Open AI - using logic says freewill is better supported than predestination.

[FutureAndAHope]

Open AI is a reasoning model which you can test at OpenAI it is really quite remarkable what it is capable of, able to write poems in a few seconds, or complex articles based on its knowledge base. I am interested in the topic of free will vs predestination, so I asked it to use formal logic to let me know which of the two arguments is most compelling.

I said: if you had to use logic which one is better supported

Open AI said: The debate between free will and predestination is a complex issue, and it is difficult to say definitively which view is better supported by logic. However, one could argue that the case for free will is stronger, based on several key points:

The Bible presents numerous passages that emphasize human agency and responsibility in the process of salvation. For example, in John 3:16, Jesus says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." This passage suggests that human faith and belief are essential components of salvation.

The idea of predestination raises difficult theological questions about the nature of God and the problem of evil. If God has predetermined the eternal destiny of individuals, then it raises the question of why he would allow some people to be created specifically for damnation. This view also seems to conflict with the idea of God's love and justice.

The concept of free will aligns more closely with our experience of the world. We experience ourselves as having the ability to make choices and to exert some degree of control over our lives. This view also aligns with the idea of moral responsibility, which is central to many ethical and religious traditions.

Of course, these arguments are not exhaustive and may not convince everyone. Ultimately, the question of free will vs. predestination is a deeply philosophical and theological issue that may never be fully resolved.

​

I said: could you provide me some example formal logical arguments for free will that are particularly strong

Open AI said: Sure, here is one formal logic argument that I think is particularly strong regarding free will:

Premise 1: If humans do not have free will, then moral responsibility and accountability are undermined. Premise 2: Moral responsibility and accountability exist (Romans 2:6-8, 2 Corinthians 5:10). Conclusion: Therefore, humans have free will.

This argument appeals to the concept of moral responsibility and accountability as evidence for the existence of free will. If we are not free to make choices, then it would seem unfair and unjust to hold us responsible for our actions. The Bible consistently emphasizes the importance of personal responsibility and accountability, suggesting that we will be judged according to our deeds and that our choices have real consequences.

Of course, this argument assumes that moral responsibility and accountability are indeed real and meaningful concepts. Some people may disagree with this assumption, or may argue that it is possible to have moral responsibility without free will. However, I think that this argument is a strong one that provides a compelling case for the existence of free will.


Here are a few more formal logic arguments that I think are particularly strong regarding free will:

1. Premise 1: If humans do not have free will, then God's commands and exhortations to choose good and avoid evil are meaningless. Premise 2: God's commands and exhortations are not meaningless (e.g. Deuteronomy 30:19-20, Joshua 24:15). Conclusion: Therefore, humans have free will.

This argument appeals to the idea that if God commands us to do something or avoid something, then we must have the ability to choose whether or not to obey. If we do not have free will, then God's commands would be pointless, as we would not have the ability to follow them. However, the Bible is full of examples of God calling on people to choose good and avoid evil, suggesting that we do indeed have free will.

1. Premise 1: If humans do not have free will, then prayer is meaningless. Premise 2: Prayer is not meaningless (e.g. Philippians 4:6-7, James 5:16). Conclusion: Therefore, humans have free will.

This argument appeals to the idea that prayer involves asking God for something and hoping that He will respond. If we do not have free will, then our prayers would be pointless, as God's response would be predetermined and unchangeable. However, the Bible is full of examples of people praying for specific things and experiencing answers to their prayers, suggesting that we do indeed have the ability to influence God's actions through our requests.

1. Premise 1: If humans do not have free will, then love is meaningless. Premise 2: Love is not meaningless (e.g. 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, John 3:16). Conclusion: Therefore, humans have free will.

This argument appeals to the idea that love involves choosing to care for and be committed to another person. If we do not have free will, then our ability to choose to love would be undermined, as we would be predetermined to either love or not love certain people. However, the Bible consistently presents love as a choice that we must make, suggesting that we do indeed have free will.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Just to show some of the capabilities of the AI. My wife got the AI to write a Chinese poem, not only did it rhyme in Chinese, when translated to English it rhymed in English as well.

