Created???

[Dr. Shades]

It's impossible for a black hole to "reach capacity," because its capacity is infinite.

Dr. Shades,

It's clear you don't understand the gravity of the situation.

Ha! :-D

[Chap]

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.

All A.I. sources are dumb, in the sense that there is no entity there that does anything but generate an imitation of what a human being might produce if they knew nothing about the issues involved but simply did a lot of internet searches - only very, very quickly.

My experience of reading posts by MG over a number of years has frequently led me to feel that reading or responding to them was a waste of time. But I have tended to give them a glance just in case. However, when it comes to MG regurgitating A.I. generated text, I just don't have the time and energy to devote to such a fruitless activity.

[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.

All A.I. sources are dumb, in the sense that there is no entity there that does anything but generate an imitation of what a human being might produce if they knew nothing about the issues involved but simply did a lot of internet searches - only very, very quickly.

My experience of reading posts by MG over a number of years has frequently led me to feel that reading or responding to them was a waste of time. But I have tended to give them a glance just in case. However, when it comes to MG regurgitating A.I. generated text, I just don't have the time and energy to devote to such a fruitless activity.

All valid points. My reference to MG 2.0's A.I. being dumb is in the perspective of A.I.'s available. MG 2.0 claims he input into A.I. my entire original post in this thread and got what he sets forth as the 3rd, if I recall correctly, post in this thread--a derailment, which is so MG 2.0, isn't it? However, either MG 2.0 is lying about so inputting the entire OP into his A.I., or among A.I.'s, MG 2.0's A.I. is truly stupid. Here's what putting in the entire OP into ChatGPT produces:

Your exploration of the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is both honest and intellectually courageous. This is arguably the deepest and most intractable question in philosophy, and it cuts to the heart of metaphysics, cosmology, theology, and even the limits of human cognition. Let’s unpack the key themes you've raised and weigh them in light of what's known, what’s hypothesized, and where mystery still dominates.

1. The Three Options: Illusion, Creation, or Eternal Existence
Option 1: Illusion (Nothing exists truly; only appearances)
This is a favorite in some Eastern philosophical traditions and idealist interpretations of reality—where the “material” world is a projection or derivative of consciousness or mind. But even here, we run into the same foundational question: Why is there even an illusion? For illusion to appear, something—mind, awareness, a dreaming agent—must exist. So, even illusion doesn't resolve the mystery of “why something rather than nothing.”

Option 2: Creation (Something/someone created everything)
As you rightly point out, creation explanations—especially theistic ones—inevitably hit the wall of infinite regress unless they insert a special clause: “The creator is uncreated.” This is a metaphysical move used in many traditions—“God exists necessarily,” “God is outside time,” “God just is.” But this too is a form of the “always existed” hypothesis, just with agency and will added on. It relocates the mystery rather than resolving it.

Option 3: Eternal Existence (Matter/energy/space/time have always been)
This seems, at least scientifically, to be the most parsimonious option. It doesn't assume an outside agent and allows for the conservation laws of physics. Yet it offends our intuitive sense of beginnings. The human mind evolved to think in terms of causality, sequences, and finite intervals—it balks at eternity or infinity.

Still, the idea that something could be uncaused—or not require a cause—might simply reflect the fact that our intuitions about causation don’t apply at the ultimate scale of reality. Quantum mechanics has already dented our common-sense notions of cause and effect.

2. Why Do We Find ‘Always Existed’ So Incomprehensible?
That difficulty may come down to cognitive limits. Our brains are built for survival, not cosmology. Our intuition that “everything must have a beginning” is a mental shortcut formed in a world where that principle seems to apply. But it may not be a universal truth. As with quantum indeterminacy, relativity, and non-Euclidean geometry, much of modern physics violates what “feels” right to us.

So maybe “matter/energy/space/time have always existed” feels absurd not because it is, but because we’re not equipped to digest it easily.

3. Does Eternal Existence Imply an Afterlife?
This is a compelling point. If something cannot come from nothing, and nothing truly vanishes, then perhaps consciousness or intellect persists in some form. But:

Matter and energy transform—true.

But patterns, like the specific arrangement of neurons that constitutes your identity, are fragile and local.

So while the “stuff” of you may persist, the “form” may not.

Unless, of course, consciousness is somehow fundamental—not emergent from matter but woven into the fabric of existence (panpsychism, for instance). In that case, individual selves might die, but “being” continues. Whether that counts as an “afterlife” depends on what you mean by life and self.

4. The "Observable Universe = Creator" Argument
You're right to challenge the leap from “something exists” to “therefore God.” That’s a non sequitur unless "God" is simply a synonym for "existence itself," which veers toward Spinoza’s pantheism or modern naturalistic theology. The brute fact of being does not logically necessitate a conscious agent behind it.

So yes, “just look around you” isn’t proof of a creator—it’s a starting point for a question. What created this? If the answer is “nothing, it just is,” then we’re forced to accept that something can be brute fact. Whether that something is “God,” “matter,” “energy,” “ideas,” or “awareness” remains the great unknown.

Final Thought: Maybe the Question Is the Answer
To ask “Why is there something rather than nothing?” may be like asking “What’s north of the North Pole?” The question assumes a kind of context or standard that may not apply at the deepest level.

Or maybe—as physicist John Archibald Wheeler once suggested—we live in a self-excited circuit, a universe that bootstraps itself into being, with observers and reality co-arising in a strange loop.

