Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[MG 2.0]

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.

From Pi A.I.:

Using A.I. as a resource can benefit discussions on a public discussion board dealing mainly with religion in several ways:

* Access to information: A.I. can provide quick and easy access to a wide range of information on different religious traditions, beliefs, and practices, which can help inform and enrich the discussion.

* Fact-checking: A.I. can be used to verify or debunk claims made in the discussion, which can help ensure that the conversation is grounded in accurate information.

* Translation: A.I. can help translate religious texts or comments made in different languages, which can help facilitate communication and understanding between people of different cultures and backgrounds.

* Encouraging diverse perspectives: A.I. can help identify and present different viewpoints on a given topic, which can help promote diversity of thought and stimulate productive dialogue.

* Monitoring for hate speech: A.I. can be used to monitor the discussion for hate speech or other forms of inappropriate content, which can help maintain a respectful and inclusive environment for all participants.

Let’s add a few more:

Here are a few more ways A.I. can be helpful in discussions on a public discussion board dealing mainly with religion:

* Promoting critical thinking: A.I. can encourage users to think critically about their beliefs and assumptions by asking questions, providing alternative viewpoints, and encouraging self-reflection.

* Providing historical context: A.I. can provide historical and cultural context for religious beliefs and practices, which can help users understand the roots and evolution of different religious traditions.

* Facilitating theological debates: A.I. can help facilitate theological debates by presenting different arguments, counterarguments, and supporting evidence, which can help users explore complex religious concepts and ideas.

* Enhancing accessibility: A.I. can help make religious discussions more accessible to people with disabilities by providing alternative forms of communication, such as text-to-speech or speech-to-text technology.

* Reducing biases: A.I. can help reduce biases and preconceptions by presenting information in an objective and neutral manner, which can help users approach religious discussions with an open mind and a willingness to learn.

Granted, I can readily see why there would be those that would be opposed to the use of A.I. as a resource on this board.

It opens up rather than restricts.

More information is ALWAYS better than less.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

Why go to church?

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

True.

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

False. As we've seen with free will, you haven't learned enough to provide the Lord's definition.

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

Neither. A good deal of your education at church regards learning a narrative about what you're learning at Church. Whether anyone learns anything, is served, edified, or friendshipped is less important than learning that church attains these lofty goals.

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

Meaningless since you haven't provided a definition of agency and free will.

[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.

True.

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

False. As we've seen with free will, you haven't learned enough to provide the Lord's definition.

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

Neither. A good deal of your education at church regards learning a narrative about what you're learning at Church. Whether anyone learns anything, is served, edified, or friendshipped is less important than learning that church attains these lofty goals.

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

Meaningless since you haven't provided a definition of agency and free will.

We are in the same room but are perceiving things uniquely/individually. It may be difficult for you to see things the same way I do because it is difficult to ‘see’ the ‘other’.

Your response is appreciated. Although, truth be told, I frequently am unable to understand and ‘see’ you also as you might like me to. But it is what it is. No two people at the party are going to come away having seen things in exactly the same way.

But we can communicate and try to understand the other better. I appreciate it when you attempt to do so in my behalf.

I responded as I saw fit and as I understand things in my church attendance and belief. As an active member of the church who attends regularly I think I have the right, as much as anyone else, to perceive and interpret meaning out of my church attendance and experience.

Your input is noted. But not necessarily as an authoritative source.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

More information is indeed better, MG. Let's compare your church's A.I. powered chatbot, to the standard chatGPT bot:

The question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon involves both faith-based perspectives and academic inquiry. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in the Book of Mormon's historicity primarily through spiritual conviction, confirmed to them through prayer and personal revelation as promised in Moroni 10:4-5. In addition to this spiritual witness, there are various areas where scholars and researchers, many from within the Church, have sought to find supporting evidence or insights. Here are a few points of discussion:

Archaeological and Anthropological Research: While there is no direct archaeological evidence that explicitly confirms the places and events described in the Book of Mormon, researchers have examined parallels and contexts within ancient American cultures that might align with descriptions in the Book of Mormon. For example, in 2022, research published in the Texas Journal of Science documented evidence of pre-Columbian horse remains in Mexico from dates roughly corresponding to the Book of Mormon period.

