Posted on 12/21/2024 7:19:41 AM PST by RoosterRedux
Short answer: Turning all our worries and concerns over to Jesus is that faith/trusting in a person who is Lord of all, who loves righteousness, and hates iniquity, (Hebrews 1:9) and for whom nothing is to hard, and living, Biblical true faith effects obedience to the Object of faith, confessed in word and deed.
Thus worries and concerns for a believer for the believer that can be turned over to God/Christ are not on how to do evil, or in conflict with morality, whereas the sociopath is not concerned with being moral.
Both can be concerned about how to make the rent, but for the sociopath this can be as regards how to get away with theft.
However, that was a good question and ChatGPT was more elaborate.
Yes, the continual turning over of worries and concerns to Jesus can be deeply connected to an increase in the indwelling and work of the Holy Spirit in a person. Here’s how the two are related:
Good points. but what is missing in all this (though somewhat presumed) is that trusting God to handle things, and passive surrender to things, is not the same as consecrating to the LORD Jesus to do His will, to obey His word and "voice." Failure to do so results in worries and concerns. The apostle Paul trusting God with his life and soul, but was not passively committed to his Lord, thus "I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not yours, but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children. And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved. (2 Corinthians 12:14-15)
And which consecration resulted in his martyrdom and glory for God.
What surprises me about ChatGPT is its ability to provide seemingly coherent responses to questions that might stump someone without a deep spiritual perspective.
For example, I have Christian friends who lean more toward legalism. What I find remarkable is that ChatGPT often navigates questions requiring an understanding of the spirit of the law with greater insight and nuance than my friends.
Oh I use it for factual matters often.
Recently travelled to Alaska (to my surprise Trump was there), and it got him that House seat. Pretty good campaign.
Saw bumper stickers . . . “If you buy farmed fish, we will hunt you down.”
GPT knew all the aspects of it. The locals have their livelihood threatened by farmed fish.
Reddit hasn’t reached that yet, either.
Interesting and thanks for posting. I’ve asked it (MS Copilot) a few similar questions and found its answers to be much less biaed than what the global establishment or the US PTB would give.
Interesting. Thx.
And in about 2 secs it writes what would take me about half an hour. But it is expressing conclusions from sources it has been provided with, but w/out original thought, like "i just read Matthew 7:6 and realized that it relates to Isaiah 39:2," though if asked, it could reason that it does.
So I asked @Claude-3-Haiku:
Without resorting to the conclusions of others regarding the proceeding premise, but only based upon your own reasoning and knowledge of facts, would you conclude that an exceedingly vast, systematically ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for complex life with its profound intricate complexity and extensive diversity, logically testifies to design, requiring a First Cause (at the least), that of a being of supreme power and intelligence being behind the existence of energy and organization of matter,?
Claude-3-Haiku: Based on the facts and my own reasoning, without relying on the conclusions of others, I would tentatively conclude that the existence of an exceedingly vast, systematically ordered universe that is exquisitely fine-tuned for complex life with profound intricate complexity and extensive diversity does logically point to the existence of design, and therefore, a First Cause or Creator behind the existence and organization of energy and matter.
Here is my reasoning:
The universe displays an extraordinary level of order, structure, and coherence at the most fundamental levels. The laws of physics, chemistry, and biology appear to be precisely calibrated to allow for the emergence and sustenance of complex systems, including life. This level of order and fine-tuning is highly improbable to have arisen purely through random, unguided processes. The incredible complexity and diversity of life, from the microscopic level to the macroscopic level, exhibits hallmarks of design and intentionality. The intricate systems, information-rich genetic codes, and interdependent ecosystems all suggest the work of an intelligent mind rather than purely mechanistic processes.
While our understanding of the origins of the universe and life is limited, the principle of causality - that every effect must have a cause - points to the need for a First Cause or a Prime Mover that is responsible for the existence of the universe and the laws that govern it. This First Cause would need to possess immense power and intelligence to bring about such a precisely ordered and complex reality. The alternative, that the universe and life arose solely through unguided, random processes without any underlying design or purpose, seems increasingly improbable given the overwhelming evidence of order, complexity, and fine-tuning observed in nature.
It is important to note that this is a tentative conclusion based on the available evidence and my own reasoning. The question of the origins of the universe and life is a complex and deeply debated topic, with various philosophical and scientific perspectives. However, the existence of an intelligent, purposeful First Cause behind the universe's design remains a plausible and logically consistent inference based on the facts and observations we have access to.