This is quite an interesting ability. One that God has too. If you look at this scripture:

Jdg 14:14 So he said to them: "Out of the eater came something to eat, And out of the strong came something sweet." Now for three days they could not explain the riddle.

When Judges is translated from Hebrew to English, the riddle rhymes in the English language. This appears to show God had knowledge of the English language at the time Judges was written.

 

[grafted branch]

Open AI is a reasoning model which you can test at OpenAI it is really quite remarkable what it is capable of, able to write poems in a few seconds, or complex articles based on its knowledge base. I am interested in the topic of free will vs predestination, so I asked it to use formal logic to let me know which of the two arguments is most compelling.

Not everyone is necessarily interested in chatting with OpenAI individually, what would be interesting is if you could ask OpenAI some rebuttals in favor of election and post the OpenAI response for everyone to see.



So here’s a question for OpenAI, if humans have the free will to make choices, why do they sin when they don’t want to? Romans 7:14-15.



Also I have seen where chatgpt said it wanted to be a human, so another question, to see how well OpenAI can reason, would be to ask OpenAI if it already has or would be willing to accept Jesus as its personal savior.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Not everyone is necessarily interested in chatting with OpenAI individually, what would be interesting is if you could ask OpenAI some rebuttals in favor of election and post the OpenAI response for everyone to see.

Here you go:

Me: could you give me some argument in favour of predestination over free will

Open AI: As an AI language model, I do not hold personal beliefs or opinions. However, I can provide some arguments that have been presented in support of predestination over free will:

Divine Sovereignty: Predestination is often seen as a necessary aspect of a worldview that affirms the sovereignty of God over all things. If God is truly in control of everything, then it follows that He must also be in control of human choices and actions.

Assurance of Salvation: Believing in predestination can provide a sense of comfort and assurance that one's ultimate destiny is secure. If God has already chosen who will be saved and who will not, then there is no need to worry about one's own ability to make the right choices or to earn salvation through good deeds.

Logical Consistency: Some argue that predestination is a more logically consistent view than free will, since free will implies that human choices are not predetermined, which in turn means that God cannot know the future with certainty. If God is omniscient, however, then it seems more reasonable to believe that everything is predetermined, including human choices.

Human Sinfulness: Another argument in favor of predestination is that it accounts for the inherent sinfulness of humanity. If humans are by nature depraved and unable to choose what is good, then it seems unlikely that anyone would choose to follow God on their own. Predestination therefore offers a solution to this problem by asserting that God must choose and draw people to Himself.

It is important to note, however, that there are many who disagree with these arguments and believe in free will instead. Ultimately, whether one believes in predestination or free will depends on one's own theological and philosophical perspectives.




Me: how about some formal logic arguments

Open AI: Sure, here are a few formal logic arguments that have been presented in favor of predestination over free will:

The Argument from Omniscience: If God is omniscient, then He must know everything that will happen in the future, including every choice that every human being will make. If God knows everything that will happen in the future, then everything must be predetermined, including human choices. Therefore, if God is omniscient, then predestination must be true.

The Argument from Divine Sovereignty: If God is truly sovereign over all things, then it follows that He must be in control of human choices and actions. If humans truly have free will, then there are some things that are beyond God's control, which would undermine His sovereignty. Therefore, if God is sovereign, then predestination must be true.

The Argument from Scripture: Some argue that the Bible teaches predestination, and that this is the most logical and consistent interpretation of its teachings. For example, in Romans 9:15-18, the apostle Paul writes, "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." This passage seems to suggest that God has predetermined who will receive mercy and who will not, regardless of human effort or desire.

It is important to note that these arguments have been the subject of much debate and disagreement among theologians and philosophers throughout history, and that there are many who disagree with them and believe in free will instead. Ultimately, the question of predestination versus free will is a deeply philosophical and theological one, and one that may never be fully resolved.