Linguistic Studies: Some scholars have explored linguistic parallels between ancient Near Eastern languages and languages of the Americas, though these studies are often speculative and not widely accepted in the mainstream linguistic community.

Genetic Studies: Early genetic studies raised questions about the origins of Native American peoples, particularly in relation to the claims of the Book of Mormon. Later studies have shown a more complex genetic heritage of Native American populations, with the majority of evidence tracing their ancestry to East Asian populations. Some Latter-day Saint researchers propose that the Book of Mormon peoples represented a small group that integrated into a larger pre-Columbian population, though these views are not universally accepted outside the Church.

Hebraisms and Ancient Literary Structures: Some scholars have pointed to Hebraisms (elements of Hebrew language and style) and other ancient literary structures in the Book of Mormon text that suggest its authenticity as an ancient document. Critics, however, often view these elements as not conclusively proving historicity.

Witness Accounts and Spiritual Confirmations: Beyond academic research, many Latter-day Saints cite the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses of the Book of Mormon plates, as well as their personal spiritual experiences, as evidence of its truth and divine origin.

It's important to note that the Church encourages individuals to seek a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness through prayer and meditation on its teachings. While some find the discussions of evidences interesting and faith-affirming, the Church teaches that the most important confirmation of the Book of Mormon's truth comes through the Holy Ghost.

Would you like to explore any specific area further or have any other questions about Latter-day Saint beliefs or teachings?

Here's the answer to the same question from ChatGPT:

The historicity of the Book of Mormon has been a subject of debate since its publication by Joseph Smith in 1830. Proponents of the book's historical authenticity point to several lines of evidence, while critics highlight various issues. Here are some key points from both perspectives:

Evidence Cited by Proponents
Ancient American Civilizations:

Proponents argue that the Book of Mormon's descriptions of complex civilizations in ancient America correspond with archaeological findings that suggest the existence of sophisticated pre-Columbian cultures.

Hebraic Linguistic Patterns:
Some researchers claim to find Hebraic linguistic patterns and chiasmus (a form of literary parallelism) in the Book of Mormon text, which they argue supports its ancient origins.

Cultural Practices:
Certain cultural practices described in the Book of Mormon, such as the construction of temples and use of metal plates for record-keeping, have parallels in ancient Near Eastern and Mesoamerican cultures.
Nahom:

The Book of Mormon mentions a place called Nahom, which some researchers correlate with a site in Yemen that has inscriptions dating to the correct time period. This is seen as potential evidence for the book's authenticity.

Evidence Cited by Critics

Lack of Archaeological Corroboration:
Critics point out that there is no direct archaeological evidence to support the specific peoples and events described in the Book of Mormon. The large cities, battles, and other significant events mentioned have not been corroborated by archaeological findings.

Anachronisms:
The text contains anachronisms, such as references to animals (horses, cattle, elephants) and materials (steel, silk) that were not present in pre-Columbian America according to current archaeological understanding.

DNA Evidence:
Genetic studies of Native American populations do not support the Book of Mormon's claim that Native Americans are descendants of Israelites. Instead, these studies indicate a primarily Asian origin for these populations.

19th-Century Context:
Critics argue that the Book of Mormon reflects the religious and cultural milieu of early 19th-century America. They suggest that it incorporates contemporary ideas and concerns, such as the mound builder myth and Christian revivalism.

Scholarly Perspectives

Faith-Based Approaches:
Many scholars within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and affiliated institutions have conducted extensive research to find supporting evidence for the Book of Mormon's historicity.

Secular Academic Views:
Secular scholars generally regard the Book of Mormon as a work of 19th-century religious fiction, influenced by Joseph Smith's environment and the religious movements of his time.

Conclusion
The debate over the historicity of the Book of Mormon is complex and ongoing. Those who believe in its divine origin see evidence in linguistic patterns, cultural parallels, and specific locations mentioned in the text. Critics focus on the lack of archaeological evidence, anachronisms, and genetic data that contradict its historical claims. The question of historicity remains a matter of faith and interpretation, with differing perspectives based on religious beliefs and academic approaches.

Isn't it interesting that the LDS chatbot deliberately hides information? I wonder why that is, do you have any ideas as to why this might be, MG? Perhaps related to a longstanding practice of the LDS church deliberately hiding information which is not faith promoting?

