Created???

[Gadianton]

The prompt is part of the equation. The response is the other. Whether one makes some kind of what appears to be 'logical error', in the eyes of the critic, doesn't negate the content of the response. The content in this A.I. response is not simply a "wall of text". It does have value as one discusses the arguments for and against God.

It's pretty clear that whether intentionally or accidentally, (others believe intentionally but I believe accidentally), you failed to point Perplexity to your copy and paste from the OP of this thread, it didn't know it was supposed to respond to that, because you failed to tell it to.

You started it from scratch with a totally new topic on arguments for or against God, and derailed the thread.

[sock puppet]

You must have pretty dumb A.I. app/source if it did not generate Aristotle's Prime Mover theory or Thomas Aquinas' trying to dub God to be the prime mover.

The prompt is part of the equation. The response is the other. Whether one makes some kind of what appears to be 'logical error', in the eyes of the critic, doesn't negate the content of the response. The content in this A.I. response is not simply a "wall of text". It does have value as one discusses the arguments for and against God.

I suppose a person, if intent on doing so, can throw out useful information on grounds of a technicality or perceived error. The problem with that, of course, is that the useful arguments/content are either ignored or put in the category of 'been there, done that'.

I find the arguments for God appealing and useful as I live a life also based on my own experience and thought processes. I realize others are going to see things differently because of their own life experience and thought processes.

That's why some people believe and others don't. It's a equation with various inputs with some inputs being given a lower value by disbelievers while at the same time being given a higher/weightier value by believers. And visa versa.

Regards,
MG

Your M.O. is to derail because your direct responses are all too weak.

[MG 2.0]

The prompt is part of the equation. The response is the other. Whether one makes some kind of what appears to be 'logical error', in the eyes of the critic, doesn't negate the content of the response. The content in this A.I. response is not simply a "wall of text". It does have value as one discusses the arguments for and against God.

I suppose a person, if intent on doing so, can throw out useful information on grounds of a technicality or perceived error. The problem with that, of course, is that the useful arguments/content are either ignored or put in the category of 'been there, done that'.

I find the arguments for God appealing and useful as I live a life also based on my own experience and thought processes. I realize others are going to see things differently because of their own life experience and thought processes.

That's why some people believe and others don't. It's a equation with various inputs with some inputs being given a lower value by disbelievers while at the same time being given a higher/weightier value by believers. And visa versa.

Regards,
MG

Your M.O. is to derail because your direct responses are all too weak.

sock puppet, since I've been on this board there have been many times in which the topic of God...in whatever variation ...has come up. I've referred folks to a series called Closer to Truth:

https://closertotruth.com/

This discussion is ongoing and has been around literally forever, or as long as man has been able to conceptualize something beyond themselves.

You folks are in the same class as Robert Lawrence Kuhn who produce the series Closer to Truth. You're ever learning but NEVER coming to a knowledge of the truth. That is your lot. That is your destiny.

I believe that IF there is a God He will in some form and some fashion make Himself known to His children. Sure, Mormonism is one belief about God, that He is our Father and Creator and we are His children who are accountable to Him and subject to Him for our very existence and being. But this closely matches with the Judeo-Christian tradition and from my perspective makes sense. Pre mortal existence with God, birth, purpose, works, progress, becoming like Christ, redemption, judgement, continued existence in a hereafter. Otherwise, you have nothing unless you want to go some other New Age route or reincarnation of some form/fashion. But that only leads to...what?

This whole path of 'other ways' began not long after Christ was here. Within a generation or two. Fortunately, Catholicism kept the light burning...even if dimly at times...over the span of time, until the time was right for God to make Himself known again as a Being of substance and light. Along with the fullness of his gospel.

The doctrines of the LDS Church give meaning and purpose to humanity's very existence and being. I've periodically said to some here that you have NOTHING to offer in its place. The only folks here that come close are those that have religious purpose and/or belief. Of course, in my opinion, other religions are not complete. There are missing pieces of the complete puzzle...but I don't judge others on that count. Whatever leads towards divine light and knowledge and ultimate belief and understanding of the Plan of Salvation is good.

But agnosticism and atheism are dead ends. There is nothing there. That has been repeatedly demonstrated here and in other places.

You're chasing your tail.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

You started it from scratch with a totally new topic on arguments for or against God, and derailed the thread.

If you believe that what has been said by another poster derails a thread from where you see it as needing to go and/or wanting it to go...then ignore it.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I find the arguments for God appealing and useful as I live a life also based on my own experience and thought processes. I realize others are going to see things differently because of their own life experience and thought processes.

That's why some people believe and others don't. It's a equation with various inputs with some inputs being given a lower value by disbelievers while at the same time being given a higher/weightier value by believers. And visa versa.

Regards,
MG

That’s not why some people believe and others don’t. Not all inputs are of equal value. For example, you claiming to have a pink unicorn in your garage is not of equal value as you opening up your garage and allowing passers by to see and photograph the pink unicorn.

