The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[MG 2.0]

And you truly think this makes sense? Body and no body? What am I not understanding? Methinks you do have to go all out convoluted to get where you're going.

Regards,
MG

I do. I don’t know what you aren’t understanding and I don’t believe you want to understand because I believe you just want to wield your misunderstanding as a tool.

lol. ok.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

MG,

Don't think I missed this barb you threw at me:

That's all that matters.

However, for some I suppose, that's the beauty of it all. Ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.

Just stating it for the record.

Noted.

Don't be so desperate to make the Mormon God universally more relatable to every human being who has ever lived.

No desperation. Although to say that the ultimate form of life as we know it would not be created in the image of the Creator seems a bit far fetched. But people are gonna believe what they want to believe. God is a rock. God is a tree. Etc.

God must be relatable to be God, if God isn't relatable, then we'd think of him as a villain or a natural force.

I don't think that really makes any sense. If God (let's be more specific, the creator God) wants a relationship with his creatures/children one would think that relationship would be based on mutual trust. Which brings up the question, "Who can God trust?"

However, there are endless possibilities for imagining how a God might really be.

In the abstract, yes.

It's not possible to do a comparison based on thought exercises. This is where the Bible comes in. I see the Bible, in my anthropological theology, as revealed reality. Perhaps like a science experiment. This puts Mormons and Christians at a common starting point. From here, it's how do Jehovah, Jesus, the Father, and the HG get interpreted.

That's what Joseph Smith had to deal with. The question is whether or not God answered his questions, right? In my simple mind it kinda' all comes down to that.

Everything else is fluffery and conjecture.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

And you truly think this makes sense? Body and no body? What am I not understanding? Methinks you do have to go all out convoluted to get where you're going.

Regards,
MG

I do. I don’t know what you aren’t understanding and I don’t believe you want to understand because I believe you just want to wield your misunderstanding as a tool.

wielding one's misunderstanding as a tool. Perfect description. It's a tool mg uses frequently.

[Gadianton]

Your point seems to be if greatness includes subjective elements, the ontological argument becomes more difficult, but a relational or covenantal concept of God might make more sense.

You’ve got me wondering—who gets to decide what those aspects of greatness are?

This is hard to answer. I shot myself in the foot framing my observations in terms of an OA. Ontological arguments can all fail and God can still be real. God doesn't require an OA to be real. I think Anselm's first premise is just dead on in describing, in the abstract, what the word "God" seems to mean.

We can throw out the second premise altogether, as I think it's false. If I were to rewrite, I might not even mention Anselm.

I think greatness IS subjective. I don't see how greatness and goodness and most "omnis" can be anything but subjective. Other omin's are ill-defined, like "omnipotence" and "omniscience" as we don't really know what these terms mean. They aren't subjective like greatness, but they don't have a clear meaning, either. Other features of God are both objective and comprehensible. God created the earth. We can debate what "create" means, but it's easy to understand the idea that God somehow brought us about, whether it was from nothing or putting matter together or running a simulation.

[Limnor]

God created the earth. We can debate what "create" means, but it's easy to understand the idea that God somehow brought us about, whether it was from nothing or putting matter together or running a simulation.

That makes sense. Earlier you suggested starting with the biblical text itself instead of abstract attributes. What did you have in mind? Earlier I mentioned “love” because the commandments are said to be summed up in “love” and God is said to “be” love.

Of course there is still a need for reconciliation that sock mentioned in the other thread. Would “love” do the things the Old Testament God did or commanded?

[Limnor]

I do. I don’t know what you aren’t understanding and I don’t believe you want to understand because I believe you just want to wield your misunderstanding as a tool.

wielding one's misunderstanding as a tool. Perfect description. It's a tool mg uses frequently.

It’s obvious too, though I think he believes that he comes across as sincere when doing so.

[MG 2.0]

wielding one's misunderstanding as a tool. Perfect description. It's a tool mg uses frequently.

It’s obvious too, though I think he believes that he comes across as sincere when doing so.

What I see happening is an example of impugning someone's motives instead of actually engaging actual points being made by the person being impugned.

What I've also seen is a lot of beating around the bush and obfuscation. From various posters. I'm not pointing a finger just at you.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

Although to say that the ultimate form of life as we know it would not be created in the image of the Creator seems a bit far fetched

There is more anthropomorphism than not in the ancient world and so you're in good company. Thor is not an abstract God. Gods start becoming abstract when 1) differentiation seems necessary due to so many competing gods 2) Greek philosophy bringing in new ways to think about the world.

Some may think it's far fetched that the supreme pre-existing being that Blake proposes(?) just happens to be in the form of a primate.

Of course, God being in the form of a primate isn't a problem for the F-S chain per se. I mean, I can fully understand why a person would reject the F-S chain (I am an atheist at the end of the day), but, the line vs. ray way of looking at reality brings new possibilities. In the version that all of reality starts at a point and comes into existence, the idea that God is there as a man is completely absurd. If reality is a line, it's much harder to say what that should look like.

[Limnor]

It’s obvious too, though I think he believes that he comes across as sincere when doing so.

What I see happening is an example of impugning someone's motives instead of actually engaging actual points being made by the person being impugned.

What I've also seen is a lot of beating around the bush and obfuscation. From various posters. I'm not pointing a finger just at you.

Regards,
MG

If questioning sincerity counts as impugning motives, then I suppose you’re reading me correctly. From my perspective the questions being raised haven’t really been addressed.

[Gadianton]

That makes sense. Earlier you suggested starting with the biblical text itself instead of abstract attributes. What did you have in mind? Earlier I mentioned “love” because the commandments are said to be summed up in “love” and God is said to “be” love.

All I mean by the Bible is that it's common ground for Mormons and Christians. If we accept the Bible as the starting point, there are constraints. We can rule out God as a rock, and a potato, and a dog, even if I can have AI come up with a 10,000 volume work to legitimize the great mythology of the RPD deity. We can rule out Zeus and Thor. Our starting point is, suppose the Bible is the revealed word.

Your suggestion of Augustine's love I still need to get back to. It's an important observation and I think I can use it to show you way Plantinga types don't have much to offer.