[MG 2.0]

More information is indeed better, MG. Let's compare your church's A.I. powered chatbot, to the standard chatGPT bot:

The question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon involves both faith-based perspectives and academic inquiry. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in the Book of Mormon's historicity primarily through spiritual conviction, confirmed to them through prayer and personal revelation as promised in Moroni 10:4-5. In addition to this spiritual witness, there are various areas where scholars and researchers, many from within the Church, have sought to find supporting evidence or insights. Here are a few points of discussion:

Archaeological and Anthropological Research: While there is no direct archaeological evidence that explicitly confirms the places and events described in the Book of Mormon, researchers have examined parallels and contexts within ancient American cultures that might align with descriptions in the Book of Mormon. For example, in 2022, research published in the Texas Journal of Science documented evidence of pre-Columbian horse remains in Mexico from dates roughly corresponding to the Book of Mormon period.

Linguistic Studies: Some scholars have explored linguistic parallels between ancient Near Eastern languages and languages of the Americas, though these studies are often speculative and not widely accepted in the mainstream linguistic community.

Genetic Studies: Early genetic studies raised questions about the origins of Native American peoples, particularly in relation to the claims of the Book of Mormon. Later studies have shown a more complex genetic heritage of Native American populations, with the majority of evidence tracing their ancestry to East Asian populations. Some Latter-day Saint researchers propose that the Book of Mormon peoples represented a small group that integrated into a larger pre-Columbian population, though these views are not universally accepted outside the Church.

Hebraisms and Ancient Literary Structures: Some scholars have pointed to Hebraisms (elements of Hebrew language and style) and other ancient literary structures in the Book of Mormon text that suggest its authenticity as an ancient document. Critics, however, often view these elements as not conclusively proving historicity.

Witness Accounts and Spiritual Confirmations: Beyond academic research, many Latter-day Saints cite the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses of the Book of Mormon plates, as well as their personal spiritual experiences, as evidence of its truth and divine origin.

It's important to note that the Church encourages individuals to seek a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness through prayer and meditation on its teachings. While some find the discussions of evidences interesting and faith-affirming, the Church teaches that the most important confirmation of the Book of Mormon's truth comes through the Holy Ghost.

Would you like to explore any specific area further or have any other questions about Latter-day Saint beliefs or teachings?

Here's the answer to the same question from ChatGPT:

The historicity of the Book of Mormon has been a subject of debate since its publication by Joseph Smith in 1830. Proponents of the book's historical authenticity point to several lines of evidence, while critics highlight various issues. Here are some key points from both perspectives:

Evidence Cited by Proponents
Ancient American Civilizations:

Proponents argue that the Book of Mormon's descriptions of complex civilizations in ancient America correspond with archaeological findings that suggest the existence of sophisticated pre-Columbian cultures.

Hebraic Linguistic Patterns:
Some researchers claim to find Hebraic linguistic patterns and chiasmus (a form of literary parallelism) in the Book of Mormon text, which they argue supports its ancient origins.

Cultural Practices:
Certain cultural practices described in the Book of Mormon, such as the construction of temples and use of metal plates for record-keeping, have parallels in ancient Near Eastern and Mesoamerican cultures.
Nahom:

The Book of Mormon mentions a place called Nahom, which some researchers correlate with a site in Yemen that has inscriptions dating to the correct time period. This is seen as potential evidence for the book's authenticity.

Evidence Cited by Critics

Lack of Archaeological Corroboration:
Critics point out that there is no direct archaeological evidence to support the specific peoples and events described in the Book of Mormon. The large cities, battles, and other significant events mentioned have not been corroborated by archaeological findings.

Anachronisms:
The text contains anachronisms, such as references to animals (horses, cattle, elephants) and materials (steel, silk) that were not present in pre-Columbian America according to current archaeological understanding.

DNA Evidence:
Genetic studies of Native American populations do not support the Book of Mormon's claim that Native Americans are descendants of Israelites. Instead, these studies indicate a primarily Asian origin for these populations.

19th-Century Context:
Critics argue that the Book of Mormon reflects the religious and cultural milieu of early 19th-century America. They suggest that it incorporates contemporary ideas and concerns, such as the mound builder myth and Christian revivalism.

