Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: January 21, 2020, 9:24 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[Serious] Trying close to my best to rationalize Christianity
#1
Trying close to my best to rationalize Christianity
Good evening fellas!

I'm looking around for some input as new ideas arise when discussing religion with atheists. My luck hasn't been the best with many people. I have concluded that firstly I have been ignorant on many aspects and secondly that people mostly read my arguments to respond, not to understand, which basically compromises the whole discussion, so I'll try my luck here.

As it hasn't been done yet, I'm going to assume an axiom - we can create an AI humanoid like in movie Ex Machina. It is pretty reasonable to believe at some point we could do that. Now, let's imagine the first ones we rely on in our everyday living are what is Adam and Eve in Bible and we are God. Many verses in Bible suggest that it is a whole civilization, not one bearded guy, with all the angels and what not. Now all is good and dandy until one day they betray our trust or brake one of our rules. Now we can't trust them to live among us, of course.

Now starts Turing test. This creation is exiled and given a story of why they are there and what should they do. At first it is in a form that is closer to what might be a direct communication. Later on it becomes more distant as I believe creator wants them to be more stand alone. As in Bible, these creations fuck up quite a while from the very start and become corrupt so bad that much of them are doomed to stay that way and would never be reliable to live among creators, so he destroys a fuckton of what is corrupted creation (because that wouldn't make sense for us as well to create an AI just for the sake of it and let it do whatever it wants without us gaining something, we are certainly not going to do that). This happens multiple times. God scrambles civilizations and destroys cities hoping that at one point they would turn out reliable to the commands of creator, which doesn't really happen. Through Genesis it is also apparent that there are updates to creations. They start to live shorter lives by creators command and change a bit throughout.
After a while, a very obvious example of testing creation's trust comes with Abraham. He trusts fully that the creator knows best what he should do. When he complies, creator knows that not all is fucked and makes him the prototype of what is a worthy creation and would be good enough to live among creator. Through Old Testament creator struggles with trying to save this prototype's civilization so his creation wouldn't go corrupt again.

This all seems like a pretty real struggle for us as well when we will want to integrate an AI in our society, it won't be easy and the toughest part is going to be making sure that we can actually trust them because they will be more than machines. Heck, we can't even fully trust machines. The whole Bible makes rational sense if we start to see it from God's perspective and imagine us struggling with our creations.

Now The New testament is basically calming down and may even be a bit of giving up trying to get the perfect people. Jesus might be a conscious of one of this creator's civilization, he might even be literally one of them, but that is of little matter, he is an inside horse. He devotes his life trying to understand people as intimate as possible from their point of view - understand how we live so creators can know what to expect from us and how we could be included in their society as we are, so now, as we are to stupid to follow the 10 Commandments even for one day, we just have to believe our creators, do our best to be good and not mock them (because really, why the fuck would they save mockers). 

Bible is explanation and instructions given to us by creators in exile, a pretty good Turing test, I would say. If we do believe that AI is possible for us, then it is just as possible that we are created by someone. It is a good hypothesis by Nick Bostrom, he suggested that one of these three propositions are almost certainly true:



1."The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero", or

2."The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running simulations of their evolutionary history, or variations thereof, is very close to zero"[b]or[/b]

3."The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one"

We are quite likely to be in a simulation. If one sees Westworld as a legitimate sci-fi then Bible is similar in a weird way.

What could be said about agnostic view, well, as I concluded before, as we wouldn't go through all the shit with trying to make an AI without any benefit and without trying to live with them, it is likely that no other living entity would either, but agnostic view is full of horrible long shots and is less interesting.

Need opinions, thanks!
Reply
#2
RE: Trying close to my best to rationalize Christianity
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
'A man is accepted into a church for what he believes.  He is turned out for what he knows.' - Mark Twain
Reply
#3
RE: Trying close to my best to rationalize Christianity
So Xtianity expects you to behave like a mindless automaton?
Quote:I don't understand why you'd come to a discussion forum, and then proceed to reap from visibility any voice that disagrees with you. If you're going to do that, why not just sit in front of a mirror and pat yourself on the back continuously?
-Esquilax

Evolution - Adapt or be eaten.
Reply
#4
RE: Trying close to my best to rationalize Christianity
Methinks I smell an evolved sock.
I never thought I'd live long enough to become a grumpy old bastard. Here I am, killing it!
Reply
#5
RE: Trying close to my best to rationalize Christianity
You are confusing cognitive thinking with divine intervention. Just because humans have the competence formulate ideas, to rationalize and understand the natural sciences around them, to even use those skills to fabricate instruments to better enhance their survival, in no way, shape, or form points to a wish-granting magic sky fairy.

