I absolutely love your essays on God - they're the most fun. While I would love for AI to finally bring the discussion regarding God's existence to an appropriate close, I think it won't. Because the nature of God and AI are fundamentally different. AI is just 0s and 1s. It is a super-effective predicting machine, but it has no agency, nor does it have volition. It can only do what it predicts it is what we're telling it to do (which is, of course, the part that is dangerous). God IS agency. Your point about God answering our prayers in ways unexpected is indeed the point - He cannot be predicted. AI can be, because that's all it is.
Thank you for that Aidas. However, I am sprinkling a pinch of salt here, simply because, as you well know, there is still much we don't know about AI. And that is what initially made the parallel an attractive one. But, of course, the parallel itself is deficient. I progress the line of thinking in another piece, which you can find here (https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/lifes-purpose-a-train-trip-to-our), from where you perhaps navigated to this article.
There are two ways to discover God, that I know of. One is to set out looking for Him, knowing He is there. It's like setting out to discover Paris, knowing how it's described in a guide book. A guide book can be relied on to tell fact, but God isn't Berlitz: he who sets out to discover God must establish his own faith in the authorship of the guide book being used. This method involves faith that's so strong, the discovery should be almost immediate. It depends on the leap of faith having already been taken, such that it's fair to ask: what exactly does the believer, then, discover?
The other way I know of is to not believe and to seek that which will convince one to believe. Done carefully, that can be as fulfilling as the discovery of America or of radium. He who discovers God by that path would be justified to ask the government to decree a day's holiday. For it's a discovery worthy of one. But the discovery in that case cannot be predicated on factual evidence. The places described in the guide book cannot, unlike in Paris, always be verified to see whether it's a cogent vade mecum. Where many - if I may be so presumptuous - fail to discover God, even supposing they're looking - is in demanding a standard of proof worthy of a criminal court - "beyond reasonable doubt." You hear their dismissal in a surprisingly small scope of language: "scant evidence"; as if what is sought is a sign of a pupil applying themselves at geography. Sir Christopher Wren, who was an architect in the 17th century, was the builder, after its destruction by fire, of St Paul's Cathedral in London. Around the famous "whispering gallery" that encircles the inner dome of the church, is written in Latin the inscription "si monumentum requiris, circumspice": If you seek [Wren's] monument, take a look around you. People smile when you tell them that at St Paul's. But they think you're daft if you tell them to look around the Earth for God's monument.
You cannot prove God by positive substantive evidence. God's not a court case or a computer program. Still less is He on trial. No matter how similar AI and God may ever get, neither will ever be the other. I'm in part convinced of the unprovability of God as a result of His own doing. I explored that in this other article, which is inspired by the notion of "plausible deniability" https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/on-plausible-deniability.
If I am right that positive evidence will not get us to God - and for me, I am, whether I am for others - then, rather than give up, I prefer to look at the means by which mankind is persuaded of the truth of other things on Earth: empirical observation to determine likelihood; plausible deniability, to establish innocence in law; corroboration to establish a probable fact. By asking how these methods, of which we accept the validity and cogency, stand up to reason when looking at God, whilst I may not actually be able to lay out concrete evidence (albeit I in fact can, on a number of scores), I can nonetheless lay out a case that I believe "stands to reason": that God is, and is what He is, because it stands to my reason that He should be that way. I've stood a panoply of aspects under this test and never found "stands to reason" not to make sense. Whether fathoming the rhyme and reason behind the Ten Commandments (this weekend, I actually tumbled to what I think "honour your father and mother" means), the nature of conscience, and of the judgment day, and what charity truly is, why human law includes statutory offences in which intention need not be proved, and God's law includes only intention, proof of which is already superfluous.
I allow myself no caveats, no "ifs" or "buts". Because there are none in the Ten Commandments or Jesus' two commandments; and that means that you can make simply guidelines that apply without discrimination and create therewith a perfect world, and never say the word "if" or "but".
A while back, I awoke with a start and said a phrase to myself that sounded true, and no one was here to tell me otherwise. I wrote it down and, if you read it, it was me that said it first. If you say something to a room full of intelligent people about God and they nod in approval at what you said, you will not have gone wrong. You will have said something fit for a verse of a hymn. If you say something that sounds off the mark, and can justify it with your heartfelt reasoning, you may yet be wrong, although no one will be able to say definitively that you are wrong. But you will have shown your audience that it's possible to find God other than down the beaten track. That's obvious: He's everywhere, so, everywhere you seek, you will find Him, of that there's no question. Before getting to "the phrase that woke me up", here's one of those less-acceptable conclusions about God, just to show you I can have my maverick moments: there are more skinhead thugs in heaven than company directors. If you're ready to open your mind, the reasoning is here: https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/the-brussels-congress-column-and; and, at last, the phrase that caused me to sit bolt upright. It was this: "God is not for everyone. He's for every one." God is not a city sight; he can't be shown to someone to admire and pay a ticket price for. But, with no ticket price, every individual can find Him. I think it has to be a lone journey.
Aidas, this is a long reply to your very kind compliment. The article, and your comment, touch on a very important matter to me and, I know, to you. It is heartening that you take the trouble to engage. It's a great honour to tread these particular pathways in your company. Those who prefer not to raise a comment are still welcome. Precisely because I think God's for every one, not for everyone. I'm very thankful that my enquiry has reconfirmed what was always there in me. It could so easily have urged me away from Him. But it didn't. Even though I tried.
