The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[huckelberry]

I will admit that even to me, not eager to see AI. MG's post on history reads very much like pieces of AI stuck together. The phrase "your opinion is valued" is a give away. It is listing people with views closer to MG than Pseudopaul.

[Limnor]

I will admit that even to me, not eager to see AI. MG's post on history reads very much like pieces of AI stuck together. The phrase "your opinion is valued" is a give away. It is listing people with views closer to MG than Pseudopaul.

Kind of have to hand it to him for the chutzpah though. Very few people can drop “Non-empirical Dimensions” and “Narrative and Coherence” into a forum post.

It’s the boldness of thinking no one else can see it that is impressive.

[Marcus]

I will admit that even to me, not eager to see AI. MG's post on history reads very much like pieces of AI stuck together. The phrase "your opinion is valued" is a give away. It is listing people with views closer to MG than Pseudopaul.

Kind of have to hand it to him for the chutzpah though. Very few people can drop “Non-empirical Dimensions” and “Narrative and Coherence” into a forum post.

It’s the boldness of thinking no one else can see it that is impressive.

[PseudoPaul]

History isn’t just about collecting evidence and calculating likelihoods. It involves interpreting incomplete, biased, and context-dependent sources. Two historians can look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions based on their philosophical assumptions, cultural lenses, and theoretical models.

That can happen, but there is plenty of consensus in Biblical scholarship.

Also:

Historical probability is not the same as scientific probability. In science, you can run experiments. In history, you’re reconstructing events from fragmentary records. That means:

No direct observation.
No repeatability.
Often no consensus on what counts as “strong” evidence.

There is pretty good consensus on what counts as strong evidence - that's really just the historical method. Where interpretation comes in is determining whether something fits one of those categories.

For example, Mark says that Jesus' family thought Jesus was crazy. They thought Jesus should come home and stop pretending to be a prophet.

Do we assign that additional historical weight because it might fit the criterion of Embarrassment? Maybe. However, Mark seems to be influenced by Paul. He seems to have an anti-Petrine bias, just like Paul. Does Mark's depiction of Jesus' family serve as more of a polemic against James the brother of Jesus? We know Paul really disliked James. It could be argued either way.

However what can't be argued on the basis of history is that the Jesus of history and the Jesus of theology are the same person. You won't find any good critical scholar making that claim.

Non-empirical Dimensions
Some historical questions, especially those involving religious claims, touch on meaning, purpose, and metaphysical assumptions. These aren’t reducible to probability:

Was Jesus the Son of God?
Did Joseph Smith experience divine visions?
Is history itself guided by providence?

None of these are historical claims. Historians don't deal with any of those topics.

Your opinion is to be valued among many others including:
Dr. Ian Hutchinson NOT A BIBLICAL SCHOLAR
Dr. John Lennox NOT A BIBLICAL SCHOLAR
Dr. William Phillips NOT A BIBLICAL SCHOLAR
Dr. Francis Collins NOT A BIBLICAL SCHOLAR
Dr. John Polkinghorne NOT A BIBLICAL SCHOLAR
Dr. Daniel Ang NOT A BIBLICAL SCHOLAR
Gary Habermas NOT A BIBLICAL SCHOLAR
N.T. Wright A Biblical scholar, but a conservative one. Even so he's not your guy for what you're looking for in Jesus - for instance he doesn't think the nativity stories are historical
Alvin Plantinga NOT A BIBLICAL SCHOLAR
John Warwick Montgomery NOT A BIBLICAL SCHOLAR
Alister McGrathNOT A BIBLICAL SCHOLAR

I am NOT the expert that you and others might claim to be. What I will say, however, is that I am hesitant to accept your final analysis and rejection of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and that the Resurrection did not occur. I value your opinion, just as I would anyone that strongly believes in their own studies into the life of Christ. But I would not feel comfortable taking a hard absolutist position on something that has many moving parts and long range ramifications.

Regards,
MG

See my bolded comments on your list. Perhaps your problem is relying mainly on sources who aren't historians and are just there to feed your own biases via apologetics? Apologetics isn't a critical discipline like history is.