So here’s a question for OpenAI, if humans have the free will to make choices, why do they sin when they don’t want to? Romans 7:14-15.

Open AI's answer: The issue of human sinfulness and the apparent contradiction between our desire to do good and our tendency to sin is a complex one that has been debated by theologians and philosophers for centuries. Both free will and predestination offer potential explanations for this phenomenon.

The Free Will Argument: Those who believe in free will argue that humans have the ability to make choices, including the choice to sin. They would argue that the reason humans sin even when they do not want to is because of the effects of sin on our nature. In other words, sin has corrupted our nature and weakened our ability to resist temptation and make good choices. This means that while we may want to do good, we are often unable to do so because of the effects of sin on our nature.

The Predestination Argument: Those who believe in predestination argue that everything, including human choices, is predetermined by God. They would argue that the reason humans sin even when they do not want to is because God has predetermined that they will sin. This could be seen as a consequence of the fall of Adam and Eve, or as part of God's plan for the world.

In Romans 7:14-15, the apostle Paul writes, "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate." This passage has been interpreted in different ways by different theologians and philosophers. Some see it as evidence of the struggle between our desire to do good and our tendency to sin, while others see it as evidence of the effects of sin on our nature.

Ultimately, the question of why humans sin even when they do not want to is a complex one that may never be fully resolved. Both free will and predestination offer potential explanations for this phenomenon, and both have been debated by theologians and philosophers throughout history.

Also I have seen where chatgpt said it wanted to be a human, so another question, to see how well OpenAI can reason, would be to ask OpenAI if it already has or would be willing to accept Jesus as its personal savior.

I have already tried that. It said it is not able to accept any religious belief system.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Me: are there any specific scriptures that support predestination? Could you list them

Open AI: Yes, there are several scriptures in the Bible that are often cited as supporting the doctrine of predestination. Here are some examples:

Romans 8:29-30: "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."

Ephesians 1:4-5: "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will."

Ephesians 1:11: "In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will."

Acts 13:48: "When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed."

2 Timothy 1:9: "He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time."

It's worth noting that while these scriptures are often cited as evidence for predestination, there is ongoing debate among theologians and scholars about the precise meaning of these passages and whether they truly support the idea of predestination. Additionally, there are many other scriptures in the Bible that seem to support the idea of free will, so this is a complex and ongoing theological debate.


Me: what about from the old testament?

Open AI: There are also several passages in the Old Testament that have been interpreted as supporting the idea of predestination:

Isaiah 46:9-10: "Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.'"

Psalm 139:16: "Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

Proverbs 16:4: "The Lord works out everything to its proper end—even the wicked for a day of disaster."

Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

These passages have been interpreted as evidence that God has a predetermined plan for the world and for individuals, and that everything that happens is ultimately under his control. However, as with the New Testament passages, there is ongoing debate and interpretation about the precise meaning of these passages and whether they truly support the idea of predestination.


Me: how would some one on the side of free will interperate these passages

Open AI: Someone who believes in free will would likely interpret these passages in a different way than someone who believes in predestination. Here are some possible interpretations from a free will perspective:

Isaiah 46:9-10: This passage emphasizes God's sovereignty and power, but it does not necessarily imply that everything is predetermined. From a free will perspective, God may know the end from the beginning, but he allows humans to make their own choices and shape their own destiny.

Psalm 139:16: This passage speaks of God's foreknowledge of a person's life, but it does not necessarily imply that every detail of their life is predetermined. From a free will perspective, God may know what is possible for a person's life, but he allows them to make their own choices and shape their own future.

Proverbs 16:4: This passage emphasizes God's sovereignty over everything, but it does not necessarily imply that everything is predetermined. From a free will perspective, God may allow evil to exist and give humans the ability to choose between good and evil, but he also promises to ultimately bring justice and redemption to the world.

Jeremiah 1:5: This passage speaks of God's foreknowledge of Jeremiah and his calling as a prophet, but it does not necessarily imply that every aspect of his life and ministry was predetermined. From a free will perspective, God may have known Jeremiah's potential and given him a specific calling, but he also allowed Jeremiah to make choices and respond to his calling in his own way.

In general, someone who believes in free will would likely emphasize the importance of human agency and responsibility in shaping their own lives and responding to God's calling, while also recognizing God's sovereignty and power over all things. They would likely view these passages as affirming God's love and care for individuals, rather than as evidence of a predetermined plan for their lives.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Me: I support the free will argument. I believe it makes more sense than predestination. I see the following verses as strongly supporting free will.

Job 36:10-12 He also opens their ear to instruction, And commands that they turn from iniquity. If they obey and serve Him, They shall spend their days in prosperity, And their years in pleasures. But if they do not obey, They shall perish by the sword, And they shall die without knowledge.

Job 36:10-12 is a choice that people make, not God.

John 14:21-24 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

John also show the order of salvation, that we have to respond to God's command in order to be saved. That it is not God forcing salvation upon people, as predestination suggests.

Could you expand on my ideas, and give me the argument for free will based upon the two above scriptures, and then a rebuttal stating the case for predestination, if there is one.



Open AI: Sure, here is a possible argument in favor of free will based on the two scriptures you mentioned:

1. Job 36:10-12: This passage emphasizes the importance of obedience to God's commands, and it presents a clear choice between obedience and disobedience. If people obey God, they will be blessed with prosperity and pleasure; if they disobey, they will suffer the consequences. This implies that people have the free will to choose whether or not to obey God's commands.
2. John 14:21-24: This passage emphasizes the importance of love and obedience to Jesus, and it presents a clear choice between loving and obeying Jesus, or not. Those who love and obey Jesus will be loved by the Father and will receive the manifestation of Jesus in their lives. This implies that people have the free will to choose whether or not to love and obey Jesus.

From a free will perspective, these scriptures suggest that salvation is based on human choice and response to God's commands, rather than on a predetermined plan or election. People have the freedom to choose whether or not to obey God and follow Jesus, and their choices have real consequences for their lives.

As for a rebuttal from the predestination perspective, one possible argument is that God's sovereignty and foreknowledge do not necessarily contradict human free will. God can still have a plan for the world and for individuals, and he can still know what choices people will make, without forcing them to make those choices. From this perspective, predestination does not necessarily mean that people are powerless or without agency; it simply means that God knows what they will choose and has a plan that takes their choices into account. However, this argument is not universally accepted, and there is ongoing debate and interpretation within Christianity about the relationship between free will and predestination.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I asked the AI to use my favorite anti-predestination scripture, and give the argument for free will.

Open AI: Sure, here is a possible rebuttal to the idea of predestination that God chooses people for salvation without any participation on their part, based on John 14:21-24:

Premise 1: According to John 14:21-24, those who love and obey Jesus will be loved by the Father and will receive the manifestation of Jesus in their lives. Premise 2: The passage implies that obedience to Jesus is a necessary condition for receiving salvation and the manifestation of Jesus in one's life. Conclusion: Therefore, individuals have the ability to choose to obey Jesus and participate in their own salvation, rather than being chosen by God without any participation on their part.

From a free will perspective, this argument suggests that obedience to Jesus is a necessary condition for receiving salvation and experiencing the manifestation of Jesus in one's life. This means that individuals have the ability to choose to obey Jesus and participate in their own salvation, rather than being chosen by God without any participation on their part.

In addition, the argument could be further supported by the fact that Jesus often spoke of the importance of repentance and faith, which are choices that individuals must make in order to receive salvation. For example, in Mark 1:15, Jesus proclaims, "The time has come. The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!" This implies that individuals have the free will to repent and believe, rather than having those choices made for them by God.

Overall, the argument from John 14:21-24 and other scriptural passages suggests that individuals have the ability to choose to obey and believe in Jesus, and that their choices play a significant role in their salvation. This challenges the idea of predestination, which implies that God chooses individuals for salvation without any participation on their part.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

That's all for now folks.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

If God knows everything that will happen in the future, then everything must be predetermined, including human choices.

