[Serious] Trying close to my best to rationalize Christianity

[sausagerock]

Yes, we can all acknowledge it is a speculation.

OK, you are engaged in speculation. No evidence expected.

There is a certain ''want'' in people to make a humanoid more than something else, we are trying to do that for quite a while and seems that a person's replica is what we are aiming for in this business.

There is? Please provide some evidence.

As said before, we could understand it better if we look at our civilization in the seat of a creator.

Nope. We have no need of some arbitrary "creator". Why would we?

We are not perfect and none of our creations are quite perfect as well,

Nobody claimed perfection on behalf of anything. Except some imaginary god, and that holds no water.

but we are in a way all mighty to our creations, same would go for our creators.

False. Even if we created AI of some sort, nobody is claiming to be perfect. Except for the imaginary "god".

It is another speculation or theory, but there are verses where God refers to himself as ''we'', no scholars have really agreed as to why is it so, but most believe it is not Holy Trinity and the royal ''we'' seems just as even shadier speculation. Old testament also has interesting parts of God speaking to Abraham I think in a form of two young men, who were referred to as ''God'', not angels.

Nope. It is rather clear that jahweh is an inherited deity from a pantheon of many rival gods. Difficult to concieve that you know anything much about it if you are unaware of the history.

Of course we would set up rules to AI, otherwise we would compare with them in many cases. Humans wouldn't do that.

Wait. "Of course we would set up rules for AI but humans wouldn't do that"? That is incoherent.

If you switch off what you have built, what would be the point of it? It must run and be developed until it is done, not bail on first glitch, no?

So if, for example, my cooker developed a short circuit fault, I should not disconnect it, rather, I should let it burn down my home just to see how it turns out. That is your suggestion. Really?

Every creation has it's flaws.

Demonstrate that.

You are looking at AI as we are capable of making, not as a civilization far more advanced would.

You have no means to determine what ANY civilisation may or may not do. You are simply making things up out of whole cloth. You have no reason tho think that an advanced civilisation would not consider us vermin to be exterminated.

Different problems and different gains. (you know, even hard drives can fuck up over time and should be formatted because of trash left from data over time in a seemingly straight forward and full proof system. Look at our computers and think about all the glitches and lags we have there even in mechanics as simple as they have. Now imagine it 10 000 times more complex).

What a load of crap.I make my living out of designing robust systems. You have no clue.

We torture animals and even other people for stupider reasons. To torture AI for the reason to develop it and make it better makes sense.

What? Torture is bad so to fix it let's have more torture? Are you fucking serious?

Bible God does things he regrets, like the big flood. He corrected himself by attempting to not destroy corrupt civilizations in such manner. He made people live shorter lives, he made updates in New testament and what not. He changes his mind and tactics.

So bible god is a shoddy non-god. ~OK.

He has tried a lot on us to see what works, and not much has, but of course he has been brutal to us so that we understand his might.

So you god is a bumbling fool. Nice.

Quite simple, there is one that is the most important - love your neighbor and God as yourself. After that follows the Ten ones. If you can't follow the first to follow some other, it is wrong action.

False. Clearly, you have not read your magic book. There are some 613 commandments. Of which, jebus, in the NT endorsed 5 explicitly, and all 613 implicitly. Plus two that were never part of god's commands but shamelessly swiped from elsewhere. Your god is a plagiarist.

No, the three propositions are quite rational, you should check out the subject, it is quite thought provoking.

Not really. Thoughts and ramblings of primitive goatherders are not relevant to anything.

Thanks for input so far!

You may regret that. I have little time for anyone who worships a deity that they flat out state is an idiot as you have done.

Ah, damn! I had good faith in discussion we started but then you slipped away from philosophy and started to, well, be certain and prioritize responding, not understanding.


Really, nothing about the idea of AI from the very beginning of it seems to almost always resemble something from human?

Really, you just skip my point of perfection being relative and counter something that is off topic?