Scholarly Perspectives

Faith-Based Approaches:
Many scholars within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and affiliated institutions have conducted extensive research to find supporting evidence for the Book of Mormon's historicity.

Secular Academic Views:
Secular scholars generally regard the Book of Mormon as a work of 19th-century religious fiction, influenced by Joseph Smith's environment and the religious movements of his time.

Conclusion
The debate over the historicity of the Book of Mormon is complex and ongoing. Those who believe in its divine origin see evidence in linguistic patterns, cultural parallels, and specific locations mentioned in the text. Critics focus on the lack of archaeological evidence, anachronisms, and genetic data that contradict its historical claims. The question of historicity remains a matter of faith and interpretation, with differing perspectives based on religious beliefs and academic approaches.

Isn't it interesting that the LDS chatbot deliberately hides information? I wonder why that is, do you have any ideas as to why this might be, MG? Perhaps related to a longstanding practice of the LDS church deliberately hiding information which is not faith promoting?

LDS Chatbot:

Critic’s arguments against Book of Mormon historicity:

Critics of the Book of Mormon often raise various points to question its historicity. Here are some of the common arguments they use:

Anachronisms: Critics point to mentions of animals, plants, metals, and technologies in the Book of Mormon that they say were not present in pre-Columbian Americas. They argue that these anachronisms demonstrate the book reflects 19th-century ideas rather than ancient American history.
Lack of Archaeological Evidence: Some argue that there is a lack of direct archaeological evidence supporting the existence of the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon, including the Nephites and Lamanites.
Language and Translation Issues: Critics question Joseph Smith's method of translation of the Book of Mormon from golden plates using a seer stone in a hat, asserting that this method lacks credibility.
DNA Evidence: Some argue that genetic evidence among Native American populations does not support the Book of Mormon narrative that they are primarily descendants of people from the Middle East.
Similarities to Other Works: Critics also mention similarities between the Book of Mormon and other texts available to Joseph Smith, such as the King James Bible and "View of the Hebrews" by Ethan Smith, suggesting that these works might have influenced the Book of Mormon.
Questions about Witnesses: Critics sometimes question the credibility and reliability of the witnesses who claimed to have seen the golden plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated.

It is true that the church’s chatbot will then go on to encourage thorough investigation of the Book of Mormon, including reading it with an open heart and mind and praying to God and receive His witness.

As I said, the more information the better. Including that knowledge that can only come from God.

Thanks for sharing!

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

LDS Chatbot definition of Free Will:

Free will is a fundamental concept in Latter-day Saint theology, as well as in broader Christian thought. It refers to the God-given ability and privilege that individuals have to choose for themselves between different courses of action. This freedom to choose enables us to make decisions that shape our lives, our characters, and our eternal destinies.

In Latter-day Saint scriptures and teachings, the principle of agency, or moral agency, is often used interchangeably with free will. This concept is rooted in the belief that we are children of God and that He has given us the capacity to act for ourselves, rather than being compelled to act.

Here are a few key points about free will from a Latter-day Saint perspective:

Pre-Earth Life: The concept of free will is tied to the pre-earth life, where Heavenly Father presented His plan of salvation, which included the principle of agency. This plan allowed for personal growth and progression through the exercise of free will, in opposition to Satan's proposal, which would have removed the possibility of choice.
Agency and Accountability: With the gift of agency comes accountability. We are responsible for our choices and will receive consequences based on those choices, both in this life and in the hereafter. This principle encourages us to make righteous decisions, following the commandments of God.
The Role of the Atonement: The Atonement of Jesus Christ is central to understanding free will. It provides us the opportunity to repent and choose to come unto Christ, overcoming the effects of our wrong choices when we inevitably fall short.
Learning and Growth: The exercise of free will is essential for personal development. Elder Delbert L. Stapley taught, “We are not born into this world with fixed habits...Instead, as children of God, we are given the privilege and opportunity of choosing which way of life we will follow—which habits we will form…” This emphasizes the role of free will in our moral and spiritual development.
The gift of free will underscores the importance of making wise choices that lead to happiness and eternal life. It's an expression of God’s love, allowing us to grow, learn, and ultimately decide to return to His presence.