[huckelberry]

I asked Chat GPT to assess if one of MG’s recent posts was genuine or probably AI generated or AI generated in part. Here is the passage in question

That's always been an interesting conundrum for me. How can people get answers that they claim came from God but are often a direct contradiction to each other. In looking at Warren Jeffs vs. Joseph Smith my main focus would be 'what came of it'. I've mentioned this before, but I'll say it again...the fruits matter. What has come forth from the purported revelations/prayers of Joseph Smith are something way different than whatever fruits (there were none) that came from the revelations of Warren Jeffs. William Strang, William Smith and others. The fruits, in my opinion, don't lie. For the LDS Church to be in the position that it is in today with ALL the criticism that has been thrown its way is a miracle in its own way.

Joseph Smith was not a perfect man. I don't know many people that would argue otherwise. What matters is if the church that he organized has God's stamp of approval on it. I believe it does. Messiness is just part and parcel of the human experience in and out of the church. This thing we call revelation...and I know you won't like me saying this again...has many moving parts. It's not a 'silver platter' thing as some would like to think. The example of the lost car keys doesn't do justice to the complexity of what revelation MAY entail from one situation to the next.

Warren Jeff's taking multiple wives and Joseph Smith doing the same is just that, a fact. It happened. But it didn't stop there in the case of Joseph Smith and the succeeding prophets and the rise of the CofJCofLDS. Much more came from that small nucleus of believers in 1830. To the point that there are temples throughout the world administering ordinances of salvation/exaltation.

Here is ChatGPT’s assessment…

1. **Tone and Flow**: The passage has a somewhat "generic" flow to it. It's conversational, but lacks the kind of nuanced emotional resonance or individual style that a person deeply invested in the subject might have. The transitions feel a bit abrupt, and some sentences, while grammatically correct, feel like they could benefit from more context or elaboration.

2. **Overuse of Certain Phrases**: There’s a repetitive structure in some of the reasoning ("the fruits matter," "revelation has many moving parts," "Joseph Smith was not a perfect man"). These kinds of repetitive structures are common in AI outputs, as AI often leans on certain phrasing to provide coherence.

3. **Lack of Personal Detail**: The passage touches on very specific topics (such as Joseph Smith and Warren Jeffs) but lacks personal anecdotes, emotional depth, or unique perspectives that a person deeply familiar with the subject might include. AI tends to generate content that is informative but lacks the deep personal insight or lived experience a human might bring to the table.

4. **Pacing**: There's a slightly mechanical rhythm to the pacing. Some paragraphs don’t quite "breathe" the way a human's might—sentences can feel overly structured or thought-out without a deeper sense of urgency or emotional emphasis.

5. **Balanced but Detached**: The argument feels relatively balanced, but also detached. It discusses complex topics like faith, revelation, and religious history, but doesn’t dive deeply into the emotional or personal weight these subjects might have for a believer or critic of these figures.

AI here makes reasonable interesting perhaps accurate observations about style. It points out things in MG's style which can be frustrating for readers. AI has the intelligence to decline making a judgment on whether the material is AI generated. Perhaps AI figured an AI could do better.
Perhaps that is a human thought however.

[malkie]

I asked Chat GPT to assess if one of MG’s recent posts was genuine or probably AI generated or AI generated in part. Here is the passage in question

That's always been an interesting conundrum for me. How can people get answers that they claim came from God but are often a direct contradiction to each other. In looking at Warren Jeffs vs. Joseph Smith my main focus would be 'what came of it'. I've mentioned this before, but I'll say it again...the fruits matter. What has come forth from the purported revelations/prayers of Joseph Smith are something way different than whatever fruits (there were none) that came from the revelations of Warren Jeffs. William Strang, William Smith and others. The fruits, in my opinion, don't lie. For the LDS Church to be in the position that it is in today with ALL the criticism that has been thrown its way is a miracle in its own way.

Joseph Smith was not a perfect man. I don't know many people that would argue otherwise. What matters is if the church that he organized has God's stamp of approval on it. I believe it does. Messiness is just part and parcel of the human experience in and out of the church. This thing we call revelation...and I know you won't like me saying this again...has many moving parts. It's not a 'silver platter' thing as some would like to think. The example of the lost car keys doesn't do justice to the complexity of what revelation MAY entail from one situation to the next.

Warren Jeff's taking multiple wives and Joseph Smith doing the same is just that, a fact. It happened. But it didn't stop there in the case of Joseph Smith and the succeeding prophets and the rise of the CofJCofLDS. Much more came from that small nucleus of believers in 1830. To the point that there are temples throughout the world administering ordinances of salvation/exaltation.

