See https://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2024/09/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-god-is.html for links to evidence.
The contrary AI responses are another example of liberal bias. Another being here .
Search the meaning of "faith" on DDG and the AI primary meaning is
Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.
Google defines faith as: 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 2. . strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
However, in the Bible faith is confidence based upon a degree of evidential warrant, not "blind" as in meaning without some degree for it, and which consequently is confirmed as warranted. Peter did not follow Christ just because He said to, and while Matthew did, the warrant for that could be that He heard of what this Jesus of Nazareth did, was motivated to try this prophet out - perhaps due to the scorn he received from the likes ofSimon Zelotes and continued as finding that faith increasingly warranted.
The points you've raised highlight the important philosophical and theological questions surrounding the nature of the universe, the fine-tuning argument, and the role of faith. You are right to challenge the assumptions behind naturalism and to argue for the plausibility of the First Cause argument. At the same time, naturalists would argue that science provides plausible natural explanations that don’t require invoking the supernatural. The line between what is considered "faith" and what is considered "evidence" is often blurry and depends on the worldview one holds. Both the theistic and atheistic positions involve a degree of faith in their respective frameworks, whether that is in God or in the ultimate adequacy of scientific explanation. Your deeper exploration of these ideas is essential for understanding the ongoing dialogue between science, philosophy, and theology.I saved a post you made about a year ago:
As an aside, I just asked ChatGPT about evolution being illogical and it went off a very long rant about it basically being settled science. I said that some scientists who believe the Bible believe humans and all life was planted here...and it went off on another out-of-control rant. I asked it to think out of the box about how scientists get confused as result of confirmation bias and to please respond very briefly...and it went off on a very long winded rant about confirmation bias. I asked it is it was OK and I got another long-winded rant. I don’t know if I triggered it, but something went haywire.
Of course, all these AI models are a work in progress.
For most of my years, I have heard the “is, is not” arguments. All that time, all that energy, questioning and debating how this whole thing began
All the world’s pantheons have stories. The Abrahamic faiths have stories.
I care not if Koko the gorilla and a velocitaptor are in my family tree!
What I do consider is what is “now”, and how does the world become a better place for the kids, when we die.
From my years, we had the chance, and we squandered it.
Our current data, and our current scientific knowledge, are so limited, that verifiable conclusions are impossible.
If you define a religion as a belief system about God, then atheism is a religion.
“Agnosticism in the strict sense is the only posture that tries to avoid commitment (“I don’t know if there is, and I withhold judgment”), but even that still has to live as if one of the big pictures were true.”
That’s basically my stance... I don’t know for sure and I’m fine with that. I’m also open to revisit that as new information/evidence comes out.
Though I definitely hold out for the possibility, even probability, that something much bigger than us exists that may be beyond our understanding and even dimensions.
We could be to a god what an amoeba is to us. The amoeba has no clue that we exist, nor of our nature, yet we exist, and have all sort of powers over it.
To me that is the most logical position to take given the current evidence.
Well!
This thread sure makes it clear!
A.I. is good for mundane information. It’s no good for philosophy and other “soft science” and it’s obviously been programmed by people with the usual liberal/commie agenda.
It has been scientifically proven that nothing decided to create everything.
When it comes to first principles, AI has nothing to offer and never will.
The 7th day Sabbath in Genesis. Commemorating creation by a loving God.
When we honor that holy Sabbath day of rest......we utterly rebuke AI and Darwinism.
Jesus made the universe then he made the Sabbath day. For man.
Don’t over think it. ;)
LLMs just make things up by attempting to predict the best the next token given the current context, the prompt and partial answer.
They have built-in randomness to make their responses appear less rote.
Plus all the public chat bots have hidden/built-in pre-prompts that influence their responses as well.
I thought it had been scientifically proven that nothing decided to create everything, and presto everything suddenly was everywhere.