MG has been repeatedly criticized for latching onto portions of books, articles, or schools of thought without taking the time to do the heavy lifting needed to understand what he is talking about. His use of A.I. as some kind of authoritative source is, in my opinion, simply an extension of what he’s been doing all along. It’s intellectual laziness at its worst.Gadianton wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 3:59 pmIndeed, his struggle to ask the question fallaciously in hopes the answer will affirm the view that free will is real, and that objections are merely problems the unbeliever has in accepting reality. However, while incomplete, I'd be happy with the answers his A.I. provided him, if he also took the time to respond to his A.I. humanist positions. It's not even clear he has taken the time to understand what his A.I. says.Morley wrote:You already know my complaints about quoting A.I. as an authority in discussion or academics. That said, if you are going to use it, it's unethical to not include the exact question that you employed to harvest your response.
But hold up -- his method seems to be to ask the A.I. a question, produce the result, and now the matter is settled. This would make sense if to your point, he's employing the fallacy of the complex question and thus, assumes the response isn't so much a position of humanists, but views humanists have that are on their face fallacious, which keep them from accepting the reality of free-will, hence there is nothing to respond to. Interesting.
MG has applied the snippet from Brooks’ book in a way that is 180 degrees opposite from what Brooks was writing about. MG’s posts here show no desire to learn about, let alone understand, anyone else’s point of view. He’s all about latching onto any piece of anything that he thinks he can wield as a weapon to defend his claims about God and the COJCOLDS.