Learner
Veteran Member
So, if we accept the hidden assumption that things that are created are always less capable than things that create them, can you explain this:
https://slator.com/technology/big-tech-using-machine-translation-ai-proxy/
I had a quick browse in the link. If you mean: we as humans can create things such as the A.I. technology the article high-lights. Then I have no qualms with the idea. No different or contradictory imo than; believers who think - being able to do certain things (within certain limits) -by having the image of God within us to be likened to.
It is an amazing achievement regarding the A.I. coming quite a long way. And on a vast different scale .. it does seem a mirrored parrallel to a far more advanced mechanistic systems, that; can replicate and repair itself, adapt to various environments and solve problems. "Biology"!
The fact is that you can either accept logic as your route to truth or faith. If you accept faith then that's just dandy. I respect your decision and your faith. However, if you want to move beyond simply stating that you have faith, whatever the logic or evidence, then you have a problem.
Theists can have both, which compliment each other ... its not neccessarily the absolute that the notion should be" one or the other" that one shoulld soley help individuals get to the truth, although depending on the conceptual perspectives of individuals and how their reasoning works. Reminding me of William Lane Craig who is a better known example of the type imo.
Does having faith in the logic count as being in the same context?
Obviously, your faith is premised upon expansion, upon convincing others. Now if faith demonstrably made people better people, happier people or more moral people then perhaps you'd be pulling in the punters, but that fact is that it doesn't. If prayer worked in a way that science could detect then, again, you'd have all the followers you want. However, once again, prayer makes no objective difference whatsoever (apart, perhaps from making you feel a little better until it doesn't work... Bad things happen to good and bad alike.
A lot you mention I agree with and the description isn't so different to the theology. Which more or less is in agreement to the bible - e.g. It will be difficult,.. people will suffer (even Christians) people good or bad. And even in the event that people did see signs, quite a few would find it hard or too beyond the will to want to resist the power of tempting desires (all the attributes to flesh and mind) as it was written back then.
The ignoring and turning their backs to God for "worldly things" even in the presence of the various prophets and the frequent visible signs.
It would take an event so much bigger to witness ,all and everyone at once to eventually take notice (as the theology goes).
This leads to the fundamental problem, as faith is basically unconvincing, you want to use the tools that work. Logic, science and so on. The problem is that the moment you want to use them it's a double edged sword and they can be used on you. You want to believe in an omnimax God then I'm sorry you are just going to have to put up with people pointing out that such a God violates the law of the excluded middle. This is at the heart of logic and is why things like the internet, your computer and Air traffic control work.
Ironically a system not unlike the internet was proposed by Teilhard de Chardin a century or so ago sadly it was meant to be powered by faith and prayer which turned out not to work as well as logic an electricity, So now the noosphere was made by atheists and the Omega Point is the singularity. It's the same millennial bullshit, but just a bit more, you know, secular.
Logic and science has a neutral position, because anyone across-the-board can use it (as the method is applied correctly). It never really was "science V creation"... I don't say you suggest this in your post. But sure ... a majority of theists were not known to be science savvy ...especially when asked scientific-methodical questions that they'd be bound to find difficult to reply in kind. But then it may also equally ,not widely be known that scientists who were also theists have contributed considerably to science.
So, please carry on using a double standard, render up to Caesar your modern world in which people don't die in childbirth, we can all communicate freely and so on, but at least have the good grace to admit that Christianity is hitching a free ride on the modern world while sticking its fingers in its ears, screwing up it's eyes and chanting 'lalalala' as loud as it can.
Have you not heard... theist believe God created "everything" and the components that abide by the laws of physics is all included?
We don't have to be Amish. ( I wouldn't mind having a little time away in an Amish setting)
In the same way, If you want to critique logic, at least learn how it works and why it's a problem for an omnimax god. Don't just pull the 'it's a mystery' line as that got old back when we thought that Gods lived up mountains...
Its beyond comprehension (at least to me) As my previous post was alluding to: Not enough knowledge of the universe to know what is possible. e.g. Science asks : Is it a wave or particle Or both?
(Perhaps I'm not seeing/understanding the logic in regards to the OP correctly .. to be fair.)
Last edited: