AI says God or No

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I'm confused, though, @Edgarcito.  Wouldn't all the databases and algorithms through which the theoretical AI would search, wouldn't all that need to be previously programmed into the AI by... human intelligence?  Where else could it get the information,  the 1s and 0s, if not from us?  What could it describe beyond what we already told us it was seeing?

 

So, I guess my question still remains unanswered.  Why would you assume AI can do more/better than the human intelligence that created it?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

And I'm equally confused, Ed.

 

You want humans to compare the AI's findings to religious ideologies?

 

What would be the point of that? 

 

Humans would just apply their own biases and prejudices and interpret the AI's findings to get the result they want.  That's what Christians do with scientific evidence, which they claim by faith supports the existence of their god.  Meanwhile, Muslims interpret the same evidence by faith to support the existence of Allah.  And so do the Jews, the Sikhs, Hindus, etc.   They all want to see their own religious ideologies validated by evidence.

 

So, any results the AI did give would just be interpreted by faith to mean whatever people want.

 

Can't you see that's what's going to happen?

 

 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

6 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Humans would just apply their own biases and prejudices and interpret the AI's findings to get the result they want.  That's what Christians do with scientific evidence, which they claim by faith supports the existence of their god. 

Exactly walter, Ed just wants AI to verify what he thinks is already true. If this hypothetical situation did happen and if the AI's findings aren't what he wants. Then he would just say the reason it did that is because it was programmed by scientists. Then the Christian "scientist" would program their own AI that was religious biased so they could get an affirmative answer based on their Christian "evidence". They just can't give up the idiotic hope that bible God is gonna swoop down and save them and make them live forever in a magical world of golden streets, pearl gates, and trees of life.

 

What part of that doesn't sound like a fairy tale anymore?

 

Ugh, the story at this point to me sounds so stupid that I want to slap myself for ever believing it. 

 

DB

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Exactly walter, Ed just wants AI to verify what he thinks is already true. If this hypothetical situation did happen and if the AI's findings aren't what he wants. Then he would just say the reason it did that is because it was programmed by scientists. Then the Christian "scientist" would program their own AI that was religious biased so they could get an affirmative answer based on their Christian "evidence". They just can't give up the idiotic hope that bible God is gonna swoop down and save them and make them live forever in a magical world of golden streets, pearl gates, and trees of life.

 

What part of that doesn't sound like a fairy tale anymore?

 

Ugh, the story at this point to me sounds so stupid that I want to slap myself for ever believing it. 

 

DB

 

Well, we can put this to the test, DB.

 

But first, did you notice how Ed shifted the goalposts in this thread when he wasn't getting anywhere?  Or rather, when he wasn't getting the answer that he wanted?

 

The title of the thread is... 'AI says God or No'.  And his initial question was this. 'Do we think AI would conclude there is a God or confirm a particular religion over others?'

 

No mention of humans looking at AI's results.  He only introduced that angle when it became clear from our replies that AI couldn't give him the answer he wanted.

 

So he shifted the goalposts by bringing humans and all of their emotional, religious baggage back into the equation.

 

 

Anyway, now we can test Edgarcito's true motivation with a simple question.

 

Ed, if AI discovered that Allah was the true god would you accept that result, reject Jesus, become a Muslim and make the pilgrimage to Mecca?

 

Yes or No?

 

 

[Edgarcito]

18 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Why would you assume AI can do more/better than the human intelligence that created it?

 

 

The ability to search a much larger data base and also define in more detail.  Again, let's suppose there is a block of data and I request that it search for that exact block over its entire database, in any orientation.  I asking not so much how it's defined, but all the places the definition exists.  And the ask if those places fit one religion over another.  Hope that helps.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

The ability to search a much larger data base and also define in more detail.  Again, let's suppose there is a block of data and I request that it search for that exact block over its entire database, in any orientation.  I asking not so much how it's defined, but all the places the definition exists.  And the ask if those places fit one religion over another.  Hope that helps.

