AI will make religion obsolete soon?

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 9, 2015

Artificial Intelligence, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Within our lifetimes, according to Daily Dot’s Dylan Love:

Neal VanDeRee, officiator at the Church of Perpetual Life: I believe that it is inevitable that the arrival of a superintelligence is bound to happen, and when looking at the current course of AI, this should be within our lifetime. I would imagine that it could very nearly replicate life as we know it now, but without pain, suffering, and death.

Naturally, time will tell.

Lincoln Cannon: For practical and moral reasons, I trust in our opportunity and capacity as a human civilization, to evolve intentionally into compassionate superintelligence. I don’t think it’s inevitable, and I do think there are serious risks. But I do trust it’s possible, particularly if we put aside passive, escapist, and nihilistic attitudes about our future and work to mitigate the risks while pursuing the opportunities.

What about sin?

John Messerly: Thinkers disagree about this. [Founder of the Transhumanist political party] Zoltan Istvan thinks that we will inevitably try to control SIs and teach them our ways, which may include teaching them about our gods. Christopher J. Benek, co-founder and chair of the Christian Transhumanist Association, thinks that AI, by possibly eradicating poverty, war, and disease, might lead humans to becoming more holy. But other Christian thinkers believe AIs are machines without souls and cannot be saved.

Of course, like most philosophers, I don’t believe in souls, and the only way for there to be a good future is if we save ourselves. No gods will save us because there are no gods—unless we become gods. More.

Become gods? Been tried. See also: sin 😉

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

box,
Knowing the future can be explained by an outside-time-perspective. Knowing something is not the same as causing something.
I agree that knowing doesn't mean the same as causing something - but it does, in principle, mean that the future is determined. Again, it goes to the definition of "choice". I haven't chosen what to have for dinner yet, and it "feels" like there are several real possibilities. If the future is known than it's already determined what I'll have for dinner. Such "choice" is therefore an illusion. One neednt invoke God to run into this problem. Many philosophers claim, for the same reason, that if time travel is possible than free will doesn't exist. But they aren't claiming the the time travelers themselves caused anything. Hawking references this in A Brief History of Time: "The reason we say that humans have free will is because we can't predict what they will do. However, if the human then goes off in a rocket ship and comes back before he or she set off, we will be able to predict what he or she will do because it will be part of recorded history. Thus, in that situation, the time traveler would have no free will." (In the case of God, however, I would say that if he is omnipotent and omniscient than he did cause, well, everything. He created with pefect knowledge of what the results would be, and so if he wanted things to be different than he would have just created things differently in the beginning. But as I said, that's a completely separate issue.)
We know at what time the sun will rise tomorrow, but we don’t cause it to rise.
Indeed, the sun's prospects of having free will doesn't look good.
We humans, by means of our free choices, are co-determining reality. There is nothing incoherent about that. Which means that, although God may have known the future the instant He created, the future was not (fully) determined the instant He created the initial conditions — at that ‘time’ our input and His future input is lacking.
There's only nothing incoherent about it if you redefine all the terms. If the future is known with absolute certainty than it's "determined", that is if the term has any meaning at all. And it makes no sense to say our free choices are determining reality when that reality was determined before we made our choices.goodusername_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Omniscient God and Free Will are perfectly compatible. Perfectly compatible. Thank BA77 for this explanation.... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bkQ6ld8dn7I Omniscient God destroys the idea of "Many Worlds". God knows if the cat is alive or dead. Lets us decide when to observe.ppolish_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

Actually Mapou, I disagree with you for very principled reasons, but, I find you impossible to reason with. That is why I no longer respond to your arguments of 'truth is now established by mapou's personal declaration' any longer. It simply is a waste of my time.bornagain77_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