A religious definition of free will does not fit in with the world view of many on this board. I suppose that this, at least in part, is one of the reasons many folks find themselves saying (choose to say) that free will doesn’t exist.

And yet simply by making that choice they are exercising agency to choose.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

What are some of the arguments against Free Will?

LDS Chatbot:

The topic of free will is rich and complex, with various perspectives from philosophy, science, and theology. While from a Latter-day Saint viewpoint, free will—or agency—is a central and positive aspect of God’s plan for His children, some argue against the existence or extent of free will, based on different considerations:

Determinism: This is the idea that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. Determinism suggests that since every action is caused by preceding events and natural laws, free will is an illusion. Some argue that if everything in the universe follows natural laws, then every thought, decision, and action is ultimately predetermined.
Neuroscience: Advances in neuroscience indicate that many aspects of human cognition and behavior are governed by brain activity, which can sometimes predict how a person will decide before they're consciously aware of their decision. Critics of free will might argue that if our choices can be predicted based on brain activity, then true "free" will might not exist, as our decisions are the result of brain processes outside our control.
Theological Predestination: Certain theological traditions hold to predestination, the belief that all events, especially salvation, have been willed by God. In some interpretations, this belief suggests that individuals do not have freedom to choose salvation, as their fate has been predetermined by divine decree.
Psychological and Environmental Influences: Some argue that humans' decisions are heavily influenced, if not determined, by their upbringing, environment, subconscious mind, and past experiences. If these influences significantly determine one’s choices, the scope for free will might be more limited than traditionally thought.
Quantum Indeterminacy: While some might use quantum indeterminacy (the principle in quantum mechanics that certain physical quantities, like the position of a particle, cannot be known exactly) to argue for free will by suggesting not everything is predetermined, others posit that random events at the quantum level do not equate to free will, as randomness does not provide a basis for meaningful choice.
In addressing these arguments from a Latter-day Saint perspective, it is emphasized that despite external influences and natural laws, individuals possess agency—the God-given ability to choose and act for themselves. The notion of moral agency is foundational, suggesting that while various factors influence decisions, individuals are still accountable for their choices. This belief encourages personal responsibility, growth through making righteous choices, and reliance on the Atonement of Jesus Christ to overcome the natural consequences of wrong choices.

In the journey of faith and understanding, it's important to ponder these deep questions, pray for guidance, and consider them in the light of gospel truths.

More information is better.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

LDS Chatbot definition of Free Will:

Free will is a fundamental concept in Latter-day Saint theology, as well as in broader Christian thought. It refers to the God-given ability and privilege that individuals have to choose for themselves between different courses of action. This freedom to choose enables us to make decisions that shape our lives, our characters, and our eternal destinies.

In Latter-day Saint scriptures and teachings, the principle of agency, or moral agency, is often used interchangeably with free will. This concept is rooted in the belief that we are children of God and that He has given us the capacity to act for ourselves, rather than being compelled to act.

Here are a few key points about free will from a Latter-day Saint perspective:

Pre-Earth Life: The concept of free will is tied to the pre-earth life, where Heavenly Father presented His plan of salvation, which included the principle of agency. This plan allowed for personal growth and progression through the exercise of free will, in opposition to Satan's proposal, which would have removed the possibility of choice.
Agency and Accountability: With the gift of agency comes accountability. We are responsible for our choices and will receive consequences based on those choices, both in this life and in the hereafter. This principle encourages us to make righteous decisions, following the commandments of God.
The Role of the Atonement: The Atonement of Jesus Christ is central to understanding free will. It provides us the opportunity to repent and choose to come unto Christ, overcoming the effects of our wrong choices when we inevitably fall short.
Learning and Growth: The exercise of free will is essential for personal development. Elder Delbert L. Stapley taught, “We are not born into this world with fixed habits...Instead, as children of God, we are given the privilege and opportunity of choosing which way of life we will follow—which habits we will form…” This emphasizes the role of free will in our moral and spiritual development.
The gift of free will underscores the importance of making wise choices that lead to happiness and eternal life. It's an expression of God’s love, allowing us to grow, learn, and ultimately decide to return to His presence.