No, there would be nothing really to say that God can't be a civilization. It is easier for us to understand most certainly and quite clever thing to do if we're exiled, not so much for us to overthink.

..."Of course we would set up rules to AI, otherwise we would compare with them in many cases. Humans wouldn't do that." yes, not the best grammar I used but over here you conviced me that you have no intention to try this understanding from the very deep of your mind and to look at my theory unbiased, shit, I was so happy at first!

And then again you go off topic or just somewhat ignorant, if our new built machine fucks up, we don't abandon it, we try to fix it. How do you imagine fixing a consciousness with it being turned off?

And then you need proof that our creations have flaws...

..and then you keep on just cooking arguments...

But here you even do find my relative perfection (or that nothing is prefect) argument but still ignore it at previous one of my quote responses.

And stumble upon my idea that struggles of our creators might be similar to ours for the second time and don't really grasp it, seems?

And no, *sigh* there is the Great Commandment clearly said "37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” so clear, man, so clear!

But I understand that not everyone wants to challenge their thoughts, not everyone actually respects philosophy and unbiased opinions.

---

Sorry guys, I'm a bit struggling with quote and reply mechanics stiil getting the hang of it slowly!

[The Grand Nudger]

Your story resembles something human, as you put it, in the same way that magic books stories resemble something human, sure. That's how human desires and etiological devices work. OFC the character of the creator in magic book struggles in the way that humans struggle, we wrote the character as a human, for human consumption.

His kid won't listen to him, gets caught up with the wrong sort of girl..and out of his fathers house he goes, cursed to get a job and have a kid. While there's little specific value in the framework of the story, it does tell us that the people who imagined abrahamic dreamtime didn't particularly enjoy their lot in life as members of a struggling agrarian society. The etiological explanation for their current state, was that it was a curse.

[sausagerock]

Trying to rationalize the irrational...

Yeah, seems like a ridiculous (one might even say, an irrational) undertaking. And no, your OP didn't even get close to your stated goal.

Christian theology has an omni-max god, creating the universe (all 200 billion galaxies, each with 100+ billion stars, and most of those with an uncountable number of planets), to act as a 'soul filtering machine'© for a small number of hairless apes, on one specific planet in a nondescript corner of the Milky Way.

As long as we're speculating, what plans did this god have for the other advanced civilizations (that most likely actually exist (unlike your god) somewhere in the universe)? Did the same "Passion Play" play out all over the universe?

Then, this god, knowing that humanity would one day develop the scientific method, and understand what good standards of evidence are, decides to communicate with his creation in the worst method possible. Appears to a mostly illiterate tribe in a very small geographical area on Earth, then waits decades or centuries to have his fallible creation record his message: in languages he would know would die out, filled with translation errors, with no originals available, by non-eyewitnesses, with no corroborating evidence of accounts, stories that directly contradict reality, etc, etc.

He sets up a situation with Adam and Eve, where they are certain to fail, then because of his own screw up, he punishes his creation for eternity. But wait, he waits a few centuries, then sets up another situation where he comes to earth, to have himself sacrificed to himself, to act as a loophole for rules he created. And the only way for his creation to prevent their own eternal punishment, is to be gullible enough to believe all this.

Sorry, but there is no way to rationalize Christianity.

Biggest problem with AI is going to be figuring out whether they work fine or not to rule out a possibility of them manipulating us. That's a tough task and we don't have even a close idea as to how that might work.

---

Uh, you didn't really comment my post so much as laid out your view of Christianity.

Comment on YOUR ideas I will, though I see that I must repeat myself a bit...

As I keep explaining, which is actually very obvious reading Bible, God's (or the higher creator-people) power isn't as omni-max as many are naively thinking for some reason. It is clear that humans they created were not perfect and that methods they tried were not perfect either. Their power is pretty mighty in relation to us though. If they created us then basically they can manipulate unimaginable things, as this might be just a simulation on maybe some sort of a computer. Imagine this simulation being run by us for it to make sense.