But where did all that block of data come from?  Who programmed it into the computer?  How did the computer find out about different religions?  Was each religion defined for the computer by a priest/monk/imam from said religion, or by one of the techies reading from a comparative religions textbook?

 

Literally every piece of information involved in your scenario gets filtered through human intelligence at some point.  Human intelligence which carries, and will introduce, its own bias.  Human intelligence which, again, has not definitively concluded there is a god.

[walterpthefirst]

Ed, if AI discovered that Allah was the true god would you accept that result, reject Jesus, become a Muslim and make the pilgrimage to Mecca?

 

Yes or No?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

@Edgarcito could you answer Walter's question? If AI found that another God IE Allah. Were found to be the true God by comparing all available data. Would you convert to another religion? IE Islam and reject Christ? 

 

DB

[◊ Krowb ◊]

It is unfortunate they have tagged the term "AI" to these very capable and amazing machines.

 

https://www.wired.com/story/openai-ceo-sam-altman-the-age-of-giant-ai-models-is-already-over/

 

Quote

Although OpenAI is keeping GPT-4’s size and inner workings secret, it is likely that some of its intelligence already comes from looking beyond just scale. On possibility is that it used a method called reinforcement learning with human feedback, which was used to enhance ChatGPT. It involves having humans judge the quality of the model’s answers to steer it towards providing responses more likely to be judged as high quality.

 

Just like with humans, machine learning raised in a muslim environment will have different responses than one raised in a christian environment, and so on and so forth.

 

Machines cannot yet weigh the truth value of a statement.  It does not know the odds of a miracle occurring without understanding what a miracle is, and if trained on a "Good Book" it will regurgitate what the book says - just like young humans.

 

The quality of the data received by these machines is determined by the humans programming them.  Same for the reinforcement part.

 

It is amazing for picking needles out of a haystack of data and putting it in a very human readable and relational way, but that is the extent of its power.  And sometimes it picks the wrong needle (just as a young child may grab the wrong item if you, as the adult, are not super-duper-crystal-clear in your request or the item is simply not available).

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

@Edgarcito could you answer Walter's question? If AI found that another God IE Allah. Were found to be the true God by comparing all available data. Would you convert to another religion? IE Islam and reject Christ? 

 

DB

No, it wouldn't change my mind.  Again, the idea that finding patterns and information in locations that we wouldn't expect is interesting to me.  Thx.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

No, it wouldn't change my mind.  Again, the idea that finding patterns and information in locations that we wouldn't expect is interesting to me.  Thx.

Here's my question, Ed.  Well, here's my question and my follow-up question, anyway.

 

1. If your hypothetical AI definitively concluded jesus and christianity, would you use that information to encourage others to join the faith and become christians?

 

2. Based on your answer to question #1 above, if your hypothetical AI definitively concluded allah and islam, would you use that information to encourage others to join the faith and become muslims?  

 

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

No, it wouldn't change my mind.  Again, the idea that finding patterns and information in locations that we wouldn't expect is interesting to me.  Thx.

 

Nine years ago the Reverend William Lane Craig and the physicist Sean Carroll held a debate called God and Cosmology.

 

 

 

When it came to the science, the facts and the evidence Craig got his butt roundly kicked by Carroll.  His religious cosmology was dismantled and demolished by Carroll and shown to be both flawed and faulty.  Yet, even as Carroll was doing this, what was Craig doing?

 

He was sitting there beaming the smile of true faith.  Despite seeing his arguments being torn to pieces, he was listening to the inner voice of the holy spirit, who was telling him in his heart to ignore what Carroll was saying.   That the science and the facts and the evidence didn't matter.  All that really mattered to Craig was holding on to his beliefs... regardless of the evidence.

 

 

Well done, Edgarcito!   You are in good company.   Like Craig you have decided that unacceptable and inconvenient evidence will not stop you from believing.  That you are ONLY interested in finding patterns and information that confirm what you already believe.

