Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[Morley]

In my estimation all these points being made are true. So, which list do we go by?

You have seven and I have ten. Numerical win?

Good times. Thanks for playing, Morley.

When you decided to make the post ridiculing the mentalgymnast moniker (and me by association) what did you have in mind? Did you post as a result of your own free will and choice? Or were your neurons the puppet master and you claim no responsibility?

The devil made me do it!!

I hope you will still have conversations with me, Morley. Although it would be nice to sidestep the sideshows.

Regards,
MG

Ha! You shaded your A.I. question to ask why it would be good to trust a person with the name Mental Gymnast. All it takes is the smallest nudge to get the answer you want. Which is why all of these A.I. answers are the purest of BS.

Please go back and read what I said in my various posts about the reasons that we should distrust A.I. responses. As I knew you would show (and indeed you have), the inconsistency of A.I. responses make it thoroughly unreliable as a source to quote. For this reason alone*, citing A.I. as a trusted authority on any topic is a form of intellectual dishonesty.



*And there are at least a dozen more.

[Gadianton]

I’ve been spouting them off for many pages now in this thread

I haven't read every comment I admit, but it seems like you've been using A.I. to explain agency? Are you saying the wisdom of man constitutes your opinion rather than the teachings of the scriptures and the brethren as ratified by the Holy Spirit?

Why go to church? I mean, I agree with you, you'll learn a lot more about "free will" such as there is anything to learn from A.I. than you will from your scriptures and church leaders.

According to LDS belief we had agency in the premortal world and used that agency in order to support God in his desires to give us further experience in using agency to make choices towards our eventual salvation/exaltation or damnation. But again, in a sense God did give us agency by refusing Satan’s plan. I think you are right in saying that God would not personally wish that any of His children lose their free will or agency. In a perfect world. But, duh, God knew it wasn’t gonna be a perfect world. Far from it.

I agree with that summary, except where you say God gave us agency by refusing Satan's plan. Although you did your own work (I think), and it was a good try. According to D&C 93, "without agency there is no existence". So technically, God can't give us agency because he did not bring us into existence, and if we exist, then by nature we have agency. Also, technically, Satan can't take away agency, if he were to do so, we would no longer exist.

Perhaps Satan would have given us a world without opposition, whereby we wouldn't learn as much, or a totalitarian system like the Christian right wishes to impose upon us where laws are so strict we're prevented from sinning. Unfortunately, we're now equivocating two senses of the word agency. New Atheists like Dan Dennett very much believe in agency of the kind you're talking about, or rather "practical free will" where a person has the freedom to do what they want to do. If I build a robot that picks berries, and then tie up its limbs, that would take away its agency in the secondary sense, by preventing it from doing what it is designed to do. Tying up a person and preventing him from eating would do the same.

A person would still have volition* if they lived in a totalitarian system with constant monitoring, they just can't do what they want to do. But the robot berry picker? We wouldn't say it has volition. It doesn't "want" to do anything. Whether or not we "want" to do something is what's at issue, not whether we are allowed to do something. God gave us a world where we are allowed more options, he didn't give us volition, which per the scriptures, is fundamental to intelligence, existence itself as a free agent.

That last sentence is a bit circular and isn't saying much even though it resonates with things we believe by everyday experience, and we're pretty sure robots (at least so far) don't have that experience. But exactly in what way does a person have volition that a (deterministic) robot can never have it, no matter how sophisticated? Robots 100,000 years from now couldn't have volition? Well, I don't really have an answer for that, because free agency, volition, and all that, are ill-defined words, black boxes for something that's a mystery for us.


*another meaningless word that seems like it means something

[MG 2.0]

The God of Christianity has much in common with the God I worship.

From Pi A.I.



Some other similarities with Mormon God (referring to God that is comfortable for you).



We have much in common with our Christian brothers and sisters. More so, I might say, than you might have in common with either traditional Christians or LDS Christians.

What part of your mind is encouraging you to respond to my posts regarding free will? Do you feel and believe that is your neurons pushing you? Does it feel like you are exercising free will?

Regards,
MG

I guess we'll have a war of the A.I. chat bots then...

The belief that God organized existing matter rather than creating it out of nothing is a concept in Mormon theology. This view is rooted in the teachings of Joseph Smith, the founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). According to Smith and subsequent LDS teachings, God is seen as an organizer who formed the universe from pre-existing, eternal matter.

