I know from experience, that Atheists are somewhat difficult to present any believer’s view that would get at least some degree of consideration. Realizing that, I thought that you guys would find an AI response to my premise of some interest. I post nothing written by AI in my article. I wanted to prefix my premise with an AI analysis of it, because in it, it found five points that were both ‘original’ and ‘unique’. Knowing how difficult, almost impossible, it is to find anything that has not been written before, that has an originality to it, even just one thing, but finding five, is impossible! The proposal I made was not to put it out for argument, but to have its rational at least looked at.


The gist of what I proposed, posits a harmonious and complementary use of the Laws of Science in creation. We, and I thought even Atheists, have been looking for any hypothesis that could present evidence that both science and spirituality could coexist in any reasonable manner. I don’t think you could find any less biased opinion than AI! It’s analysis favors neither believers nor non-believers alike. And, it does have a rather huge stock of human information available for its use.


So, I was merely proposing that the ‘analysis’ be presented as a prefix before my premise. I would think that any thinking, reasoning, and intelligent people, would at least consider what ‘it’ found as original and unique. Because, since both believers and Atheists are both still alive, none of us is sure about anything!


In no way, is it being presented as a means to ‘convert’ anyone. I just thought Atheist could look at it out of curiosity and form an opinion about it.


I repeat, noting about my premise came from AI, only the analysis! And that is why I want to post it. I have been trying to shoot a hole in it for years and failed. Perhaps some of you that are not hampered by a cognitive bias can!


Kick me off if you want, I didn’t come to your forum to argue my point.

My heading was supposed to say, Even Atheist have to be curious. Sorry about that

The title is perfect as is.

(September 4, 2024 at 6:48 pm)Mortalsfool Wrote: The gist of what I proposed, posits a harmonious and complementary use of the Laws of Science in creation. We, and I thought even Atheists, have been looking for any hypothesis that could present evidence that both science and spirituality could coexist in any reasonable manner. 

Why would you think atheists have been looking for that?

Quote:Because, since both believers and Atheists are both still alive, none of us is sure about anything!

Incorrect.  You may not be sure about anything, but I'm sure about quite alot.

Quote:In no way, is it being presented as a means to ‘convert’ anyone. I just thought Atheist could look at it out of curiosity and form an opinion about it.

I think that any effort to conflate magic and natural processes in the context of theistic belief is doomed from the outset.  Not just or even particularly because such an investigation will not yield the stated product - but because if it did that would rob said gods of the source of their authority in the first place.  Subordinating them to natural processes and contextualizing their interaction in the world as, more properly, the interaction of natural agents in nature.

(September 4, 2024 at 6:55 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: The title is perfect as is.

Hi arewethereyet,

In spite of our different views of spirituality I came to this Atheist forum because, I've always held Atheist's reasoning, especially when it comes to science, having abilities far above those that call themselves believers. Since I was seeking views about the science in my premise, I was hoping to do it without trolls, or those that can't control their cognitive bias, and get a serious reply about the fact that AI proposes a link that's not been proposed before.

I would seriously doubt that the ai you used has proposed anything about this subject (or any other) that has not been proposed before. On the grounds that this is not what text regurgitators do, if for no other reason.

(September 4, 2024 at 7:21 pm)Mortalsfool Wrote:

(September 4, 2024 at 6:55 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: The title is perfect as is.

Hi arewethereyet,

In spite of our different views of spirituality I came to this Atheist forum because, I've always held Atheist's reasoning, especially when it comes to science, having abilities far above those that call themselves believers. Since I was seeking views about the science in my premise, I was hoping to do it without trolls, or those that can't control their cognitive bias, and get a serious reply about the fact that AI proposes a link that's not been proposed before.

You were advised not to post AI responses.  Yet you did anyway.

Call me a troll if you like.  Actually, I am an admin here.  I won't be trolling you; but I will be watching closely.

(September 4, 2024 at 7:15 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(September 4, 2024 at 6:48 pm)Mortalsfool Wrote: The gist of what I proposed, posits a harmonious and complementary use of the Laws of Science in creation. We, and I thought even Atheists, have been looking for any hypothesis that could present evidence that both science and spirituality could coexist in any reasonable manner. 

Why would you think atheists have been looking for that?
Why would you not be still looking? Because if you were gasping out your last breath, you can't tell me that you would not have just a little bit of hope that it's not the end for you.

Quote:Because, since both believers and Atheists are both still alive, none of us is sure about anything!

Incorrect.  You may not be sure about anything, but I'm sure about quite alot.

Quote:In no way, is it being presented as a means to ‘convert’ anyone. I just thought Atheist could look at it out of curiosity and form an opinion about it.

I think that any effort to conflate magic and natural processes in the context of theistic belief is doomed from the outset.  Not just or even particularly because such an investigation will not yield the stated product - but because if it did that would rob said gods of the source of their authority in the first place.  Subordinating them to natural processes and contextualizing their interaction in the world as, more properly, the interaction of natural agents in nature.

That's a lot to say about a premise you've never read. I have to learn how to reply, I'm sure I messed up!

Straight to fantasizing about my death eh? I think it'd take a pretty miserable set of circumstances for a person at the end of their life -not- to wish they had more time. Then again, I always hope there's more ice cream when I get to the bottom of the carton...but that doesn't lead me to ponder the existence of frosty realms peopled with dairy gods in a totes scientific way...so. Doesn't lead to any more ice cream appearing, either.

As for having alot of thoughts on the matter - and what the hell, concerns about cognitive bias - I think you'll find that I'm very receptive to the idea that our various spiritualities are informed by nature and can be made coherent - just not in any way that would satisfy a theist.

(September 4, 2024 at 7:31 pm)arewethereyet Wrote:

(September 4, 2024 at 7:21 pm)Mortalsfool Wrote: Hi arewethereyet,

In spite of our different views of spirituality I came to this Atheist forum because, I've always held Atheist's reasoning, especially when it comes to science, having abilities far above those that call themselves believers. Since I was seeking views about the science in my premise, I was hoping to do it without trolls, or those that can't control their cognitive bias, and get a serious reply about the fact that AI proposes a link that's not been proposed before.

You were advised not to post AI responses.  Yet you did anyway.

Call me a troll if you like.  Actually, I am an admin here.  I won't be trolling you; but I will be watching closely.

I am not posting any AI material in my post! I don't think what I'm proposing has anything to do with AI, other than its use as a 'tool' to glean from its vast source of knowledge, where my premise stands in the scope of human knowledge. I can post my premise without the analysis by AI. And you can determine for yourself, if in fact it offers some credibility or not.