 

 

Bravo!

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

No, it wouldn't change my mind.  Again, the idea that finding patterns and information in locations that we wouldn't expect is interesting to me.  Thx.

This is exactly what I figured would happen if the odds weren't in your favor. You would just dismiss it and continue on your merry path. But in doing that if the AI conclusion were correct you would be sending yourself to hell by not converting. 

 

Atleast you were honest with your answer. I just don't understand why make the thread? If any outcome with the AI that didn't reflect your already preconceived notions is ignored, whats the point? 

 

It seems to me that in your mind you think that an unbiased AI analyzing all religious info from every faith on earth would conclude that Christianity was the true religion. And I do think that if AI concluded that Christianity were the most accurate or true faith that you would use it to try to lead people to the faith. This would be a double standard. But this is the way of Christ it seems. 

 

DB

[walterpthefirst]

You ask, what's the point, DarkBishop. 

 

That is, what is the point of Edgarcito starting this thread if he had already decided to ignore any other conclusion than the one he wanted?  But it goes further than that.  Let's take another look at how he kicked things off.

 

 

Thought this would be a interesting topic.....without too much contention.  Do we think AI would conclude there is a God or confirm a particular religion over others.

Interesting in my mind, but maybe not everyone's.

Thoughts if you would like to contribute....

Thx.

 

 

If Ed had decided beforehand the answer that he wanted, this puts an altogether different slant on his apparently open-minded opening gambit. 

 

Thought this would be an interesting topic...without too much contention.  (It will only become contentious if it doesn't give me what I already want.)

Do we think AI would conclude there is a god or confirm a particular religion over others?  (I have already concluded that AI will confirm Christianity.)

Interesting in my mind, but maybe not everyone's. (The result I already want is interesting in my mind, but if others disagree I'm going to ignore them.)

Thoughts if you would like to contribute. (Your thoughts are welcome if they agree with the result I want to see, otherwise they are not welcome.)

 

So, was Ed being deliberately false when he posed his apparently open-minded question about AI?

 

Or did he genuinely believe that he was being open-minded, when all the time he was suffering from confirmation bias?

 

https://www.simplypsychology.org/confirmation-bias.html

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

20 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Nine years ago the Reverend William Lane Craig and the physicist Sean Carroll held a debate called God and Cosmology.

 

 

 

When it came to the science, the facts and the evidence Craig got his butt roundly kicked by Carroll.  His religious cosmology was dismantled and demolished by Carroll and shown to be both flawed and faulty.  Yet, even as Carroll was doing this, what was Craig doing?

 

He was sitting there beaming the smile of true faith.  Despite seeing his arguments being torn to pieces, he was listening to the inner voice of the holy spirit, who was telling him in his heart to ignore what Carroll was saying.   That the science and the facts and the evidence didn't matter.  All that really mattered to Craig was holding on to his beliefs... regardless of the evidence.

 

 

Well done, Edgarcito!   You are in good company.   Like Craig you have decided that unacceptable and inconvenient evidence will not stop you from believing.  That you are ONLY interested in finding patterns and information that confirm what you already believe.

 

 

Bravo!

 

The evidence the Hubble brought us that confirmed and then the evidence the JWST brought us, that confirms?  Lol, bravo indeed Walter.

[Edgarcito]

@walterpthefirst  the problem is we aren't going to know now.  You seem to accept and EXCUSE science when new detail is added, but heavens, if Ed want's to map AI like trying to understand the intricacies of the brain, then that's illegal and worth contempt.  You are such an ego filled dick Walter.  Not sure how to make it any more clear.  And you noticed how everyone started this thread politely except you and your filthy disgusting attitude.  From me and all like me sir, bugger off.

[Edgarcito]

23 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Here's my question, Ed.  Well, here's my question and my follow-up question, anyway.

 

1. If your hypothetical AI definitively concluded jesus and christianity, would you use that information to encourage others to join the faith and become christians?