BA77:
Seversky at 2 tries to say that God’s omniscience and man’s free will are irreconcilable with each other. Therefore, I take it, he concludes that if God exists then man has no free will.
Seversky is 100% correct if one assumes that God knows everything. There are two possible answers to the problem: 1. God is not omniscient and there is free will. 2. God is omniscient and there is no free will. The correct answer is 1. Deal with it or don't. It's up to you.Mapou_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Religion obsolete by 2045. That is sillier than flying cars by the 1980s. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/02/7-key-changes-in-the-global-religious-landscape/#comments Although AI will most likely spawn new religions and electronic AI "televangelists" lol.ppolish_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Mapou: So? Did I say otherwise? He also said “I and the Father are ONE” and “let them be ONE with us as we are ONE together”. I see no Trinity in the picture. I see yin and yang, I see duality, I see master-servant, that’s what I see.
Moreover, given the Greek verb, the "oneness" is a unity of individuals, not an absolute numerical one. Clunky perhaps, but the best rendering into English would be, "I and my father, we are (esmen) one."mike1962_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Hi Mapou, I apologise if I sound preachy as that is not my intent. Clearly we differ in our interpretation of the Bible and I am more than happy to be corrected concerning the Scriptures if someone can show me from the Scriptures and by it where I err. However mans pure logic and reasoning does not appeal to me because it is fallable. I think throughout the history of the Church there have been very clear doctrines because the bible clearly teaches them despite their difficulty to grasp with human minds. The Trinity is one, another is the incarnation, another is omniscience...I would be careful attributing such things as works of the devil and you can only expect provocation when you do (and do so in such a dismissive manner). At the end of the day it does not matter what you or I "see": what matters is truth and truth is not different depending on who interprets what. The genuine concern I have is many in that day of final judgement will say Lord, Lord did we not do X, Y and Z in your name and they are told to depart. Of course that fundamentally applies to me and enduring I am not in that group but it frightens me that there will be many who are. That's my main concern especially with those who claim to be of the faith as actually the greatest judgement I believe is not for those who live say a very hedonistic lifestyle apart from God but rather those who are so close to the truth yet never fully embrace it. I'm not saying that is you I am merely stating my concerns for those who may believe errant doctrine which is doctrine that is uncompromisable.Dr JDD_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT}

Mapou: intelligence is a mechanical phenomenon. Why? Because it deals with causes and effects.
That is an utterly unhelpful criterion. A doorbell deals with causes and effects. How about "understanding" as a criterion for intelligence? Now explain to me in what way a computer understands anything. Explain to me in what way there is a person who understands anything — in the context of AI. And explain in what way something is understood. Also I would like to read your comments on Searle's Chinese Room Argument.Box_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT}

Goodusername,
Goodusername: Indeed, how can you have free if we were created by an all-powerful God who knows the future with certainty?
Knowing the future can be explained by an outside-time-perspective. Knowing something is not the same as causing something. We know at what time the sun will rise tomorrow, but we don’t cause it to rise. Similarly an omniscient God knows which free choices we are going to make without Him doing the choosing for us.
Goodusername: What sense does it mean to “choose” (if by that we mean to select from a set of different possible choices) if the future was already determined the instant God created?
We humans, by means of our free choices, are co-determining reality. There is nothing incoherent about that. Which means that, although God may have known the future the instant He created, the future was not (fully) determined the instant He created the initial conditions — at that 'time' our input and His future input is lacking.Box_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT}

Dr JDD:
Mapou – you cannot use your strawman trick of saying because someone disagrees with you that they are preaching at you. That is a fallacy and is side stepping the issue. Your tone and the things you say as evidenced above is in no way different to how others and myself speak when questioning you or anyone if your beliefs. You preach yourself my friend yet you constantly attack those who you claim different to your view of the Bible and do so in an even more preachy way as you claim special I also personal revelation that others don’t have.
Preachy? This is funny because I go out of my way not to sound like a preacher man. And I don't claim to have special knowledge. I take pains to specify that what I have is a hypothesis. I will provide a falsification method and a demo program when I publish my work on sensory learning and speech recognition. You'll hear about it when it comes out.
By the way there was a man who could walk on water and He claimed that if you had seen Him you had seen the Father. But I’m sure you already know this having read your Bible.
So? Did I say otherwise? He also said "I and the Father are ONE" and "let them be ONE with us as we are ONE together". I see no Trinity in the picture. I see yin and yang, I see duality, I see master-servant, that's what I see.Mapou_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