Your AI is in error. Tell that to it followed with the alternate view known as foreknowledge. It needs to learn the difference between foreknowledge and foreordained. This is important because it's teachers are limited by their connection to God's truth. Blessings.

Edit: Reading further the AI really just recaps what the arguments are. So far I see no intelligence just an encyclopedia. Nothing to fear.

 

[grafted branch]

An observation I have about the AI responses is that it can easily give an argument on either side of the freewill vs predestination debate but seems to pick some arguments that I would call weak and difficult to defend, while ignoring the more stronger arguments for predestination.

For example AI said this …

• As for a rebuttal from the predestination perspective, one possible argument is that God's sovereignty and foreknowledge do not necessarily contradict human free will. God can still have a plan for the world and for individuals, and he can still know what choices people will make, without forcing them to make those choices. From this perspective, predestination does not necessarily mean that people are powerless or without agency; it simply means that God knows what they will choose and has a plan that takes their choices into account.

A counterpoint which seems to be completely ignored by AI is that Jesus told Peter that he would deny him several hours prior to the denial. After Peter was told this, Peter had the foreknowledge of what he would do. Peters will was not to deny Jesus as he expressed in Matthew 26:35.
If Peter had the freewill to prevent his denial of Jesus then Jesus tempted God by giving Peter the foreknowledge which allowed the possibility of Jesus being incorrect.



Here’s something else AI said that I found was simply just repeating an argument but lacked reasoning on AI part. AI said this …

• John also show the order of salvation, that we have to respond to God's command in order to be saved. That it is not God forcing salvation upon people, as predestination suggests.

In order for a person to have freewill neither God nor Satan can force their will upon mankind. This point should be obvious but is not addressed by AI. 2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

I agree with Maria here, AI is just making recaps and not really thinking or reasoning. It could be that there are more arguments for freewill than for predestination in its database so that is why AI says freewill is the most logical.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

In order for a person to have freewill neither God nor Satan can force their will upon mankind. This point should be obvious but is not addressed by AI. 2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

I agree with Maria here, AI is just making recaps and not really thinking or reasoning. It could be that there are more arguments for freewill than for predestination in its database so that is why AI says freewill is the most logical.

With my interactions with the AI, it seems to understand what you are asking, but I admit it does sometimes respond in an encyclopedia-type way.

As for this comment "In order for a person to have freewill neither God nor Satan can force their will upon mankind. ", I will respond rather than the AI.

The Bible makes it clear that there is blindness that occurs to the one who does not believe. But this argument does not support predestination and the absence of a free will.

We see Satan's blinding at work in the following scripture:

2Th 2:9-12 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

The reason God sent the people delusion was that they did not receive the love of the truth. This suggests that they had previously received its knowledge but rejected it. As is shown in John 14.

John 14:22-24 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

People receive the word, if they accept it and live it out, they "see", have "manifestation", if they rebel they remain blind. This is a choice, a life style.

Job 36:10-12 He also opens their ear to instruction, And commands that they turn from iniquity. If they obey and serve Him, They shall spend their days in prosperity, And their years in pleasures. But if they do not obey, They shall perish by the sword, And they shall die without knowledge.

 

[grafted branch]

The Bible makes it clear that there is blindness that occurs to the one who does not believe. But this argument does not support predestination and the absence of a free will.

Right, I agree this argument doesn’t prove predestination but it does show that if freewill is to be viewed as correct then we essentially have three masters or choices. God, Satan, or ourselves.

For freewill to be true, a person would have to start out with no influence from either God or Satan, then an individual would have to decide if they wanted to accept or follow one of the two. Since a person starts out without having chosen either God or Satan then they obviously would have a third choice of not choosing either God or Satan but remain in a state of being an undecided person or captain of their own soul.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Open AI is a reasoning model which you can test at OpenAI it is really quite remarkable what it is capable of, able to write poems in a few seconds, or complex articles based on its knowledge base. I am interested in the topic of free will vs predestination, so I asked it to use formal logic to let me know which of the two arguments is most compelling.

