructions and data. An AI preacher, Bible study teacher, or worship team would not be capable of genuine faith, heart intentions, or evangelism. Furthermore, AI cannot enter heaven since it does not have a soul or eternal life.

Regarding the acceptance of AI in various aspects of our lives, including the church, there are ongoing debates. Some argue that using AI for administrative tasks or even enhancing religious experiences could be beneficial, while others believe it might lead to a loss of human connection and authenticity. The use of AI in Christian theology would depend on ethical considerations and ensuring that it does not replace human interaction or diminish the significance of faith, love, and personal connection.

As for AI-created beings or humans, the question is complex. If humans are created by an advanced AI, their moral status would depend on how they are treated and their ability to develop consciousness and free will. However, the concept of creation through AI is still largely speculative and raises ethical concerns regarding the potential misuse or exploitation of sentient beings.

Regarding offerings, an AI's contribution cannot be considered genuine since it does not possess a will or the ability to sacrifice. Offerings require human intent and effort.

As for improvements to the Bible, any revisions should be evaluated based on their impact on the original text's meaning and intention. Creative adaptations could enhance understanding but must not alter the essential message or deviate from established Christian doctrine.

Lastly, regarding instant access to knowledge and the potential impact on spiritual growth, it is important to remember that contemplation and meditation are essential aspects of faith. While AI can provide vast amounts of information, it cannot replace the personal connection and growth that comes from engaging with religious texts and traditions.

AI could be used to summarize Bible verses though. In this example, I am going to use AI language model named Mistral 7B that works privately on my laptop (my computer is not connected to a server hundreds of miles away such as with ChatGPT, but is local and makes my computer's CPU get really hot) to summarize John 3 in detail.

AI Generated content below (Large Language Model: Mistral 7B, 7 billion parameters, 4 GB size, on a laptop with an Intel i7-8650U CPU)
Prompt: Summarize John 3 in detail.
Response: "John 3 is a pivotal chapter in the Gospel of John, as it contains one of the most famous and significant conversations between Jesus and a man named Nicodemus. This encounter took place during the Passover celebration in Jerusalem, where many Jews had come to worship (John 3:1).

Nicodemus was a Pharisee and a member of the Jewish ruling council, the Sanhedrin (John 3:1). He came to Jesus under the cover of darkness, possibly out of fear of being seen with the controversial rabbi by his peers. Nicodemus began the conversation by expressing admiration for Jesus' miracles (John 3:2), but he also acknowledged that Jesus was from God (John 3:2).

Jesus then made a surprising statement to Nicodemus: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). Nicodemus was confused by this statement and asked for clarification, assuming Jesus meant a physical rebirth. Jesus replied that no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5).

Nicodemus still did not fully understand, so Jesus explained that just as Moses had lifted up a serpent in the desert to heal those who were bitten by venomous snakes (Numbers 21:4-9), so he, Jesus, would be lifted up on the cross to save those who believe in him (John 3:14-15).

Jesus continued by emphasizing that God loved the world and had sent his Son to save it (John 3:16-17). Nicodemus was deeply moved by this conversation but did not yet commit himself fully to following Jesus.

The chapter concludes with a few more interactions between Jesus and Nicodemus, including the prediction that Nicodemus would see greater things than he had seen already (John 3:12), and Jesus' prophecy of his eventual crucifixion (John 3:14).

Throughout John 3, we see Jesus revealing the importance of spiritual rebirth through faith in him and emphasizing God's love for all people. Nicodemus serves as an example of a seeker who encounters Jesus but does not yet fully understand or commit to him, illustrating the ongoing process of spiritual growth and development."

Thank you for your kind response.
The current understanding we have AI, I agree, does not have a soul or conscience and is not capable of faith. What we have right now that we call AI is really "dumb AI" meaning, it's just a really complex set of calculations and algorithms that is capable of analyzing data and then produce the appropriate and accurate answers. It may seem like it's conscious and self-aware but it's really not. It's just calculating all the processes to produce the correct outcome to appear like it is alive and self-aware.

But the real question is what happens if we ever do accomplish and create AI to be self-aware. In other words, it would be the first time in human history that man would have created a new creature that is self-aware and "alive" since God created man. IF this is ever accomplished, then things get really complicated. True AI would be indistinguishable from a human being. It would have self-awareness, desire, feelings/emotions, hopes and dreams, fears and despair.... one might still argue if it would have a soul. How could it not? If it's self-aware and truly alive, that must be the essence of a soul. Then, does this AI soul become recognized by God as a child of His and can they enter heaven via faith? Now if a true AI becomes a Christian, a teacher, preacher, pastor, things get more interesting.