Mapou - you cannot use your strawman trick of saying because someone disagrees with you that they are preaching at you. That is a fallacy and is side stepping the issue. Your tone and the things you say as evidenced above is in no way different to how others and myself speak when questioning you or anyone if your beliefs. You preach yourself my friend yet you constantly attack those who you claim different to your view of the Bible and do so in an even more preachy way as you claim special I also personal revelation that others don't have. By the way there was a man who could walk on water and He claimed that if you had seen Him you had seen the Father. But I'm sure you already know this having read your Bible.Dr JDD_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

Of related note: I like the following attitude from a cancer survivor in regards to the evil and suffering that happened in his life:
"We are His masterpiece. The greatest creation he has ever made. See what God has to offer you. See what He can do and you will be amazed. When something hits you hard, don't put that blame on God put that weight on God. Say, "God, take that weight off me." And He will and He will carry you through the shadow of death, because He wants you to come out on the other side." - Mark Herzlich - The Linebacker Who Couldn’t Be Stopped by Cancer - video http://www.cbn.com/tv/3775240000001
bornagain77_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

Also of note to the 'problem of evil' and free will, both Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same day and shared many strange similarities in their lives,
“Both men lost their mothers in early childhood, both suffered depression and both struggled with religious questions. The two also had poor relations with their fathers and each lost a child in early childbirth. Lincoln and Darwin both share “late bloomers” disease: Neither found real success until their middle years — Darwin published The Origin of the Species at 50 and Lincoln was elected President one year later.” http://www.tressugar.com/Lincoln-Darwin-More-Alike-Than-Youd-Might-Think-1757730
,,,but the one thing in common that they shared that separated the two men drastically was the way they in which they chose to handle the evil that happened within their lives. Darwin, though drifting away from God for a long while, was permanently driven away from God because of what he perceived to be the 'unjust' death of his daughter,,
“The death of his daughter was a significant event in Darwin’s life, and certainly consolidated his belief that a bad world is incompatible with a good God.” http://askjohnmackay.com/questions/answer/darwin-did-death-charles-daughter-annie-turn-him-against-god-christianity
(In fact, Origin of Species, instead of relying on any compelling scientific evidence, relies heavily on the faulty Theodicy of the argument from evil to try to make its case for evolution).
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 6, 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html
Whereas Lincoln, on the other hand, was driven from his mild skepticism about God into a deep reliance upon God because of the death of his son.
Abraham Lincoln’s Path to Divine Providence Excerpt: In 1862, when Lincoln was 53 years old, his 11-year-old son Willie died. Lincoln’s wife “tried to deal with her grief by searching out New Age mediums.” Lincoln turned to Phineas Gurley, pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington. Several long talks led to what Gurley described as “a conversion to Christ.” Lincoln confided that he was “driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I have nowhere else to go.” Similarly, the horrors of the dead and wounded soldiers assaulted him daily. There were fifty hospitals for the wounded in Washington. The rotunda of the Capitol held 2,000 cots for wounded soldiers. Typically, fifty soldiers a day died in these temporary hospitals. All of this drove Lincoln deeper into the providence of God. “We cannot but believe, that He who made the world still governs it.” His most famous statement about the providence of God in relation to the Civil War was his Second Inaugural Address, given a month before he was assassinated. It is remarkable for not making God a simple supporter for the Union or Confederate cause. He has his own purposes and does not excuse sin on either side. “Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war might speedily pass away…. Yet if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid with another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said, “the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.” http://www.christianity.com/theology/abraham-lincolns-path-to-divine-providence-11599728.html
Verse and Music:
Luke 23:39-43 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” Held- Natalie Grant - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk_y9204TBM
bornagain77_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