This belief contrasts with the traditional Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). Instead, Mormon doctrine holds that matter and intelligence are eternal and that God organized this matter to create the world. This perspective is reflected in LDS scripture, such as the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, which describes God organizing and forming the heavens and the earth.

This view emphasizes a more process-oriented and cooperative role of God in creation, aligning with the broader LDS theological framework that includes the potential for humans to progress and become like God through eternal progression.

In Mormon theology, it is taught that God the Father (Heavenly Father) himself was once a mortal man who progressed to become God. This concept is encapsulated in the idea of eternal progression and is famously summarized by a statement attributed to Joseph Smith: "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be."

This implies that God the Father had a father (a God) who helped him progress to his divine status. This belief is part of the larger framework of Mormon cosmology, which includes the idea that humans have the potential to become like God through obedience to the principles of the gospel and the ordinances of the LDS Church.

This teaching suggests an infinite regression of gods, each having progressed from mortality to divinity, which is distinct from mainstream Christian theology that typically views God as the eternally existent and uncreated being.

Thank you for posting this additional information which delineates some to the beliefs/attributes of God that are somewhat unique to Mormonism. One might expect that we would have additional light and knowledge about God’s attributes and nature/being as we believe He has revealed Himself through prophets in our day.

What your resource material and mine show is that the God that traditional Christians and LDS Christians worship has many common attributes and some that are unique to the LDS church. The use of A.I. was a help in outlining and bringing this information to the forefront.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

[You have] bigotry toward non-believers.

I do not.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

You don’t understand non-believers and you never will…

You seem to have a persecution complex, Res Ipsa. As I interact with you and others here I do believe I’ve come closer to understanding you.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

You don’t understand non-believers and you never will…

You seem to have a persecution complex, Res Ipsa. As I interact with you and others here I do believe I’ve come closer to understanding you.

Regards,
MG

If by "understanding" you mean "rely on confirmation bias to confirm my bigoted preconceptions of atheists," I'd agree.

[MG 2.0]

…all of these A.I. answers are the purest of BS.

I think A.I. engines are very helpful in retrieving information and consolidating it accurately. Yes, input may affect output.

A.I. has been very helpful in this thread in getting information expeditiously and in a straightforward manner.

You are always free to disagree with factual information that would negate any information retrieved through A.I..

Notice I did not complain about your use of the same. I simply replied with contrary material which in my opinion more accurately describes my moniker.

Now it’s all out in the open.

That’s a good thing. More information and opinion rather than less is preferable in my book.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

Using A.I. for debating presents several challenges:

Bias: A.I. systems can inherit biases from their training data, leading to unfair or skewed arguments.

Lack of Understanding: A.I. may lack a deep understanding of nuanced topics, leading to oversimplification or misrepresentation of arguments.

Ethical Concerns: There are ethical considerations regarding the use of A.I. in debates, especially when it comes to manipulating or deceiving opponents.

Limited Creativity: A.I. may struggle to generate novel arguments or think outside predefined parameters, limiting its ability to engage in dynamic debates.

Emotional Intelligence: A.I. typically lacks emotional intelligence, making it challenging to understand and respond appropriately to the emotional cues of human debaters.

Technical Errors: A.I. systems can encounter technical issues or errors that disrupt the flow of the debate or provide inaccurate information.

Dependency on Training Data: The quality of A.I. debate models heavily depends on the quality and diversity of their training data. Biased or limited datasets can hinder the A.I.'s ability to generate well-rounded arguments.

Over-reliance on Data: While A.I. can provide data-driven arguments, it may struggle with abstract reasoning or ethical dilemmas that require judgment beyond statistical analysis.

[MG 2.0]

Why go to church?

Renew covenants made with God by participating in the Sacrament administration through the Priesthood Authority of Jesus Christ.

Teach and learn (reinforce) the principles and doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Serve, edify, and have communion/friendship with fellow saints.

All done through the agency and free will which we each have to either choose to do so or not.

Of course, free will is exercised by believers and non believers of all stripes as they determine what best fits their spiritual or strictly secular life.

With the caveat, as has been discussed this thread, that there are limitations on individual free will as a result of many and varying factors.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

You seem to have a persecution complex, Res Ipsa. As I interact with you and others here I do believe I’ve come closer to understanding you.

Regards,
MG

If by "understanding" you mean "rely on confirmation bias to confirm my bigoted preconceptions of atheists," I'd agree.

We’re both in the same room and experience things differently as has already been discussed. I’ll leave you with your own perception of reality.

It seems to serve you well.

Regards,
MG