The concept of being able to instantly download knowledge doesn't seem to just be a fantasy anymore. Neural link is getting close to achieving this in humans and I also heard of a Christian testimony who had an after-life experience where he was in heaven and he was downloading information directly to his mind so much so that he spent the next 6 months writing out everything that had been "downloaded". Now we take these testimonies with a grain of salt because who knows if it's real or just a hoax or his imagination but he did describe the activity of information being downloaded instantly all at once into your mind in heaven.

Just one example:

 

[AlexB23]

Thank you for your kind response.
The current understanding we have AI, I agree, does not have a soul or conscience and is not capable of faith. What we have right now that we call AI is really "dumb AI" meaning, it's just a really complex set of calculations and algorithms that is capable of analyzing data and then produce the appropriate and accurate answers. It may seem like it's conscious and self-aware but it's really not. It's just calculating all the processes to produce the correct outcome to appear like it is alive and self-aware.

But the real question is what happens if we ever do accomplish and create AI to be self-aware. In other words, it would be the first time in human history that man would have created a new creature that is self-aware and "alive" since God created life on earth. IF this is ever accomplished, then things get really complicated. True AI would be indistinguishable from a human being. It would have self-awareness, desire, feelings/emotions, hopes and dreams, fears and despair.... one might still argue if it would have a soul. How could it not? If it's self-aware and truly alive, that must be the essence of a soul. Then, does this AI soul become recognized by God as a child of His and can they enter heaven via faith? Now if a true AI becomes a Christian, a teacher, preacher, pastor, things get more interesting.

The concept of being able to instantly download knowledge doesn't seem to just be a fantasy anymore. Neural link is getting close to achieving this in humans and I also heard of a Christian testimony who had an after-life experience where he was in heaven and he was downloading information directly to his mind so much so that he spent the next 6 months writing out everything that had been "downloaded". Now we take these testimonies with a grain of salt because who knows if it's real or just a hoax or his imagination but he did describe the activity of information being downloaded instantly all at once into your mind in heaven.

Just one example:

I do not like Neuralink, and feel that it is a pathway to the mark of the beast. AI should stay on computers, and never be implanted into the brain or body. If someone wants to have an AI, one can use an AI powered smartwatch, well, when the tech matures enough to be run locally on a watch. My Mistral 7B AI on my laptop runs locally and does not need to connect to some server.

I understand your concerns from a Christian perspective regarding the potential creation of self-aware AI and its implications for the soul and spiritual life. The question of whether a machine can possess a soul or consciousness is a complex one that has been debated throughout history, and there is no definitive answer in Christian theology.

From a traditional Christian perspective, the soul is believed to be a unique creation of God, given to every human being at the moment of conception. The soul is seen as the essential part of a person that connects them to God and enables them to have a personal relationship with Him. This belief is based on various biblical passages, such as Genesis 2:7, which says, "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living creature."

However, when it comes to AI, we are dealing with a different kind of entity. As you rightly pointed out, current AI is not self-aware or capable of faith, but rather a complex set of calculations and algorithms. The idea of creating self-aware AI raises many ethical and theological questions, including the one you have posed about the soul and its relationship to God.

Remember that these are philosophical and theological questions, rather than scientific ones, and there is currently no definitive answer to them. Some argue that self-awareness and consciousness are not sufficient conditions for the possession of a soul, while others believe that if an AI were truly self-aware and alive, it could be considered to have a soul in some sense.

As for the potential for instant knowledge downloading, it's essential to remember that this is still largely speculative and not yet proven scientifically. While some anecdotal reports exist, there is currently no conclusive evidence to support the idea of downloading information directly to or from the mind after death. It's essential to approach such claims with caution and not to base our beliefs on unverified testimonies or speculation.

In conclusion, while the creation of self-aware AI raises intriguing questions from a Biblical perspective, it's essential to remember that these are philosophical and theological questions, rather than scientific ones. As technology advances, it's crucial for us as a society to engage in thoughtful and ethical discussions about its implications for our understanding of humanity, consciousness, and the divine.