Here is ChatGPT’s assessment…

1. **Tone and Flow**: The passage has a somewhat "generic" flow to it. It's conversational, but lacks the kind of nuanced emotional resonance or individual style that a person deeply invested in the subject might have. The transitions feel a bit abrupt, and some sentences, while grammatically correct, feel like they could benefit from more context or elaboration.

2. **Overuse of Certain Phrases**: There’s a repetitive structure in some of the reasoning ("the fruits matter," "revelation has many moving parts," "Joseph Smith was not a perfect man"). These kinds of repetitive structures are common in AI outputs, as AI often leans on certain phrasing to provide coherence.

3. **Lack of Personal Detail**: The passage touches on very specific topics (such as Joseph Smith and Warren Jeffs) but lacks personal anecdotes, emotional depth, or unique perspectives that a person deeply familiar with the subject might include. AI tends to generate content that is informative but lacks the deep personal insight or lived experience a human might bring to the table.

4. **Pacing**: There's a slightly mechanical rhythm to the pacing. Some paragraphs don’t quite "breathe" the way a human's might—sentences can feel overly structured or thought-out without a deeper sense of urgency or emotional emphasis.

5. **Balanced but Detached**: The argument feels relatively balanced, but also detached. It discusses complex topics like faith, revelation, and religious history, but doesn’t dive deeply into the emotional or personal weight these subjects might have for a believer or critic of these figures.

AI here makes reasonable interesting perhaps accurate observations about style. It points out things in MG's style which can be frustrating for readers. AI has the intelligence to decline making a judgment on whether the material is AI generated. Perhaps AI figured an AI could do better.
Perhaps that is a human thought however.

I've had similar mixed results asking an AI if a block of text showed signs of having been produced by an AI.

I wonder if any of the more professional tools - perhaps like those used as AI detectors in colleges and universities - might "feel" that they could be more definitive.

[Marcus]

History is based on evidence and probability.

History isn’t just about collecting evidence and calculating likelihoods. It involves interpreting incomplete, biased, and context-dependent sources. Two historians can look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions based on their philosophical assumptions, cultural lenses, and theoretical models.

Also:

Historical probability is not the same as scientific probability. In science, you can run experiments. In history, you’re reconstructing events from fragmentary records. That means:

No direct observation.
No repeatability.
Often no consensus on what counts as “strong” evidence.

-------

Non-empirical Dimensions
Some historical questions, especially those involving religious claims, touch on meaning, purpose, and metaphysical assumptions. These aren’t reducible to probability:

Was Jesus the Son of God?
Did Joseph Smith experience divine visions?
Is history itself guided by providence?

--------

Narrative and Coherence
Historians often seek coherence, not just probability. They ask:

Does this story make sense of the available data?
Does it explain why people acted as they did?
Does it resonate with broader cultural or theological patterns?

--------

History is evidence-based and probabilistic, but it’s also interpretive, provisional, and shaped by deeper questions of meaning.

Your opinion is to be valued among many others including:
Dr. Ian Hutchinson
Dr. John Lennox
Dr. William Phillips
Dr. Francis Collins
Dr. John Polkinghorne
Dr. Daniel Ang
Gary Habermas
N.T. Wright
Alvin Plantinga
John Warwick Montgomery
Alister McGrath

I am NOT the expert that you and others might claim to be. What I will say, however, is that I am hesitant to accept your final analysis and rejection of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and that the Resurrection did not occur. I value your opinion, just as I would anyone that strongly believes in their own studies into the life of Christ. But I would not feel comfortable taking a hard absolutist position on something that has many moving parts and long range ramifications.

Regards,
MG

Glad to see this AI post moved to the appropriate thread.

[Analytics]

Prompt: Do NDE’s suggest, if indeed they don’t do more than that, the continuation of consciousness beyond death?

[https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... chers.html]

A: That depends on what “suggest” is allowed to mean. If you mean do NDEs constitute evidence that should update our belief in postmortem consciousness, then no—at least not in any way that distinguishes survival from well-documented neurobiological phenomena.

The mistake here is conflating subjective reports with ontological inferences. People report tunnels, lights, loved ones, out-of-body states—but people also report alien abductions and past lives under hypnosis. The human brain under stress is a hall of mirrors, not a telescope into metaphysics.

Take terminal lucidity. It’s interesting, yes. But to say it points to the “continuation of consciousness beyond death” is to make a category error. The lucidity occurs before death, during final metabolic flickers of a failing brain. That’s not consciousness surviving; that’s neurons firing their last.