 

2. Based on your answer to question #1 above, if your hypothetical AI definitively concluded allah and islam, would you use that information to encourage others to join the faith and become muslims?  

 

1) I likely would.

2) No, I wouldn't.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

@walterpthefirst  the problem is we aren't going to know now.  You seem to accept and EXCUSE science when new detail is added, but heavens, if Ed want's to map AI like trying to understand the intricacies of the brain, then that's illegal and worth contempt.  You are such an ego filled dick Walter.  Not sure how to make it any more clear.  And you noticed how everyone started this thread politely except you and your filthy disgusting attitude.  From me and all like me sir, bugger off.

Mind the tone, gentlemen.  Let's keep things cordial. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

1) I likely would.

2) No, I wouldn't.

In the case of #2, Ed, you are not only willfully lying to yourself but, you are also deliberately and intentionally withholding from others what you know to be the truth.

 

Are you sure that is the kind of person you want to be?

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

The evidence the Hubble brought us that confirmed and then the evidence the JWST brought us, that confirms?  Lol, bravo indeed Walter.

 

William Lane Craig's cosmology is built upon a 1970 paper by Hawking and Penrose that mathematically proves that the universe must have originated from a singularity.  But before Sean Carroll even opened his mouth for the 2014 debate he knew that the Hawking - Penrose Singularity theory was falsified in 1998 by the discovery of a positive cosmological constant - something that invalidates the use of that theory to prove anything.

 

That is how and why Carroll was able to kick Craig's butt.  And none of that has anything to do with Hubble or the JWST.

 

So I'm sorry Edgarcito, but you're not even wrong about this.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

@walterpthefirst  the problem is we aren't going to know now.  You seem to accept and EXCUSE science when new detail is added, but heavens, if Ed want's to map AI like trying to understand the intricacies of the brain, then that's illegal and worth contempt.  You are such an ego filled dick Walter.  Not sure how to make it any more clear.  And you noticed how everyone started this thread politely except you and your filthy disgusting attitude.  From me and all like me sir, bugger off.

 

Let's break this down and see how and where Edgarcito is not even wrong.

 

 

You seem to accept and EXCUSE science when new detail is added,

 

No, I don't.  That's how science works.  It doesn't need me to excuse it or it to excuse me.  New details in the form of new observations and new data are arriving all the time.

 

but heavens, if Ed want's to map AI like trying to understand the intricacies of the brain, then that's illegal and worth contempt. 

 

What is illegal and worthy of contempt Ed is your refusal to accept any other result than the one you want.  That is not how science works.  Science keeps an open mind to any and all results, providing they are validly obtained.  If you want to use science to understand the intricacies of the brain then you have to play by science's rules and keep an open mind.

 

And you noticed how everyone started this thread politely except you and your filthy disgusting attitude.

 

Yes, well we did start this thread politely because we were all under the impression that you began it with an open mind, in the spirit of unprejudiced investigation.  But since you have openly admitted that you would refuse to accept the AI's results if they were anything other than Christianity, your true motivation for starting up this thread has been revealed.  You only ever wanted AI to give you the result you wanted.  You were never really interested in the truth.  

 

You are such an ego filled dick Walter.

 

Say the man who accuses me of having a filthy disgusting attitude.  He uses filthy and disgusting language himself.  

 

From me and all like me sir, bugger off.

 

I am very happy to be nothing like you or those who are like you Edgarcito.  

 

 

Cordially yours,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Let's break this down and see how and where Edgarcito is not even wrong.

 

 

You seem to accept and EXCUSE science when new detail is added,

 

No, I don't.  That's how science works.  It doesn't need me to excuse it or it to excuse me.  New details in the form of new observations and new data are arriving all the time.

 

but heavens, if Ed want's to map AI like trying to understand the intricacies of the brain, then that's illegal and worth contempt. 