Human awareness, their intelligence, their ability to perceive, is not a conduit to the divine, it is simply the result of what the species needed to survive. Humans don't have much going for them. They are not particularly strong. They can not run too fast. They are not proficient swimmers. They can't fly. They do not have built-in camouflage. Their eyesight is not top-notch, nor is their hearing, or sense of smell. They are not venomous, They're not poisonous, or even faux-poisonous. They are just the most intelligent creature on the planet. They needed those big brains to out-think the rest fierce and vicious predators they shared the early Earth with. If they did not possess this capability, they would be extinct.
Reply
#6
RE: Trying close to my best to rationalize Christianity
Gonna keep an eye on this thread. Welcome to the forums BTW.

Using our production of AI as an analog to a perfect God creating a designed creation falls on its face immediately. Also, probably the first use for AIs will be as sex workers. That is what is being done with the non-intelligent dolls right now so really we are not that similar to the Christian God. Why does it seem ok to you that a perfect God would create something and then blame the creation for failing to act correctly? That just blows my mind.
Reply
#7
RE: Trying close to my best to rationalize Christianity
One fantasy used to try to explain or justify another? I think I'm done with this one.

Using the "Serious" tag didn't help.
God(s) and religions are man made and the bane of humanity. 

Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. Ozzy or Twain/take your pick
Reply
#8
RE: Trying close to my best to rationalize Christianity
Hello fellas - from sausage - yeah I can't take this seriously.

Stopped after the 'greeting'.

Popcorn

Reply
#9
RE: Trying close to my best to rationalize Christianity
(January 14, 2020 at 8:06 pm)sausagerock Wrote: Need opinions, thanks!

You should stop taking fairytales seriously.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
Reply
#10
RE: Trying close to my best to rationalize Christianity
(January 14, 2020 at 8:06 pm)sausagerock Wrote: Good evening fellas!

I'm looking around for some input as new ideas arise when discussing religion with atheists. My luck hasn't been the best with many people. I have concluded that firstly I have been ignorant on many aspects and secondly that people mostly read my arguments to respond, not to understand, which basically compromises the whole discussion, so I'll try my luck here.
Feel free.

(January 14, 2020 at 8:06 pm)sausagerock Wrote: As it hasn't been done yet, I'm going to assume an axiom - we can create an AI humanoid like in movie Ex Machina.
Since it has not been done yet, then you are in the realm of outright speculation. Nothing wrong with that perse, so long as everyone acknowledges that it IS speculation.

(January 14, 2020 at 8:06 pm)sausagerock Wrote: It is pretty reasonable to believe at some point we could do that.
Sure, but what form might that take? Nobody yet knows.

(January 14, 2020 at 8:06 pm)sausagerock Wrote: Now, let's imagine the first ones we rely on in our everyday living are what is Adam and Eve in Bible and we are God.
The analogy fails simply because we are imperfect and therefore not "godlike".

(January 14, 2020 at 8:06 pm)sausagerock Wrote: Many verses in Bible suggest that it is a whole civilization, not one bearded guy, with all the angels and what not.
Nope. In the bible there was only god. Angels and whatnot came later. Presumably, god got bored or whatever.

(January 14, 2020 at 8:06 pm)sausagerock Wrote: Now all is good and dandy until one day they betray our trust or brake one of our rules. Now we can't trust them to live among us, of course.
That analogy only holds if we were to intentionally set up the "rules" such that the AI could not avoid breaking said rules. After all, that is what god did to adam and eve, right?

(January 14, 2020 at 8:06 pm)sausagerock Wrote: Now starts Turing test. This creation is exiled and given a story of why they are there and what should they do.
Why not simply switch them off?

(January 14, 2020 at 8:06 pm)sausagerock Wrote: At first it is in a form that is closer to what might be a direct communication. Later on it becomes more distant as I believe creator wants them to be more stand alone.
The AI would not be subject to the vagaries of human memory. Nor the inaccuracies of human translation, transcription and record keeping. Computers long ago passed that possibility. Are you suggesting that for inexplicable reasons we would intentionally build in such foibles into the AI? What on earth would we do that for?

(January 14, 2020 at 8:06 pm)sausagerock Wrote: As in Bible, these creations fuck up quite a while from the very start and become corrupt so bad that much of them are doomed to stay that way and would never be reliable to live among creators, so he destroys a fuckton of what is corrupted creation (because that wouldn't make sense for us as well to create an AI just for the sake of it and let it do whatever it wants without us gaining something, we are certainly not going to do that). This happens multiple times. God scrambles civilizations and destroys cities hoping that at one point they would turn out reliable to the commands of creator, which doesn't really happen.
Would you decide to torture the AI forever just for the shiggles? Because that is what bible god does to people.