Whether or not that satisfies you, the honest conclusion may be:
We don’t know. Maybe we can’t know. But the question itself is a window into the sublime mystery of being.

If you’re interested, I can explore some philosophical or scientific frameworks (like loop quantum gravity, panpsychism, or modal realism) that attempt to grapple with this mystery in more detail.

Note that the output from ChatGPT is not, like MG 2.0's purported A.I. output, a diversion. Rather, ChatGPT's output is a direct response.

[Gadianton]

Okay, I downloaded perplexity A.I. and fed in the OP. It responded immediately with an answer similar to chatGPT. The problem isn't MG's A.I., it's MG.

I told Perplexity I wanted to instead have it analyze the quote according to certain guidelines, and then I copied and pasted MG's query. It came back with a fairly weak response, but more on target than MG's response. Clearly, MG did not tie his loaded instructions to the text that he pasted in, and so it just gave a generic response, most of which had nothing to do with the OP. The weakness in its response to my use of MGs instructions can be attributed to the lack of clarity in the instructions. The weakness in its response to MGs original instructions can be attributed to MG not properly tying his instructions to his inputted text.

It's a good thing I reported it to the mods. What a lack of due diligence!

I do think we will eventually need some forum rules that prevent the use of A.I. as spam and derailing. Careless questions that produce a wall of text that has nothing to do with the topic.

In case MG didn't do this on purpose, allow me to help. You need to tag your inputted text in some way, like:

<text start>

<text end>

And then say, In reference to the block of text that starts with "<text start>" and ends with "<text end>" here is my question:

[Gadianton]

I then asked it to analyze MG's question in terms of fairness:

Signs of Possible Manipulation or Bias
Leading Outcome: The instructions specifically ask for weaknesses in arguments against God and then for arguments that “supersede” them, which presumes that the pro-God arguments will be stronger or more valid. This could be seen as steering the A.I. toward a particular conclusion.

A good call by perplexity. MG didn't just ask for weaknesses in the anti-God argument or strengths in the pro-God argument, he specifically begged the question, assumed that pro-God arguments supersede the anti-God arguments.

[malkie]

Okay, I downloaded perplexity A.I. and fed in the OP. It responded immediately with an answer similar to chatGPT. The problem isn't MG's A.I., it's MG.

I told Perplexity I wanted to instead have it analyze the quote according to certain guidelines, and then I copied and pasted MG's query. It came back with a fairly weak response, but more on target than MG's response. Clearly, MG did not tie his loaded instructions to the text that he pasted in, and so it just gave a generic response, most of which had nothing to do with the OP. The weakness in its response to my use of MGs instructions can be attributed to the lack of clarity in the instructions. The weakness in its response to MGs original instructions can be attributed to MG not properly tying his instructions to his inputted text.

It's a good thing I reported it to the mods. What a lack of due diligence!

I do think we will eventually need some forum rules that prevent the use of A.I. as spam and derailing. Careless questions that produce a wall of text that has nothing to do with the topic.

In case MG didn't do this on purpose, allow me to help. You need to tag your inputted text in some way, like:

<text start>

<text end>

And then say, In reference to the block of text that starts with "<text start>" and ends with "<text end>" here is my question:

Ahem!!

viewtopic.php?p=2894692#p2894692

Perhaps I should have started a new topic?

[Philo Sofee]

Dr. Shades,

It's clear you don't understand the gravity of the situation.

Ha!

I laughed as well.

[Moksha]

Okay, I downloaded Perplexity A.I. and fed in the OP. It responded immediately with an answer similar to ChatGPT. The problem isn't MG's A.I., it's MG.

I would like to see MG pose another question to the Perplexity A.I.: How can we best turn matter into Mormonism?

That could solve all sorts of problems, from member retention to tariff policies causing dips in the Ensign Peak Investment funds.

Central Utah has plenty of empty space to store any excess of Mormonism.

[I Have Questions]

In case MG didn't do this on purpose…

Good one Gad

[Marcus]

In case MG didn't do this on purpose…

Good one Gad

Exactly. After reading gad's explanation, you can look back at mg's original response to gad's concerns and see the dishonesty:

someone could flag MG's post for being off topic since Perplexity A.I. failed to do what the prompt asked of it and instead, stated a list of common arguments against God that mostly don't have anything to do with the OP.

Granted, there wasn't much to go on. Matter or no matter? Infinite regression or not? It's just that when you get into all this space, time, and matter stuff there really isn't much to go on. Folks seem to fall back on, yeah, it's multiverse. Mormonism has an answer to the dilemma that is purported to exist. Matter has always existed. There is infinite regression. There is infinite future. We are all part of it.

Done.

The A.I. didn't have much to go on so it went through and used the original post as a prompt so that it might have something to say rather than responding to...not much.

Who or what came before God...that's been the age old question.

Good luck with that. A.I. couldn't wrap its 'mind' around it either.

I think the A.I. response ought to stand because of the original post not really having any meat to it. At least not any that can be chewed on successfully. Unless that's what you think you did.

After your response, there is still all the other stuff to contend with that was part of the A.I. response.

Does that make you uncomfortable?...

The sentences I bolded emphasize his understanding of what he did. It's amazing how mg has found a way to use yet another tool to be just as intellectually disingenuous and dishonest as he has always been.