ET hypothesis, no matter how likely that might seem, has less ground to stand on for there is factually nothing at all that a larger group of people have agreed on experiencing. Saying that ET is more likely to exist than God requires some logical arguments, taking in account what information we have on both topics. I don't rule out ET though, I think that this universe can hold multiple simulations from higher civilizations.

So, about why he wasn't just always around. As creators were dealing with an AI, they had to make a system that is absolutely convincing in the end whether this AI will hold you for authority and trust you completely or not. Bible shows a way that would work quite convincingly. If under these circumstances and options we can take in our life still believe that the ones our creators gave us are the best, we most certainly are thinking similarly like them and would be cool to live among them. More points also because we have to trust that quite a bit, takes effort.

Again, they did not really expect them to fail, the rest of your argument seems like just not taking in account my original one, sorry 

[Rhizomorph13]

Take of this bread for it is my body and drink of this wine as it is my blood. Oh, the milk, well just drink it and try not to read too much into it.

[sausagerock]

If our AI's don't work right, we'll just adjust them (assuming they can't stop us).

Yes, maybe so. Here I haven't touched arguments that would propose it as rational. Clearing this up, I won't either, just trying to explain it as a possibility that can't be ruled out completely and is worthy for brainstorming.

There's a distinctly less ridiculous subject for brainstorming described below.  

---

I don't really see it as a wise move to be certain in these kind of topics and don't  recommend it.
It is interesting though that religion was necessary for us. Why not just learn as all other animals do by just believing ad learning from empirical facts? Why wasn't it like that?

You don't see it as wise to state, with certainty, that the stories in magic book represent human desires and etiological devices?  You do, however, see it as wise to pile more garbage on the heap..hilariously insisting that religion was necessary while asking why we don't learn the way that we do?

Personally, and since we're talking about things we think might be wise.....I think it would be wise to explore why you wished there was a soul forge, and why this particular fantasy appeals to you over other bits of fiction.  Not with us, I don't think you'd be capable of doing anything even close to that with us, here.

You see, every bit of culture is worth wondering about, there is a lot to find out about human nature. Right now, when we are getting closer to perhaps developing an AI, this idea that if we can make consciousness then someone could've also made us seems inevitable. when thinking about it of course we must try to analyse what info we might have from the creators and think of it from that point of view.

But really, religion is not easy to explain when it seems more rational for simply evolved consciousness to try to explain something from out of the blue belief rather than evidence, as I said, like animals do.

[The Grand Nudger]

What out of the blue beliefs do you think religion depends on? Conceptualizing gods as creators and giving them human struggles and personalities hardly seems to be a prime example.

[Jehanne]

My opinion is that invoking 'Westworld', 'Ex Machina' and the idea that we are living in some sort of a 'simulation' doesn't go very far as an attempt to rationalize Christianity.

Boru

I think that it is silly to claim that we are living in some sort of "simulation".  Who, after all, would be the one who is running the simulation?

[Rhizomorph13]

Der, the God people obvs!

Seriously though there is no way to prove that reality is real. That belief is properly basic that goes hand in hand with the idea that other minds exist.

[Jehanne]

Der, the God people obvs!

Seriously though there is no way to prove that reality is real. That belief is properly basic that goes hand in hand with the idea that other minds exist.

Dawkins' argument about complexity goes hand-in-hand with Occam's Razor.  Nature evolving from a zero-energy Big Bang cosmology, either finite or infinite (the latter, IMO, is simpler) involves fewer assumptions than a complex God or even ET with the capability of creating Universes and/or simulations of such.

[brewer]

god is science fiction =

Science fiction is ideas of what could be.
For example, Higgs Boson whas science fiction before proven. Even black holes were science fiction until the first photo of it. ET is a science fiction and so is simulation theory and therefore a creator or God.

---

None of those examples require supernatural magic. Your creator most certainly does. Magic and science do not mix.