You might place equal value on those two inputs, but that’s just confirmation bias at work. You start with a belief in God (for whatever reason - fear of death, childhood conditioning, a way of processing the guilt from a lucky escape etc) and then seek inputs, no matter the veracity, that seem to confirm what you already want to believe. Any input that contradicts what you want to believe, no matter the veracity, you dismiss out of hand.

You also dismiss out of hand any and all inputs from sources you think don’t have the intention of confirming what you want to believe. No matter how strong and qualified that source is. And you will place significantly higher value on an input from a source you think is friendly to your starting point of view, regardless of their credibility.

You are exhibit A for confirmation bias.

Others don’t believe in God because they’ve objectively weighed up the balance of evidence from across a variety of qualified sources.

Also, you don’t believe in many variants of what people describe as “God”. You’re a disbeliever in them. If you believed in the idea of God, you’d believe in all the variations of that idea. Why, for example, do you dismiss the Hellenic deities (Gods) in favour of the God of Mormonism, other than because it’s simply what you’ve been brought up with?

You may not be able to see it, but you are placing yourself on a pedestal. How's the view from up there?

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I seem to recall some advice given somewhere to someone--what was it? Oh yes:

MENTALGYMNAST:... ensure that your posts within OTHER people's threads are free from the Tobin Syndrome from now on. How to do this, you ask? Here's how: When responding to someone, don't theorize about what intellectual sin or shortcoming the person's post might hypothetically suffer from...

Or perhaps try this: When you make a post, examine your intent. If your intent is to request clarification, add to, or further enlighten, then go ahead and click "Submit." If your intent is to accuse or to force your respond-ee to justify him- or herself, then do NOT click "Submit."

Anyway,

The prompt is part of the equation. The response is the other. Whether one makes some kind of what appears to be 'logical error', in the eyes of the critic, doesn't negate the content of the response. The content in this A.I. response is not simply a "wall of text". It does have value as one discusses the arguments for and against God.

It's pretty clear that whether intentionally or accidentally, (others believe intentionally but I believe accidentally), you failed to point Perplexity to your copy and paste from the OP of this thread, it didn't know it was supposed to respond to that, because you failed to tell it to.

You started it from scratch with a totally new topic on arguments for or against God, and derailed the thread.

Yes. It's frustrating to have walls of irrelevant A.I. swamp a discussion. Not to mention that having a discussion with a human is the point. I'd much rather read someone's actual thoughts than try to wade through their barely relevant A.I. copy pasta.

[I Have Questions]

That’s not why some people believe and others don’t. Not all inputs are of equal value. For example, you claiming to have a pink unicorn in your garage is not of equal value as you opening up your garage and allowing passers by to see and photograph the pink unicorn.

You might place equal value on those two inputs, but that’s just confirmation bias at work. You start with a belief in God (for whatever reason - fear of death, childhood conditioning, a way of processing the guilt from a lucky escape etc) and then seek inputs, no matter the veracity, that seem to confirm what you already want to believe. Any input that contradicts what you want to believe, no matter the veracity, you dismiss out of hand.

You also dismiss out of hand any and all inputs from sources you think don’t have the intention of confirming what you want to believe. No matter how strong and qualified that source is. And you will place significantly higher value on an input from a source you think is friendly to your starting point of view, regardless of their credibility.

You are exhibit A for confirmation bias.

Others don’t believe in God because they’ve objectively weighed up the balance of evidence from across a variety of qualified sources.

Also, you don’t believe in many variants of what people describe as “God”. You’re a disbeliever in them. If you believed in the idea of God, you’d believe in all the variations of that idea. Why, for example, do you dismiss the Hellenic deities (Gods) in favour of the God of Mormonism, other than because it’s simply what you’ve been brought up with?

You may not be able to see it, but you are placing yourself on a pedestal. How's the view from up there?

Regards,
MG

I didn’t mention me.

Why have you dismissed the Hellenic Gods?

[MG 2.0]

You may not be able to see it, but you are placing yourself on a pedestal. How's the view from up there?

Regards,
MG

I didn’t mention me.

You didn't have to.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Why have you dismissed the Hellenic Gods?

Because we are all atheists in one way or another. We can't believe in all gods because it would be contradictory. You choose, at least from what I gather, to not believe in ALL gods. I choose to believe in ONE God vs. many. Including the Hellenistic gods. That shouldn't come as a surprise to you.

Do you have anything better to offer?

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Why have you dismissed the Hellenic Gods?

Because we are all atheists in one way or another. We can't believe in all gods because it would be contradictory. You choose, at least from what I gather, to not believe in ALL gods. I choose to believe in ONE God vs. many. Including the Hellenistic gods. That shouldn't come as a surprise to you.

Do you have anything better to offer?

Regards,
MG

On what basis is the God you have chosen more credible than the Hellenic Gods, other than it’s simply the one you were brought up on?