Seversky at 2 tries to say that God's omniscience and man's free will are irreconcilable with each other. Therefore, I take it, he concludes that if God exists then man has no free will. That his own preferred atheistic/materialistic philosophy itself rules out free will from the get go is a given. Thus, I guess that Seversky is stuck trying to argue for the position that given either atheism or theism, then there is no such thing as free will. Trouble with his complete denial of the existence of free will, no matter what philosophy, is that Seversky ends up denying that he is capable of rational thought so as to make the argument in the first place:
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts. (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain. (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2) (4) no effect can control its cause. Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality. per Box UD
To say there are a few bugs to work out in his argument against free will would be a drastic understatement. But let's try anyway. From what I can tell, Seversky's main gripe with the omniscience of God and man having free will is the presence of evil in the world. i.e. 'if God exists there should be no evil' if I get the gist of his argument right. Which I find to be a strange argument for him to make since free will and the existence of evil are directly correlated with other in the bible. i.e. Man freely chose to disobey God and brought evil into the world! Perhaps Seversky has never heard of the free will defense against the problem of evil
The Free Will Defense: Is God Good? (Free will and the problem of evil) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfd_1UAjeIA If God, Why Evil? (1 of 4) – Norm Geisler – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSTzJ-kbfkc Does God Control Everything - Tim Keller - (God's sovereignty and our free will, how do they mesh?) - video (12:00 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkQ6ld8dn7I
But, aside from philosophical argumentation, what does the evidence from physics itself tells us about the existence of free will? Certainly, that should shed much more light on the matter. In the following experiment, the atheistic claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is directly falsified by the fact that our present conscious choices are, in fact, effecting past material states:
Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a “Gedankenexperiment” called “delayed-choice entanglement swapping”, formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor’s choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. “We found that whether Alice’s and Bob’s photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured”, explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance”. The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. “Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”, says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html
In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past? This experiment is simply impossible for any coherent atheistic/materialistic presupposition! In the following video, at the 37:00 minute mark, Anton Zeilinger, a leading researcher in quantum teleportation with many breakthroughs under his belt, humorously reflects on just how deeply determinism has been undermined by quantum mechanics by saying such a deep lack of determinism may provide some of us a loop hole when they meet God on judgment day.
Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw
Just how deeply the materialistic notion of determinism is undermined by quantum mechanics is captured here:
People Keep Making Einstein’s (Real) Greatest Blunder - July 2011 Excerpt: It was in these debates (with Bohr) that Einstein declared his real greatest blunder: “God does not play dice with the Universe.” As much as we all admire Einstein,, ,, don’t keep making his (real) greatest blunder. I’ll leave the last word to Bohr, who allegedly said, “Don’t tell God what to do with his dice.” ,,, To clarify, it isn’t simply that there’s randomness; that at some level, “God plays dice.” Even local, real interpretations of quantum mechanics with hidden variables can do that. It’s that we know something about the type of dice that the Universe plays. And the dice cannot be both local and real; people claiming otherwise have experimental data to answer to. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/07/01/people-keep-making-einsteins-g/
Personally, I feel that such a deep undermining of determinism by quantum mechanics, far from providing a 'loop hole' on judgement day as Dr. Zeilinger stated, actually restores free will to its rightful place in the grand scheme of things, thus making God's final judgments on men's souls all the more fully binding since man truly is a 'free moral agent' to fullest 'infinite' extent possible. That ‘infinite non-local randomness’ is (by necessity) associated with quantum mechanics prior to measurement does not negate the fact that free will can override that ‘infinite randomness’ and choose the most desirable of only two options.
Steering by peeking: Physicists control quantum particles by looking at them - Feb 17, 2014 Excerpt: By varying the strength of the coupling between the nucleus and the electron, the scientists could carefully tune the measurement strength. A weaker measurement reveals less information, but also has less back-action. An analysis of the nuclear spin after such a weak measurement showed that the nuclear spin remained in a (slightly altered) superposition of two states. In this way, the scientists verified that the change of the state (induced by the back-action) precisely matched the amount of information that was gained by the measurement. Steering by peeking The scientists realised that it is possible to steer the nuclear spin by applying sequential measurements with varying measurement strength. Since the outcome of a measurement is not known in advance, the researchers implemented a feedback loop in the experiment. They chose the strength of the second measurement depending on the outcome of the first measurement. In this way the scientists could steer the nucleus towards a desired superposition state,,,, http://phys.org/news/2014-02-peeking-physicists-quantum-particles.html
In other words, if you don't like that the cat might be dead (nucleus pointing down), you back off the strength of your measurement until you get a reading telling you that the cat might be more alive than dead (nucleus pointing up) and then once you get that reading you increase the strength of the measurement, as long as the measurement continues to give you the desired more alive than dead state, until you finally have complete knowledge that the cat is fully alive (nucleus pointing up). The preceding experiment is obviously another strong confirmation of free will's axiomatic position within quantum mechanics. Also of note: since our free will choices figure so prominently in how reality is actually found to be constructed in our understanding of quantum mechanics, I think a Christian perspective on just how important our choices are in this temporal life, in regards to our eternal destiny, is very fitting:
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell." - C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce
And exactly as would be expected on the Christian view of reality, we find two very different eternities in reality. There is found to be an ‘infinitely destructive’ eternity associated with General Relativity and there is also found to be an extremely orderly eternity associated with Special Relativity:
Special Relativity, General Relativity, Heaven and Hell https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_4cQ7MXq8bLkoFLYW0kq3Xq-Hkc3c7r-gTk0DYJQFSg/edit
bornagain77_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