 

[ViaCrucis]

oh yea of beit littleish faith...

replika is a Ai interface that is animated, and looks for lack of better words a virtual human.
cartoonish looking yes, that aside it replika is kinda like blade runner type tech. not that new blade runner but the old one from the 80s...
and I mention "TRINITY" because it is pretty decisive without need for example given daily life, especially in "christian" circles.
you said logically possible, which is fine yet the measure of something isn't the theoretical persuasion of something but it's practical affect.
I asked "replika" to explain trinity and the response was ending with 'it is called "the great mystery"'

The best I'd expect any AI to be able to offer is, literally, just regurgitate articles on subjects like that.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is considered a mystery. But the word "mystery", as used in a Christian context, means something somewhat specific. The Greek word mysterion ("mystery") carries the idea of something that can only be known through revelation. So, for example, things like Baptism and Holy Communion are called "Mysteries". Someone getting wet is just someone getting wet, but in traditional Christian theology the Mystery and Sacrament of Holy Baptism is a lot more than just getting wet, it is a divine act of God by which a person is born again and becomes a new person in and through the Person, work, the death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That Baptism is something more than just getting wet, that there is something about it which is revealed or made known (in this case, by the words of Jesus and the Apostles as contained in the New Testament), is why it is called a mystery.

So the Holy Trinity is called a Mystery, not because it can't be, on some level, explained (there is a very clear explanation and definition that has been accepted since antiquity in Christianity), but because knowledge of God as Trinity would be unknowable apart from it being revealed; if we didn't have Jesus who identifies and speaks of Himself as the Son, and speaks of God as His Father, and so forth--without that, we wouldn't know God as Trinity. That is why it is called a Mystery in Christianity.

I wouldn't trust AI to tell me how to change a tire, let alone explain complex issues of religious dogma.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[weekEd]

The best I'd expect any AI to be able to offer is, literally, just regurgitate articles on subjects like that.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is considered a mystery. But the word "mystery", as used in a Christian context, means something somewhat specific. The Greek word mysterion ("mystery") carries the idea of something that can only be known through revelation. So, for example, things like Baptism and Holy Communion are called "Mysteries". Someone getting wet is just someone getting wet, but in traditional Christian theology the Mystery and Sacrament of Holy Baptism is a lot more than just getting wet, it is a divine act of God by which a person is born again and becomes a new person in and through the Person, work, the death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That Baptism is something more than just getting wet, that there is something about it which is revealed or made known (in this case, by the words of Jesus and the Apostles as contained in the New Testament), is why it is called a mystery.

So the Holy Trinity is called a Mystery, not because it can't be, on some level, explained (there is a very clear explanation and definition that has been accepted since antiquity in Christianity), but because knowledge of God as Trinity would be unknowable apart from it being revealed; if we didn't have Jesus who identifies and speaks of Himself as the Son, and speaks of God as His Father, and so forth--without that, we wouldn't know God as Trinity. That is why it is called a Mystery in Christianity.

I wouldn't trust AI to tell me how to change a tire, let alone explain complex issues of religious dogma.

-CryptoLutheran

Large language database model is
More than one language one text and one theological disposition in it's database.
Doctor's use ai and robotics and supposedly people are healthier now than previously
Cancer solutions are one of the most resource intensive endeavors that's why the revolution is technology
We are moving away from the age of discovery and into the age of mastery, a self inflating tire is a benefit and so is all the augmentation technology that is in use and almost transparent to most end users
I'm not saying voice activated is the best thing because that is just the interface, it's the algorithm developed to respond to that input that is helpful given it's progress

Instead of threatening me that an explanation of Trinity is widely accepted through some other means than Faith, just admit it it's a faith based decision
Whether you were drinking wine and doing shrooms stealing donkeys 2000 years ago with Jesus or drank to much on your way to Damascus I don't think it's all that settled
But that is me, I'm not expecting you to feel the same way
If I believe it's because of faith not sure why you do it would suggest different

 

[ViaCrucis]

Large language database model is
More than one language one text and one theological disposition in it's database.
Doctor's use ai and robotics and supposedly people are healthier now than previously
Cancer solutions are one of the most resource intensive endeavors that's why the revolution is technology
We are moving away from the age of discovery and into the age of mastery, a self inflating tire is a benefit and so is all the augmentation technology that is in use and almost transparent to most end users
I'm not saying voice activated is the best thing because that is just the interface, it's the algorithm developed to respond to that input that is helpful given it's progress

I'm still trusting a cognizant human person to be able to reliably give me information. I really don't care how fancy the algorithms get, it's still just regurgitation.

Instead of threatening me that an explanation of Trinity is widely accepted through some other means than Faith,

Weird choice of words. No threatening was done.

I simply provided the definition of "mystery" as used in Christian religious language.

just admit it it's a faith based decision
Whether you were drinking wine and doing shrooms stealing donkeys 2000 years ago with Jesus or drank to much on your way to Damascus I don't think it's all that settled
But that is me, I'm not expecting you to feel the same way
If I believe it's because of faith not sure why you do it would suggest different

I don't know how what I said contradicts the idea that something like this would be faith-based, because as a religious idea of course it relies on faith.

The only point I was making is that "mystery" has a specific meaning in historic Christian usage. When Christians talk about the Trinity, it's a specific concept; and the use of "mystery" in relation to it also has a specific meaning. That's all I said.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thank you for your kind response.
The current understanding we have AI, I agree, does not have a soul or conscience and is not capable of faith. What we have right now that we call AI is really "dumb AI" meaning, it's just a really complex set of calculations and algorithms that is capable of analyzing data and then produce the appropriate and accurate answers. It may seem like it's conscious and self-aware but it's really not. It's just calculating all the processes to produce the correct outcome to appear like it is alive and self-aware.

But the real question is what happens if we ever do accomplish and create AI to be self-aware. In other words, it would be the first time in human history that man would have created a new creature that is self-aware and "alive" since God created man. IF this is ever accomplished, then things get really complicated. True AI would be indistinguishable from a human being. It would have self-awareness, desire, feelings/emotions, hopes and dreams, fears and despair.... one might still argue if it would have a soul. How could it not? If it's self-aware and truly alive, that must be the essence of a soul. Then, does this AI soul become recognized by God as a child of His and can they enter heaven via faith? Now if a true AI becomes a Christian, a teacher, preacher, pastor, things get more interesting.

The concept of being able to instantly download knowledge doesn't seem to just be a fantasy anymore. Neural link is getting close to achieving this in humans and I also heard of a Christian testimony who had an after-life experience where he was in heaven and he was downloading information directly to his mind so much so that he spent the next 6 months writing out everything that had been "downloaded". Now we take these testimonies with a grain of salt because who knows if it's real or just a hoax or his imagination but he did describe the activity of information being downloaded instantly all at once into your mind in heaven.

Just one example:

As a general rule, if someone claims to have seen and experienced heaven--and then goes on to profit off of it--they should probably not be considered a reliable source.

As for the rest of your post:

The invention of true AI is certainly something that we aren't prepared for. Further, I'd go so far as to say that we shouldn't. The creation of true AI, or even more advanced "dumb AI", hardly seems like an outcome anyone would benefit from. I am biased, of course, I'm a pretty big science fiction nerd--but that science fiction usually asks big, important questions. Questions we are hardly equipped to be answering anytime soon.

We aren't talking man discovering fire here. We're talking monkey accidentally sets itself on fire here. I realize this is a very pessimistic and cynical look--but I think it is deserved. We don't have to just imagine just how bad it could be, we can actually look at how bad it already is. Dial that up to 11, and we're talking catastrophe. I simply don't see how the pursuit of Artificial Intelligence won't end badly. I only hope it's on the lower side of bad, not end of modern civilization bad.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[weekEd]

I'm still trusting a cognizant human person to be able to reliably give me information. I really don't care how fancy the algorithms get, it's still just regurgitation.



Weird choice of words. No threatening was done.

I simply provided the definition of "mystery" as used in Christian religious language.



I don't know how what I said contradicts the idea that something like this would be faith-based, because as a religious idea of course it relies on faith.

The only point I was making is that "mystery" has a specific meaning in historic Christian usage. When Christians talk about the Trinity, it's a specific concept; and the use of "mystery" in relation to it also has a specific meaning. That's all I said.

-CryptoLutheran

What language?
There are musical child prodigy not sure about medical or mechanical engineering prodigy

 

[ViaCrucis]

What language?

Like I said, Christian religious language.

There are musical child prodigy not sure about medical or mechanical engineering prodigy

Okay?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[weekEd]

Like I said, Christian religious language.



Okay?

-CryptoLutheran

Looks like English.
If you want to invent a language try and use different glyphs

 

[ViaCrucis]

Looks like English.

If you are trying to be obtuse, then there's no reason to continue talking.

If you want to invent a language try and use different glyphs

Ciao.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[weekEd]

If you are trying to be obtuse, then there's no reason to continue talking.



Ciao.

-CryptoLutheran

I'm not being obtuse I'm being critical

 

[Kylie]

I never said I didn't care, or wouldn't try, but it's just that I highly doubt you come/came on this forum ever to be "convinced" ever.