And near-death experiences? The term is a sleight-of-hand. These are not experiences had during death. They are recoveries, survivals, hypoxic events. Consciousness resumes and narrates a story. There is no post-death report—because, by definition, the dead do not report.

So, no. NDEs don’t suggest continuation of consciousness any more than dreams suggest alternate dimensions. They reveal the brain’s capacity for pattern, myth, and self-modeling under extreme conditions.

What they “suggest” is that humans are built to resist non-being. That’s not a flaw. It’s a feature of the system that invented gods, rituals, and now blog posts about Orem Costco.

[MG 2.0]

I'd be interested to hear your take on "the arguments that would try and persuade one to look at God as a 'monster'." Would you like to to quote Old Testament passages that show your god behaving in a way, and commanding actions, that I think most of us non- and ex-Mormons would consider to be reprehensible?

I think you might be aware of Old Testament scholarship that defends the God of the Old Testament and shows Him to be someone other than a monster.

This might be a good place to start:

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid= ... HQAAAAAQDA

On a board like this, malkie, I'm not willing to spend the time necessary to answer each and every question, especially when I know that there are obvious differences of opinion readily available to anyone willing to do the research/footwork.

For me, it is just plain common sense that the God of the Universe would have the welfare of all His children in mind as He set up 'the plan'. He wasn't born yesterday. Some folks seem to think God is dumb or something.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

I'd be interested to hear your take on "the arguments that would try and persuade one to look at God as a 'monster'." Would you like to to quote Old Testament passages that show your god behaving in a way, and commanding actions, that I think most of us non- and ex-Mormons would consider to be reprehensible?

I think you might be aware of Old Testament scholarship that defends the God of the Old Testament and shows Him to be someone other than a monster.

This might be a good place to start:

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid= ... HQAAAAAQDA

On a board like this, malkie, I'm not willing to spend the time necessary to answer each and every question, especially when I know that there are obvious differences of opinion readily available to anyone willing to do the research/footwork.

For me, it is just plain common sense that the God of the Universe would have the welfare of all His children in mind as He set up 'the plan'. He wasn't born yesterday. Some folks seem to think God is dumb or something.

Regards,
MG

So that's a "no". You have no personal defence that you are willing to share - reasons noted. Nothing official from the church that you are willing to share and defend - reasons noted.

You know how you keep complaining that us critics are trying to constrain your god, and saying what we think he should or would do or think? And yet you frequently seem to be insisting that his plans and actions should conform to your idea of " just plain common sense". What gives you that right, I wonder.

I certainly don't think that god is "dumb or something". I don't believe he exists. But if, for the sake of argument, he did exist, I expect he would have a mind of his own, and might even tell people that his ways are not their ways, and that they should stop trying to put words in his mouth. And, yes, I'm aware of what I did there It's not your exclusive territory.

In any case, I can't say I found your link very helpful"

The term "was the" is an incomplete phrase, but the search results provide context for several common uses, including its use in grammar, popular culture and music, and recent news events.
Grammar and Usage
"Was" is the simple past tense, first- and third-person singular form of the verb "to be".
"Was" is used for singular subjects (I was, he/she/it was).
"Were" is used for plural subjects (we were, they were) and for the second-person singular ("you were").
In the subjunctive mood (for hypothetical or imaginary situations), "were" is used even for first-person singular (e.g., "If I were a rich man," not "If I was").
In Popular Culture
The phrase appears in the titles of several notable works:
Music:
"As It Was" by Harry Styles
"I Was the One" by Elvis Presley
"What Was I Made For?" by Billie Eilish
"If the World Was Ending" by JP Saxe ft. Julia Michaels
"If I Was The Priest" by Bruce Springsteen
Television and Media:
That Was the Week That Was (TWTWTW), a satirical British television comedy programme from the 1960s presented by David Frost.
The Who Was? Show, a Netflix sketch comedy show based on the best-selling book series.
The Was, a collaborative experimental film and music video project by The Avalanches and Soda_Jerk.
The Was, an independent band originating from San Francisco in the 1990s.
In the News
Recent news headlines use the phrase to pose or answer questions about specific events:
A Canadian border officer was the victim of a "propaganda machine".
An article asking, "Was the Eglinton LRT debacle avoidable?".
Former minister Steven Guilbeault stated the "Alberta energy deal was 'the last straw'" in his resignation.

Please don't bother to create another google search for me - I've used search engines before, and could have done so this time if I wanted to.