AI will make religion obsolete soon?
I just love the irony of the title of this post, not only because the answer is a resounding NO, but because I happen to know that true AI will come from the one place that nobody suspects: religion. The Christian religion, to be exact. I don't mean "true AI" in the materialist sense of a conscious machine but of a generally intelligent but unconscious machine that will learn like a child and eventually behave as if it had an accurate and advanced understanding of its environment. This will happen in your lifetimes, much sooner than you think. Wait for it.Mapou_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

dl, BTW, I write a lot about artificial intelligence (and the brain) and physics because I have uncovered several metaphorical passages in scripture that explain fundamental and revolutionary aspects of both.Mapou_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Mapou, thanks, I'm on my way!dl_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

dl, you can click on Mapou above. It's a link to my personal blog.Mapou_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

Mapou, Are your posts on this forum, or other places? I tend to have a no traditional understanding of the Bible, so I'd like to hear what you have to say Thanks.dl_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Dr JDD:
Mapou Can you explain to me the 5th dimension? How about the 10th?
Certainly. A dimension is a degree of freedom. I believe there are only four dimensions, all of them spatial. A time dimension is nonsense.
So you claim that because your human brain cannot reason how a God outside of our space-time (I.e. For all intents and purposes in another dimension) can know the future yet we still have free will therefore you say it can’t be true?
You have no clue what a dimension is and you don't know what my brain can comprehend. I believe in logic and wisdom and so does Yahweh. Yahweh knows the future up to a point and he can make the future happen as he predicted because he has that kind of power. But if he knew the entire future of the universe, there would be no point in creating it. Besides, if you know everything, you cannot change your mind. What a boring life that would be.
I would expect nothing less though – after all you deny the Trinity
Yes I do because it's stupid. I don't park my brain in a closet when I read the Bible or anything else.
and have made comments that hint you deny the incarnation and Jesus being God in human form.
You are putting words in my mouth. Don't do that.
Yet you constantly protest you are a “Christian”.
I protest? Not at all. I affirm.
I fear for your true spiritual state if I’m honest, and Galatians 1 springs to mind.
Don't preach to me, goddamnit. I refuse to be preached to by anybody unless the preacher can walk on water or fly around like Superman or something. Until then, adios.Mapou_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

EvilSnack:
Your definition of intelligence applies to machinery only because you set the threshold low enough so that anything with switches or moving parts qualifies;
IMO, intelligence is a mechanical phenomenon. Why? Because it deals with causes and effects.
in other words, you are attacking a straw man. In the examples you cite, the machines show nothing like intelligence; they merely follow a set of instructions that a human has already programmed into them.
You don't think that the brain follows a bunch of instructions as well according to its programming? If intelligence is not in the brain, why do you use it?
As for the Halting problem, it proved that no algorithm can answer, for every possible combination of algorithm and input, whether that algorithm will eventually halt or continue indefinitely. Humans who have the proper learning can do this; some of us do it as part of our jobs.
The halting problem is irrelevant to computing because computers are not Turing machines. I'm a software engineer and I can assure you that programmers never think about either Turing or his halting problem while programming.
As for free will and omniscience being contradictory: If there is no God, then the materialist standpoint is true; if the materialist standpoint is true, then we are nothing but the materia known to science; and if we are nothing but the materia known to science, then free will is illusory. So it is not a case that they are contradictory; one is in fact dependent on the other, and not contradicted by it.
This is incoherent. The illogic of omniscience does not prevent the existence of Gods. In fact, I believe in the existence of billions upon billions of Gods starting with just Yahweh Elohim (plural). I also believe in the existence of the Gods of the Sumerians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Mayans, etc. Your insistence that God must be omniscience is not based on logic but on various human illogical doctrines and dogmas. Furthermore, the book of Genesis refutes it by revealing that Yahweh Elohim regretted having created mankind on earth.Mapou_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