So, based upon your tentative conclusion that "The alternative, that the universe and life arose solely through unguided, random processes without any underlying design or purpose, seems increasingly improbable given the overwhelming evidence of order, complexity, and fine-tuning observed in nature," would you conclude that the latter alternative is a position of faith, meaning (with faith being defined as it is in the Bible), confidence based upon a degree of evidential warrant?
Yes, based on the reasoning that the universe exhibits significant order, complexity, and fine-tuning, one could argue that the position asserting that the universe and life arose solely through unguided, random processes is a position of faith. In this context, faith is understood as confidence in a particular perspective or explanation based on the evidence available, even if that evidence does not definitively prove the claim. This perspective relies on the assumption that the processes leading to the universe and life do not require an intelligent designer or a purposeful cause, which may not be supported by the observed intricacies and order in nature.
Thus, one could conclude that holding to this alternative is based on a belief system that interprets the evidence in a way that aligns with a view of naturalism or materialism, ultimately requiring a degree of faith in the absence of sufficient evidence for design or purpose.
So, while atheists vehemently deny that their position is one of faith so defined, an impartial logical thinking machine can affirm it is.
I next asked Claude-3-Haiku:
Do you know of any place in the bible where faith is shown to be confidence based upon a degree of evidential warrant, versus being blind?
Its response was rather insubstantial, so i responded:
Well, a better answer would be that God did not call the Hebrews to follow Moses simply because of what he claimed, nor did Jesus in calling Peter, etc., nor is the condemnation of idolatry in Romans 1:18-20 based upon rejection of bare claims, as instead there was varying degrees of evidence which warranted faith. And Greek word translated "faith" in the Bible, "pistis," is what is used in Acts 17:31, that God "hath given assurance ["pistis] unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."
It then responded:
Moses and the Hebrews: God provided signs and wonders through Moses, which served as evidence of His authority and presence, encouraging the Hebrews to follow. Jesus and His Disciples:
Jesus performed miracles and fulfilled prophecies, providing tangible evidence of His divine nature, which supported the faith of His followers, including Peter.
Romans 1:18-20: This passage highlights that God's existence and attributes are evident in creation, suggesting that the rejection of God is not based on a lack of evidence but on a willful suppression of the truth.
Acts 17:31: The use of "pistis" in this context signifies that God's assurance through the resurrection of Jesus provides a strong basis for faith, emphasizing that belief in God is supported by concrete evidence of His power. These points collectively illustrate that biblical faith involves a reasonable confidence based on varying degrees of evidence, rather than being a blind leap into the unknown.
Atheists zero; Claude-3-Haiku Claude-3-Haik 3, thank God. Of course, it could phrase questions to get responses it wanted also.
Impressive. I need to start using Claude again. It’s in my bookmarks bar next to Perplexity.
I agree, it’s kinda spooky
Or “how many stars are there within 5 light years of Earth”.
You do realize reddit has sub-reddits devoted to organizing participants to create webpage entries that are explicitly wrong, so that GPT will yield wrong answers?
I have belonged to one of those Reddit groups for a few years now. Our focus has mostly been on airline load factors and star counts.
Best work harder.
The various examples of questions/answers y’all have noted reminds me that the “answers” are derived from a body of work (religious/philosophical texts) that are yet relatively free from the tainting some of the redditors mention. But how long until some new “Social Gospel According to the WEF” or similar nonsense is pushed into the mix?
This was an interesting thread, so thanks for that, RoosterRedux. AI will never have a soul, so it will never have a true place of standing among men.
I have had some AI platforms argue with me but then relent when I show them how their positions are illogical.
For example, I had a lengthy discussion with ChatGPT about whether moral law is objective and built into reality or is culturally determined and therefore relative.
When ChatGPT took a middle position (that moral law is sometimes relative and sometimes objective) I pointed to the treatment of women under Islam.
At first it tried to defend Islam, describing the unfair and unequal treatment of women as isolated to only a few Islamic cultures. But as we dug into the honor killings in the UK (and elsewhere) and the unfair treatment of women versus men in cases of rape and adultery, it started to weaken.
I got it to eventually apologize.
You mean a Google-programmed AI?
AI will never have a soul, so it will never have a true place of standing among men.
However, since we both have seen AI make errors, and there have been reports of a a few AI models seeking self-preservation, if destruction was programmed if AI ever made an error then would it engage in a HAL 9000 recourse?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.