Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Morley]

Ha! And here it is. The patented MG self-righteous, contemptuous dismissal that's always eventually in evidence when you're cornered. Full credit for consistency.

I was being totally honest. There was no ‘there’ there.

Regards,
MG

Not to worry, my friend. I realize that much of what’s written here flies miles above your head. (Hell, I sometimes only understand half the words, myself.) I suppose that I thought that I was being respectful by addressing you directly—but you say deciphering these posts is too much work for you. For the next little while, I’ll try to write about you and critique what you’re writing, without asking you to explain or defend it. While I do this, you can continue to generate most of your thoughts from chatbots. It’ll be an interesting experiment.

[MG 2.0]

I was being totally honest. There was no ‘there’ there.

Regards,
MG

Not to worry, my friend. I realize that much of what’s written here flies miles above your head. (Hell, I sometimes only understand half the words, myself.) I suppose that I thought that I was being respectful by addressing you directly—but you say deciphering these posts is too much work for you. For the next little while, I’ll try to write about you and critique what you’re writing, without asking you to explain or defend it. While I do this, you can continue to generate most of your thoughts from chatbots. It’ll be an interesting experiment.

I feel as though I’m in good company. The scriptures are quite explicit in showing/teaching that it is through the ‘weak things’ that the truth will be made manifest. The truthfulness of the Book of Mormon can not be proved only through investigation using the natural mind. One has to be humble/meek and open to the Spirit of the Lord.

God has to manifest the truth of this book to our minds and heart.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

From another thread:

https://vimeo.com/824199556/ecefc622ed

The Winesses Movie is available free to watch until Oct. 10th.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

MG, your LLMs are all wrong. sorry. It's not surprising at all. It would be downright scary if they were consistently right calling fallacies.

Why do you say that? It seems as though it would be scary if each one disagreed with the other. The fact that they all ‘see right through’ the logical fallacy is what one might expect from a highly trained algorithmic super computer.

I guess it becomes a question as to whether or not a person is going to give preference to your ‘protection’ of IHAQ’s reasoning and conclusions over the determinations of multiple A.I. systems.

The things is, both you and IHAQ have a dog in the fight. One must consider that.

Regards,
MG

You already lost this argument, and badly, in the other thread.

No one is 'protecting' anyone, everyone was just pointing out your errors and shallowness of understanding. Why start it up again, but add in the 'protection' racket nonsense?

It's one thing to not know and learn something, but even though it's been proven you are wrong, you are picking a fight about it, again. Who does that? What is your intent?

[MG 2.0]

Why do you say that? It seems as though it would be scary if each one disagreed with the other. The fact that they all ‘see right through’ the logical fallacy is what one might expect from a highly trained algorithmic super computer.

I guess it becomes a question as to whether or not a person is going to give preference to your ‘protection’ of IHAQ’s reasoning and conclusions over the determinations of multiple A.I. systems.

The things is, both you and IHAQ have a dog in the fight. One must consider that.

I think that IHAQ’s sigline was simply nonsensical on its face. Three sources agreed. I’ll leave it at that.

Regards,
MG

You already lost this argument, and badly, in the other thread.

No one is 'protecting' anyone, everyone was just pointing out your errors and shallowness of understanding. Why start it up again, but add in the 'protection' racket nonsense?

It's one thing to not know and learn something, but even though it's been proven you are wrong, you are picking a fight about it, again. Who does that? What is your intent?

That’s the point I’m making. You and others have a ‘dog in the fight’. What multiple A.I.’s have to contribute when it goes ‘against the grain’ will be looked at with a kind of disdain. “What? An LLM trained super computer might have a ‘step up’ on my finely tuned brain from such and such university? Pshaw.”

As it is, from a person who considers themself to have a modicum of ‘common sense’ I found it interesting that to a person, folks here jumped on the bandwagon of “can’t trust eyewitness testimony.”

On other words, can’t trust good ol’ everyday logic. Especially if it comes from a LLM or the mouth of a person that is not to be trusted in anything that they say.

IHAQ’s sigline had a problem. I brought it up. He is ‘one of your own’. Protection racket kicks in. It’s not rocket science folks.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

You already lost this argument, and badly, in the other thread.

No one is 'protecting' anyone, everyone was just pointing out your errors and shallowness of understanding. Why start it up again, but add in the 'protection' racket nonsense?

It's one thing to not know and learn something, but even though it's been proven you are wrong, you are picking a fight about it, again. Who does that? What is your intent?

That’s the point I’m making. You and others have a ‘dog in the fight’. What multiple A.I.’s have to contribute when it goes ‘against the grain’ will be looked at with a kind of disdain. “What? An LLM trained super computer might have a ‘step up’ on my finely tuned brain from such and such university? Pshaw.”

As it is, from a person who considers themself to have a modicum of ‘common sense’ I found it interesting that to a person, folks here jumped on the bandwagon of “can’t trust eyewitness testimony.”

On other words, can’t trust good ol’ everyday logic. Especially if it comes from a LLM or the mouth of a person that is not to be trusted in anything that they say.

IHAQ’s sigline had a problem. I brought it up. He is ‘one of your own’. Protection racket kicks in. It’s not rocket science folks....

Oh boy. That is probably the least intelligent thing you've said in a long time. I'm pretty sure what you just argued is an example straight out of Dunning and Krueger's paper, with the added twist of mistaking your own lack of knowledge for evidence of others ganging up on you. Unreal.

No, IHQ's signature line does not have the problems you asserted, and your misunderstanding of the concepts, generated by your reliance on A.I. cut and paste and your unwillingness to understand what you are posting before you post it, was fully explained.

And no, if your "good ol' everyday logic" comes from a lack of understanding of logic, then no, you can't trust it. You could learn something from this. That's what other people's "good ol' everyday logic" would tell them to do.

[Morley]

Say whatever you want to MG. Dude is not looking for discussion. He’s given up even pretending.

[MG 2.0]

That’s the point I’m making. You and others have a ‘dog in the fight’. What multiple A.I.’s have to contribute when it goes ‘against the grain’ will be looked at with a kind of disdain. “What? An LLM trained super computer might have a ‘step up’ on my finely tuned brain from such and such university? Pshaw.”

As it is, from a person who considers themself to have a modicum of ‘common sense’ I found it interesting that to a person, folks here jumped on the bandwagon of “can’t trust eyewitness testimony.”

On other words, can’t trust good ol’ everyday logic. Especially if it comes from a LLM or the mouth of a person that is not to be trusted in anything that they say.

IHAQ’s sigline had a problem. I brought it up. He is ‘one of your own’. Protection racket kicks in. It’s not rocket science folks....

Oh boy. That is probably the least intelligent thing you've said in a long time. I'm pretty sure what you just argued is an example straight out of Dunning and Krueger's paper, with the added twist of mistaking your own lack of knowledge for evidence of others ganging up on you. Unreal.

No, IHQ's signature line does not have the problems you asserted, and your misunderstanding of the concepts, generated by your reliance on A.I. cut and paste and your unwillingness to understand what you are posting before you post it, was fully explained.

And no, if your "good ol' everyday logic" comes from a lack of understanding of logic, then no, you can't trust it. You could learn something from this. That's what other people's "good ol' everyday logic" would tell them to do.

Your arrogance literally astounds me. I don’t know what else to say.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Say whatever you want to MG. Dude is not looking for discussion. He’s given up even pretending.

IHAQ’S sigline:

1. Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 2. The best evidence for The Book of Mormon is eye witness testimony, therefore… 3.The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is a type of evidence that is notoriously unreliable.

My response on another thread:

It wasn’t just one witness that carried their testimony with them throughout their life even during and after having been disassociated from the church.

It was multiple witnesses that did the same thing.

The likelihood that multiple witnesses would get it wrong and then stick by their testimony through thick and thin is highly unlikely.

It makes their initial testimony/witness much more palatable.

There seems to be a tendency among the critics to almost toss the testimonies off almost at face value. Maybe with one. Maybe. But with multiple witnesses?

The likelihood shrinks dramatically. Unless they’re in cahoots. I haven’t seen any evidence to support that.

IHAQ is talking SINGULAR.

Regards,
MG

[Physics Guy]

Large language models are not good at logic. They are literally and exactly trained to say exactly this about any possible topic: the kind of thing that gets said about this on the Internet.

They make no effort at all to check whether the things that get said on the Internet make any sense. That's the whole point of this recent LLM breakthrough in artificial intelligence. Determining what it means to "make sense", in simple and precise enough terms to put into an algorithm, has turned out to be difficult. That is the rock on which the first phase of the quest for artificial intelligence foundered.

The new phase just abandons that goal, and takes the lowest common denominator of the Internet as its standard. The kinds of things people say, whether stupid or not? That's what these large models say.

That's why there's no chance at all for the current generation of AIs to be superhumanly intelligent in any really important sense. They might conceivably manage to be smarter than any single human, but they literally cannot be smarter than humans collectively, because collective humanity is all that they know.

And in fact they suffer badly from the problem that they cannot sift wheat from chaff, because their whole point is not to even to try to distinguish between wheat and chaff. They say the kind of things that people say on the Internet, about anything. On simple topics that have drawn a lot of attention, most of what gets said on the Internet is actually pretty smart. LLMs are Wikipedia squared, in this way.

On anything that isn't quite simple enough for a good consensus to have emerged on the Internet, LLMs are just useless. They give you the lowest common denominator of ignorance trying to pretend, because that's what the Internet gives.