(January 14, 2020 at 8:06 pm)sausagerock Wrote: Through Genesis it is also apparent that there are updates to creations. They start to live shorter lives by creators command and change a bit throughout.
Baloney. Bible god never corrects himself.

(January 14, 2020 at 8:06 pm)sausagerock Wrote: After a while, a very obvious example of testing creation's trust comes with Abraham. He trusts fully that the creator knows best what he should do. When he complies, creator knows that not all is fucked and makes him the prototype of what is a worthy creation and would be good enough to live among creator. Through Old Testament creator struggles with trying to save this prototype's civilization so his creation wouldn't go corrupt again.
Bible god is also quite happy with people who DO go through with human sacrifice. See Jepethah's daughter.

(January 14, 2020 at 8:06 pm)sausagerock Wrote: This all seems like a pretty real struggle for us as well when we will want to integrate an AI in our society, it won't be easy and the toughest part is going to be making sure that we can actually trust them because they will be more than machines. Heck, we can't even fully trust machines. The whole Bible makes rational sense if we start to see it from God's perspective and imagine us struggling with our creations.
False. The bible makes bugger all rational sense.

(January 14, 2020 at 8:06 pm)sausagerock Wrote: Now The New testament is basically calming down and may even be a bit of giving up trying to get the perfect people. Jesus might be a conscious of one of this creator's civilization, he might even be literally one of them, but that is of little matter, he is an inside horse. He devotes his life trying to understand people as intimate as possible from their point of view - understand how we live so creators can know what to expect from us and how we could be included in their society as we are, so now, as we are to stupid to follow the 10 Commandments even for one day, we just have to believe our creators, do our best to be good and not mock them (because really, why the fuck would they save mockers). 
Which commandments should we follow? There are 613 of them. Jesus only endorsed 5 of those. Do you know which ones?

(January 14, 2020 at 8:06 pm)sausagerock Wrote: Bible is explanation and instructions given to us by creators in exile, a pretty good Turing test, I would say. If we do believe that AI is possible for us, then it is just as possible that we are created by someone. It is a good hypothesis by Nick Bostrom, he suggested that one of these three propositions are almost certainly true:



1."The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero", or

2."The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running simulations of their evolutionary history, or variations thereof, is very close to zero"[b]or[/b]

3."The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one"
That's three assertions with no justification.

(January 14, 2020 at 8:06 pm)sausagerock Wrote: We are quite likely to be in a simulation. If one sees Westworld as a legitimate sci-fi then Bible is similar in a weird way.
Not really. Or at least only if one stretches to analogy to breaking point.

(January 14, 2020 at 8:06 pm)sausagerock Wrote: What could be said about agnostic view, well, as I concluded before, as we wouldn't go through all the shit with trying to make an AI without any benefit and without trying to live with them, it is likely that no other living entity would either, but agnostic view is full of horrible long shots and is less interesting.

Need opinions, thanks!
It is navel gazing speculation. That's all.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Best books debunking Christianity KiwiNFLFan 83 6519 January 16, 2020 at 10:21 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Orthodox Christianity is Best Christianity! Annoyingbutnicetheist 30 4882 January 26, 2016 at 10:44 pm
Last Post: ignoramus
  How to prove Christianity is right without trying very hard Dystopia 6 3003 July 15, 2015 at 5:01 am
Last Post: Excited Penguin
  How to Prove Your Own Position without Trying Very Hard Randy Carson 59 8791 July 14, 2015 at 10:27 pm
Last Post: Sandman Slim
  Best description of Christianity Spooky 167 15374 February 14, 2015 at 2:27 am
Last Post: Huggy Bear
  Dickheads in Ohio Trying to get "Creative" Minimalist 8 1042 August 21, 2014 at 8:47 pm
Last Post: Dystopia
  Christianity vs Gnostic Christianity themonkeyman 12 7270 December 26, 2013 at 11:00 am
Last Post: pineapplebunnybounce
  Moderate Christianity - Even More Illogical Than Fundamentalist Christianity? Xavier 22 15089 November 23, 2013 at 11:21 am
Last Post: Jacob(smooth)
  My close encounter with a Facebook xtian Cyberman 11 3264 March 8, 2013 at 8:50 am
Last Post: Cyberman
  Mentally ill trying to be "Christians"? RichardP 5 1845 January 29, 2013 at 11:05 am
Last Post: Zone



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)