 

What is illegal and worthy of contempt Ed is your refusal to accept any other result than the one you want.  That is not how science works.  Science keeps an open mind to any and all results, providing they are validly obtained.  If you want to use science to understand the intricacies of the brain then you have to play by science's rules and keep an open mind.

 

And you noticed how everyone started this thread politely except you and your filthy disgusting attitude.

 

Yes, well we did start this thread politely because we were all under the impression that you began it with an open mind, in the spirit of unprejudiced investigation.  But since you have openly admitted that you would refuse to accept the AI's results if they were anything other than Christianity, your true motivation for starting up this thread has been revealed.  You only ever wanted AI to give you the result you wanted.  You were never really interested in the truth.  

 

You are such an ego filled dick Walter.

 

Say the man who accuses me of having a filthy disgusting attitude.  He uses filthy and disgusting language himself.  

 

From me and all like me sir, bugger off.

 

I am very happy to be nothing like you or those who are like you Edgarcito.  

 

 

Cordially yours,

 

Walter.

No, see, you are imposing motivation on my curiosity to see what the results would be, and then using that to vilify.  So you, Walter, missed the mark and showed your own crap mixed in with your ego.  Can you please post that diatribe about you using your intellect to do harm and then reflect how you have failed to remedy your shit… even in the midst of all that intellect and “remit”… cordially of course…

[Edgarcito]

17 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

You ask, what's the point, DarkBishop. 

 

That is, what is the point of Edgarcito starting this thread if he had already decided to ignore any other conclusion than the one he wanted?  But it goes further than that.  Let's take another look at how he kicked things off.

 

 

Thought this would be a interesting topic.....without too much contention.  Do we think AI would conclude there is a God or confirm a particular religion over others.

Interesting in my mind, but maybe not everyone's.

Thoughts if you would like to contribute....

Thx.

 

 

If Ed had decided beforehand the answer that he wanted, this puts an altogether different slant on his apparently open-minded opening gambit. 

 

Thought this would be an interesting topic...without too much contention.  (It will only become contentious if it doesn't give me what I already want.)

Do we think AI would conclude there is a god or confirm a particular religion over others?  (I have already concluded that AI will confirm Christianity.)

Interesting in my mind, but maybe not everyone's. (The result I already want is interesting in my mind, but if others disagree I'm going to ignore them.)

Thoughts if you would like to contribute. (Your thoughts are welcome if they agree with the result I want to see, otherwise they are not welcome.)

 

So, was Ed being deliberately false when he posed his apparently open-minded question about AI?

 

Or did he genuinely believe that he was being open-minded, when all the time he was suffering from confirmation bias?

 

https://www.simplypsychology.org/confirmation-bias.html

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

Here is a post where your genius is deriving more remit… 

[Edgarcito]

On 4/17/2023 at 8:00 PM, DarkBishop said:

This is exactly what I figured would happen if the odds weren't in your favor. You would just dismiss it and continue on your merry path. But in doing that if the AI conclusion were correct you would be sending yourself to hell by not converting. 

 

Atleast you were honest with your answer. I just don't understand why make the thread? If any outcome with the AI that didn't reflect your already preconceived notions is ignored, whats the point? 

 

It seems to me that in your mind you think that an unbiased AI analyzing all religious info from every faith on earth would conclude that Christianity was the true religion. And I do think that if AI concluded that Christianity were the most accurate or true faith that you would use it to try to lead people to the faith. This would be a double standard. But this is the way of Christ it seems. 

 

DB

DB, respectfully, you are not even following what I was proposing anyhow.  Please go back and read what I was/am asking of the AI database.  I’m not at all asking it to conclude anything.

[Edgarcito]

Walter, did someone appoint you to be the ExC anti-Christian response director or did your ego appoint you.  And what if Christianity is true and your zeal in the scientific remit has lead people to disbelief. Is that your right?….to be that damn disrespectful with your life?  And your intellect?  Your self professed bulb may be bright, but it doesn’t shine bright enough for you to see very far….