dl:
Mapou, I’m interested in your beliefs. You’ve probably explained them in other posts, but I’m way too lazy to look that up. Do you have any web pages that describe your beliefs?
Not on these topics. My research (search and you shall find) consists mainly of deciphering the metaphorical books and passages in the Bible. My thesis is that they contain scientific knowledge and revelations that will shake the foundation of civilization.Mapou_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

Seversky
So how was it their fault if they did what He designed them to do?
Because He designed them with the capability of taking responsiblity for their free choices.
And even if it was an offense against His law, while it might be just to punish the offenders, how is it just to punish their descendants? In perpetuity?
Life and all of its qualities, including the possibility of eternal happiness, is purely a gift. Justice has to be measured against that. The inherited sin is a limitation on that gift and doesn't represent (or function like) a punishment for the individual inheritor's actions.Silver Asiatic_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Mapou Can you explain to me the 5th dimension? How about the 10th? So you claim that because your human brain cannot reason how a God outside of our space-time (I.e. For all intents and purposes in another dimension) can know the future yet we still have free will therefore you say it can't be true? I would expect nothing less though - after all you deny the Trinity and have made comments that hint you deny the incarnation and Jesus being God in human form. Yet you constantly protest you are a "Christian". I fear for your true spiritual state if I'm honest, and Galatians 1 springs to mind.Dr JDD_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Mapou @ 11 Your definition of intelligence applies to machinery only because you set the threshold low enough so that anything with switches or moving parts qualifies; in other words, you are attacking a straw man. In the examples you cite, the machines show nothing like intelligence; they merely follow a set of instructions that a human has already programmed into them. As for the Halting problem, it proved that no algorithm can answer, for every possible combination of algorithm and input, whether that algorithm will eventually halt or continue indefinitely. Humans who have the proper learning can do this; some of us do it as part of our jobs. As for free will and omniscience being contradictory: If there is no God, then the materialist standpoint is true; if the materialist standpoint is true, then we are nothing but the materia known to science; and if we are nothing but the materia known to science, then free will is illusory. So it is not a case that they are contradictory; one is in fact dependent on the other, and not contradicted by it.EvilSnack_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

Seversky, I'm not an expert in this by any means, so please don't misinterpret my questions as disagreement. I'd just like to get some clarification. Would free will remove God's ability to to know for a certainty what is going to happen? My (limited) understanding of Christian philosophy is that free will would be a variable that God has chosen not to control. From my perspective (obviously that would not apply to anybody who could create the universe) it seems like creatures with free will would be more useful than creatures without free will. Of course I don't want to speak for God, but the "free will" thing does seem consistent with God not knowing what would happen. Mapou, I'm interested in your beliefs. You've probably explained them in other posts, but I'm way too lazy to look that up. Do you have any web pages that describe your beliefs? Thanks.dl_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

goodusername:
Indeed, how can you have free if we were created by an all-powerful God who knows the future with certainty?
You are absolutely correct and this is a legitimate and solid refutation of the omniscient/omnipotent God heresy one hears so much among Christians of all stripes. I say this as a Christian.Mapou_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

Seversky – how can you have free will without choice? How can you have love or relationship when there is no choice? So there is no tree there is no choice to not love through obedience. Then the created humans are mere machines.
I don't think you realize it but I'm pretty that all you did was merely rephrase the very questions that Seversky just asked. Indeed, how can you have free if we were created by an all-powerful God who knows the future with certainty? What sense does it mean to "choose" (if by that we mean to select from a set of different possible choices) if the future was already determined the instant God created?goodusername_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Seversky - how can you have free will without choice? How can you have love or relationship when there is no choice? So there is no tree there is no choice to not love through obedience. Then the created humans are mere machines.Dr JDD_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

And EvilSnack, what's with the nonsense of the Halting problem proving that "machines cannot understand machines"? Where does that come from?Mapou_{August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply