The AI has learned Thomas Aquinas. Ask it some questions

[AlexB23]

Hello folks. Around a month ago, I installed Thomas Aquinas - Summa Contra Gentiles onto my computer, which the artificial intelligence program, Mistral 7B has learned via retrieval augmented generation (RAG). One does not need to know what RAG is, but in summary, it allows one to talk with their PDF documents. Yes, I know that artificial intelligence gets a lot of flak here, but please forgive me. Some youngsters such as myself enjoy advanced technology.

So guys and gals, post your questions theological questions here about Summa Contra Gentiles (a book for unbelievers to know Christ). Make sure your questions are not super vague, as the artificial intelligence prefers questions with substance. All denominations are welcome. This thread is not to be used as a debate about which denomination is better. Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox are all brothers in Christ.

I'll start: "In the 'Summa Contra Gentiles', St. Thomas Aquinas argues for the existence of God using several proofs, including the Argument from Motion (Book I, Chapter 13). How would you explain this argument in your own words and do you find it convincing? Moreover, how might contemporary philosophers or scientists engage with or critique this proof today?"

AI Response:

 

[RileyG]

Fascinating!

I doubt any AI could be smarter than Aquinas though

 

[AlexB23]

Fascinating!

I doubt any AI could be smarter than Aquinas though

True, but the AI can help one understand Aquinas better. This thread is meant for Protestants and Catholics to learn about Aquinas by asking theology questions. What question do you have for the AI about Summa Contra Gentiles?

 

[public hermit]

True, but the AI can help one understand Aquinas better. This thread is meant for Protestants and Catholics to learn about Aquinas by asking theology questions. What question do you have for the AI about Summa Contra Gentiles?

Ask, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

 

[AlexB23]

Ask, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

Alright, this is what the machine had to say, according to Summa Contra Gentiles. I am hoping that this thread can help us all learn about Aquinas together, as I do not know much about his stuff.

AI Response:

 

[public hermit]

Alright, this is what the machine had to say, according to Summa Contra Gentiles. I am hoping that this thread can help us all learn about Aquinas together, as I do not know much about his stuff.

AI Response:

View attachment 354500

Yep, that's exactly what I remember from reading Contra Gentiles, i.e., God is necessary so there must be something.

 

[AlexB23]

Yep, that's exactly what I remember from reading Contra Gentiles, i.e., God is necessary so there must be something.

Amen to that. It seems that the machine is working well. I wonder if @Xeno.of.athens would find this thread interesting as well, as he is Catholic. Also, I am excited that this thread can be a resource for everyone interested in theology to learn about Aquinas, directly from the source by chatting with his book via the means of machine learning and artificial intelligence. Imagine a megathread full of Aquinas' theology here, unpacked by an AI through folks on the forum asking questions with substance.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Amen to that. It seems that the machine is working well. I wonder if @Xeno.of.athens would find this thread interesting as well, as he is Catholic. Also, I am excited that this thread can be a resource for everyone interested in theology to learn about Aquinas, directly from the source by chatting with his book via the means of machine learning and artificial intelligence. Imagine a megathread full of Aquinas' theology here, unpacked by an AI through folks on the forum asking questions with substance.

Without spending time going back through Aquinas' "Five Ways", I remember thinking three of them were not proof of God's existence, but only that if WE say (believe) thus and such, then logically, we must say (believe) that God exists. I'm not sure how to ask that without getting more specific.

 

[RileyG]

The Summa of Aquinas is over 5 volumes and cost over $134 on amazon.

I wish I had better memory and more time to read and learn it.

Sigh...if only.

 

[AlexB23]

Without spending time going back through Aquinas' "Five Ways", I remember thinking three of them were not proof of God's existence, but only that if WE say (believe) thus and such, then logically, we must say (believe) that God exists. I'm not sure how to ask that without getting more specific.

Can you ask a question for the AI? This thread is not meant to be filled with commentary.

 

[AlexB23]

The Summa of Aquinas is over 5 volumes and cost over $134 on amazon.

I wish I had better memory and more time to read and learn it.

Sigh...if only.

$0 as a PDF.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Can you ask a question for the AI? This thread is not meant to be filled with commentary.

I was asking for help forming the question.

 

[AlexB23]

I was asking for help forming the question.

I could use another AI to formulate the question for you, this time an online one known as Llama 405B, which is much more powerful compared to the AI run locally on my laptop:

"In Thomas Aquinas' 'Five Ways,' do the arguments merely demonstrate a logical necessity for God's existence based on certain assumptions, rather than providing empirical proof of God's existence?"

Is this a good way to formulate your question?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I could use another AI to formulate the question for you, this time an online one known as Llama 405B, which is much more powerful compared to the AI run locally on my laptop:

"In Thomas Aquinas' 'Five Ways,' do the arguments merely demonstrate a logical necessity for God's existence based on certain assumptions, rather than providing empirical proof of God's existence?"

Is this a good way to formulate your question?

Not really, though the AI answer to that could perhaps produce follow-up questions that would lead to the AI making an opinion on the distinction between logical proof of God's existence, and belief of God's existence logically following other things we say we believe.

 

[AlexB23]

Not really, though the AI answer to that could perhaps produce follow-up questions that would lead to the AI making an opinion on the distinction between logical proof of God's existence, and belief of God's existence logically following other things we say we believe.

Yep, the AI does produce follow up questions on its own. For instance, when I used the AI to answer someone's question about Calvinism, it gave follow up questions. Alright, I am throwing a question to the AI.

These follow-ups are not part of this discussion, but are proof that the AI can ask complex questions.

 

[zippy2006]

So guys and gals, post your questions theological questions here about Summa Contra Gentiles (a book for unbelievers to know Christ).

"Give ten reasons why Islam is false."

Ask, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

Amen to that. It seems that the machine is working well.

Well, your answer contains at least two errors, one of which seems to me nothing less than heresy. I will let someone else find it.

I am hoping that this thread can help us all learn about Aquinas together, as I do not know much about his stuff.

If one wants to learn Aquinas they should read him.

 

[zippy2006]

Yep, that's exactly what I remember from reading Contra Gentiles, i.e., God is necessary so there must be something.

But see: "That God does not will other things in a necessary way." Usually when we speak of "something rather than nothing" we are referring to creation, and especially the material creation. For Aquinas God's necessity cannot explain this. For Aquinas there is something because God freely chose to create, not because God is necessary.

Whether or not this counts as a third error, it is not one of the two errors I alluded to above.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But see: "That God does not will other things in a necessary way." Usually when we speak of "something rather than nothing" we are referring to creation, and especially the material creation. For Aquinas God's necessity cannot explain this. For Aquinas there is something because God freely chose to create, not because God is necessary.

Whether or not this counts as a third error, it is not one of the two errors I alluded to above.

Interesting. I'm thinking you could use "randomly" as opposed to "freely", to explain. Not to give substance to our use of "random", but....

But, anyway, I don't see how you (or Aquinas) get the fact of existence [of all else besides God himself] not showing God is "necessary".

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I wonder what saint Thomas Aquinas would say about the Protestant revolt and all the associated doctrines that went with it?

 

[public hermit]

Usually when we speak of "something rather than nothing" we are referring to creation

Speak for yourself.

If God exists, then something exists. If God exists necessarily, then something exists necessarily.