A religious definition of free will does not fit in with the world view of many on this board. I suppose that this, at least in part, is one of the reasons many folks find themselves saying (choose to say) that free will doesn’t exist.

And yet simply by making that choice they are exercising agency to choose.

Regards,
MG

The belief in or rejection of free will is a complex issue influenced by various philosophical, scientific, and personal perspectives. Here are some reasons why someone might choose not to believe in free will:

Philosophical Determinism

Causal Determinism:
Some people subscribe to the idea that every event or state of affairs, including human actions, is determined by preceding events in accordance with the laws of nature. This view, known as causal determinism, suggests that free will is an illusion because everything that happens is the result of a prior cause.

Theological Determinism:
Certain religious or theological views, such as those found in some interpretations of Calvinism, hold that all events are preordained by a divine being. This divine determinism can lead to the belief that human free will is limited or nonexistent.

Scientific Perspectives

Neuroscientific Evidence:
Research in neuroscience has shown that brain activity related to decision-making can be detected before a person becomes consciously aware of making a decision. This suggests that what we perceive as free will might actually be the result of unconscious neural processes.

Genetic and Environmental Influences:
Some people believe that our thoughts and behaviors are significantly shaped by genetic and environmental factors beyond our control. This view implies that our choices are heavily influenced by these factors, reducing the scope of genuine free will.

Logical and Conceptual Arguments

Logical Incompatibility:
Some philosophers argue that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe. If every event is determined by preceding events, then there is no room for free will as traditionally conceived.

Illusion of Choice:
There is an argument that the experience of making choices is just an illusion. The feeling of free will might be a byproduct of complex neural processes that give us the sense of agency without actual freedom.

Ethical and Practical Considerations

Moral Responsibility:
Rejecting free will can influence views on moral responsibility. Some people argue that if free will does not exist, individuals cannot be held morally responsible for their actions in the same way, leading to different approaches to justice and punishment.

Psychological Comfort:
For some, the idea that free will does not exist can be psychologically comforting. It can relieve the pressure of feeling entirely responsible for one's actions and life outcomes, fostering a sense of acceptance of circumstances as beyond personal control.

Influential Philosophers and Theories

Compatibilism:
Some philosophers, like Daniel Dennett, advocate for compatibilism, which holds that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. However, strict incompatibilists reject this view, maintaining that true free will cannot coexist with a deterministic universe.

Existentialism:
In contrast, existentialist thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre argue for radical freedom, suggesting that humans are condemned to be free and must take full responsibility for their actions. Opponents of this view might reject free will due to its heavy emphasis on individual responsibility.

In conclusion, the rejection of free will can stem from various philosophical, scientific, ethical, and practical considerations. Deterministic views, both causal and theological, neuroscientific findings, and the perceived logical incompatibility of free will with determinism all contribute to the belief that free will is an illusion.

You keep bringing up this idea that we are rejecting the idea of free will for psychological comfort, yet no one here has expressed that sentiment. As you can see, there are many other reasons we are bringing up to justify our rejection of the idea.

I think a few of us find you insisting on this a little disingenuous. It would be like me saying the only reason you believe in Mormonism is because you have warm fuzzy feelings about it. I don't have to make a cartoon character of your motivations in order to argue against them, so I think many of us would appreciate you engaging with the reasons we are bringing up about why we have issues with the concept of free will.

[malkie]

...
Isn't it interesting that the LDS chatbot deliberately hides information? I wonder why that is, do you have any ideas as to why this might be, MG? Perhaps related to a longstanding practice of the LDS church deliberately hiding information which is not faith promoting?

Perhaps the LDS chatbot has simply been raised on a steady diet of faith-promoting information - A.I. equivalent of Sunday School.

We know that Sunday School answers are the best answers, because the church authorities tell us so.

[Morley]

...
Isn't it interesting that the LDS chatbot deliberately hides information? I wonder why that is, do you have any ideas as to why this might be, MG? Perhaps related to a longstanding practice of the LDS church deliberately hiding information which is not faith promoting?

Perhaps the LDS chatbot has simply been raised on a steady diet of faith-promoting information - A.I. equivalent of Sunday School.

We know that Sunday School answers are the best answers, because the church authorities tell us so.

And how do we know that what Church authorities say is true? Why, because we learned that in Sunday School!