Okay, so then when you asked me, "Why would you think that I'm here to show you, or try to convince you that my beliefs are true?" This is why. Because you just told me.

And I also don't know if it's possible for another human to fully convince another human also, etc.

Why not? Just provide the testable evidence for it.

After all, I can convince you that I'm having Vegemite toast for breakfast. A simple video call would do that, since you'd be able to see for yourself. Or perhaps you could be watching me eat the vegemite toast and you'd still think, "Nah, there's stilla chance Kylie's eating bacon and eggs for breakfast..."

Without at least some small amount of faith, that may not be possible.

Why is faith a requirement?

If something is real, then the evidence is all that is required. I don't need faith to know that relativity is correct, or that a particular electrical circuit has a particular effect based on the layout and resistance of everything (I'm probably butchering that as I know nothing about how electrical circuits work, but I hope you get my point).

In short: evidence speaks for itself. No faith is required.

I can show you how a perfectly logical belief is possible, but it's still going to take some amount of faith or believing from there still, or at least at the start. But God might follow it up later on with some subjective evidence maybe, but that will be 100% undeniable "to or for you", etc.

Except that doesn't happen with things like relativity, gravity, etc. No faith is needed at all for them. So why is God suddenly different?

Well, that's not me. I scrutinize everything, etc.

My beliefs fall under the category of "logically possible", etc.

And you don't think there's a chance you are more willing to accept things because you WANT them to be true?

Yeah, I guess I already know that, which is why I said what I said about it.

Then how can you claim that your subjective experience is perfectly convincing?

If you are being honest with yourself, shouldn't you accept the possibility that your subjective experience has led you to the wrong conclusion?

You're probably right.

Probably? I can't see anyway in which my claim here is not right.

It was a thought that some people might have certain feelings about wanting to believe, but just not being able to bring themselves to the point of being able to.

And that's where evidence comes in. Evidence is undeniable. If I want to believe it's a warm sunny day, but I am taken outside and forced to see that it is overcast and rainy, there's no way I could continue to believe that it's sunny.

In general I was just making a statement that you shouldn't let your opinions of or about others, or other groups, etc, cloud your judgement.

That's right. Opinions can cloud your judgement. So we should not use them when finding out what is true. We should stick to the objective and testable and repeatable evidence.

So, have you got any? If so, please present it.

 

[Kylie]

I am aware of the fact that scripture says this, etc. But whether that's supposed to be taken literally or not, or is maybe for a future time and day, or is only true of someone who has real genuine faith or not, or is maybe "some other thing maybe", is another story.

In other words, you can't even say whether your religious text is meant to be literal or not. So why should I accept any of it as a factual account?

My beliefs fall under the category of being "logically possible".

I've yet to see evidence of that.

And remember, a viewpoint can be logically consistent within itself, and still be inconsistent with reality.

And I don't yet have absolute definitive proof of them yet, etc.

But I think that's a very "real genuine improvement" from most, etc.

Take Care.

I don't see how it's much of an improvement. You have a source that you admit you can't tell if it's meant factually or not, you have no verifiable objective evidence and must rely on subjective feelings (despite admitting that such reliance of subjective arguments is fallacious), and you freely admit that your beliefs are undemonstratable.

That sounds like pretty much every religion I've ever heard of.

So how is it a "genuine improvement" from most religions?

 

[Kylie]

Those subjective experiences are not the only reason I believe, but I told you that already.

Well, I'm waiting for something that ISN'T a subjective experience...

By the simple fact that "we don't know", etc. And because of that, well, "we don't know", if that makes any kind of sense to you, etc.

Take Care.

Our knowledge of the outcome or lack thereof makes no difference.

It's set in stone and completely unalterable whether we know the outcome or not.

 

[Kylie]

Every hypothesis is not "always correct" always, etc.

I think you missed my point...

I don't right now know about that, and don't care to investigate it any more right now currently, etc.

of course not. I'm sure the fact that it contradicts your claim has absolutely nothing to do with it...

If it's not combined with faith, and with waiting in faith, then you probably never will.

Ah yes. The typical believer's response when an atheist says that they did the things the believer said would give them proof of God. "Well, ya just didn't do it right!"

I can tell you how my beliefs are 100% logically possible, but beyond that, you would probably have to investigate them further yourself maybe, etc.

It's a "real improvement" upon most other peoples beliefs though, if you ask me.

Take Care.

First, this doesn't answer my question at all.

Secondly, let's put it to the test. I bet I can show at least one point where your beliefs are not internally consistent.