I absolutely love your essays on God - they're the most fun. While I would love for AI to finally bring the discussion regarding God's existence to an appropriate close, I think it won't. Because the nature of God and AI are fundamentally different. AI is just 0s and 1s. It is a super-effective predicting machine, but it has no agency, nor does it have volition. It can only do what it predicts it is what we're telling it to do (which is, of course, the part that is dangerous). God IS agency. Your point about God answering our prayers in ways unexpected is indeed the point - He cannot be predicted. AI can be, because that's all it is.
Thank you for that Aidas. However, I am sprinkling a pinch of salt here, simply because, as you well know, there is still much we don't know about AI. And that is what initially made the parallel an attractive one. But, of course, the parallel itself is deficient. I progress the line of thinking in another piece, which you can find here (https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/lifes-purpose-a-train-trip-to-our), from where you perhaps navigated to this article.
There are two ways to discover God, that I know of. One is to set out looking for Him, knowing He is there. It's like setting out to discover Paris, knowing how it's described in a guide book. A guide book can be relied on to tell fact, but God isn't Berlitz: he who sets out to discover God must establish his own faith in the authorship of the guide book being used. This method involves faith that's so strong, the discovery should be almost immediate. It depends on the leap of faith having already been taken, such that it's fair to ask: what exactly does the believer, then, discover?
The other way I know of is to not believe and to seek that which will convince one to believe. Done carefully, that can be as fulfilling as the discovery of America or of radium. He who discovers God by that path would be justified to ask the government to decree a day's holiday. For it's a discovery worthy of one. But the discovery in that case cannot be predicated on factual evidence. The places described in the guide book cannot, unlike in Paris, always be verified to see whether it's a cogent vade mecum. Where many - if I may be so presumptuous - fail to discover God, even supposing they're looking - is in demanding a standard of proof worthy of a criminal court - "beyond reasonable doubt." You hear their dismissal in a surprisingly small scope of language: "scant evidence"; as if what is sought is a sign of a pupil applying themselves at geography. Sir Christopher Wren, who was an architect in the 17th century, was the builder, after its destruction by fire, of St Paul's Cathedral in London. Around the famous "whispering gallery" that encircles the inner dome of the church, is written in Latin the inscription "si monumentum requiris, circumspice": If you seek [Wren's] monument, take a look around you. People smile when you tell them that at St Paul's. But they think you're daft if you tell them to look around the Earth for God's monument.
You cannot prove God by positive substantive evidence. God's not a court case or a computer program. Still less is He on trial. No matter how similar AI and God may ever get, neither will ever be the other. I'm in part convinced of the unprovability of God as a result of His own doing. I explored that in this other article, which is inspired by the notion of "plausible deniability" https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/on-plausible-deniability.
If I am right that positive evidence will not get us to God - and for me, I am, whether I am for others - then, rather than give up, I prefer to look at the means by which mankind is persuaded of the truth of other things on Earth: empirical observation to determine likelihood; plausible deniability, to establish innocence in law; corroboration to establish a probable fact. By asking how these methods, of which we accept the validity and cogency, stand up to reason when looking at God, whilst I may not actually be able to lay out concrete evidence (albeit I in fact can, on a number of scores), I can nonetheless lay out a case that I believe "stands to reason": that God is, and is what He is, because it stands to my reason that He should be that way. I've stood a panoply of aspects under this test and never found "stands to reason" not to make sense. Whether fathoming the rhyme and reason behind the Ten Commandments (this weekend, I actually tumbled to what I think "honour your father and mother" means), the nature of conscience, and of the judgment day, and what charity truly is, why human law includes statutory offences in which intention need not be proved, and God's law includes only intention, proof of which is already superfluous.
I allow myself no caveats, no "ifs" or "buts". Because there are none in the Ten Commandments or Jesus' two commandments; and that means that you can make simply guidelines that apply without discrimination and create therewith a perfect world, and never say the word "if" or "but".
A while back, I awoke with a start and said a phrase to myself that sounded true, and no one was here to tell me otherwise. I wrote it down and, if you read it, it was me that said it first. If you say something to a room full of intelligent people about God and they nod in approval at what you said, you will not have gone wrong. You will have said something fit for a verse of a hymn. If you say something that sounds off the mark, and can justify it with your heartfelt reasoning, you may yet be wrong, although no one will be able to say definitively that you are wrong. But you will have shown your audience that it's possible to find God other than down the beaten track. That's obvious: He's everywhere, so, everywhere you seek, you will find Him, of that there's no question. Before getting to "the phrase that woke me up", here's one of those less-acceptable conclusions about God, just to show you I can have my maverick moments: there are more skinhead thugs in heaven than company directors. If you're ready to open your mind, the reasoning is here: https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/the-brussels-congress-column-and; and, at last, the phrase that caused me to sit bolt upright. It was this: "God is not for everyone. He's for every one." God is not a city sight; he can't be shown to someone to admire and pay a ticket price for. But, with no ticket price, every individual can find Him. I think it has to be a lone journey.
Aidas, this is a long reply to your very kind compliment. The article, and your comment, touch on a very important matter to me and, I know, to you. It is heartening that you take the trouble to engage. It's a great honour to tread these particular pathways in your company. Those who prefer not to raise a comment are still welcome. Precisely because I think God's for every one, not for everyone. I'm very thankful that my enquiry has reconfirmed what was always there in me. It could so easily have urged me away from Him. But it didn't. Even though I tried.
If you'd like to read more about guide books, the analogy is developed in full here: https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/id-like-to-connect-heres-868-words.