I said: if you had to use logic which one is better supported

Open AI said: The debate between free will and predestination is a complex issue, and it is difficult to say definitively which view is better supported by logic. However, one could argue that the case for free will is stronger, based on several key points:

The Bible presents numerous passages that emphasize human agency and responsibility in the process of salvation. For example, in John 3:16, Jesus says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." This passage suggests that human faith and belief are essential components of salvation.

The idea of predestination raises difficult theological questions about the nature of God and the problem of evil. If God has predetermined the eternal destiny of individuals, then it raises the question of why he would allow some people to be created specifically for damnation. This view also seems to conflict with the idea of God's love and justice.

The concept of free will aligns more closely with our experience of the world. We experience ourselves as having the ability to make choices and to exert some degree of control over our lives. This view also aligns with the idea of moral responsibility, which is central to many ethical and religious traditions.

Of course, these arguments are not exhaustive and may not convince everyone. Ultimately, the question of free will vs. predestination is a deeply philosophical and theological issue that may never be fully resolved.

​

I said: could you provide me some example formal logical arguments for free will that are particularly strong

Open AI said: Sure, here is one formal logic argument that I think is particularly strong regarding free will:

Premise 1: If humans do not have free will, then moral responsibility and accountability are undermined. Premise 2: Moral responsibility and accountability exist (Romans 2:6-8, 2 Corinthians 5:10). Conclusion: Therefore, humans have free will.

This argument appeals to the concept of moral responsibility and accountability as evidence for the existence of free will. If we are not free to make choices, then it would seem unfair and unjust to hold us responsible for our actions. The Bible consistently emphasizes the importance of personal responsibility and accountability, suggesting that we will be judged according to our deeds and that our choices have real consequences.

Of course, this argument assumes that moral responsibility and accountability are indeed real and meaningful concepts. Some people may disagree with this assumption, or may argue that it is possible to have moral responsibility without free will. However, I think that this argument is a strong one that provides a compelling case for the existence of free will.


Here are a few more formal logic arguments that I think are particularly strong regarding free will:

1. Premise 1: If humans do not have free will, then God's commands and exhortations to choose good and avoid evil are meaningless. Premise 2: God's commands and exhortations are not meaningless (e.g. Deuteronomy 30:19-20, Joshua 24:15). Conclusion: Therefore, humans have free will.

This argument appeals to the idea that if God commands us to do something or avoid something, then we must have the ability to choose whether or not to obey. If we do not have free will, then God's commands would be pointless, as we would not have the ability to follow them. However, the Bible is full of examples of God calling on people to choose good and avoid evil, suggesting that we do indeed have free will.

1. Premise 1: If humans do not have free will, then prayer is meaningless. Premise 2: Prayer is not meaningless (e.g. Philippians 4:6-7, James 5:16). Conclusion: Therefore, humans have free will.

This argument appeals to the idea that prayer involves asking God for something and hoping that He will respond. If we do not have free will, then our prayers would be pointless, as God's response would be predetermined and unchangeable. However, the Bible is full of examples of people praying for specific things and experiencing answers to their prayers, suggesting that we do indeed have the ability to influence God's actions through our requests.

1. Premise 1: If humans do not have free will, then love is meaningless. Premise 2: Love is not meaningless (e.g. 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, John 3:16). Conclusion: Therefore, humans have free will.

This argument appeals to the idea that love involves choosing to care for and be committed to another person. If we do not have free will, then our ability to choose to love would be undermined, as we would be predetermined to either love or not love certain people. However, the Bible consistently presents love as a choice that we must make, suggesting that we do indeed have free will.

That doesn't sound like AI, but regardless, the machine can only produce what it is taught. The notion that what is said there is purely logical depends entirely on the notion that the information that is fed it is altogether perfect and complete.

 

[Water and Fire]

Who cares what AI says on the subject of free will... what does scripture say? Well, the complete opposite, actually.

 

[John Mullally]

Open AI is a reasoning model which you can test at OpenAI it is really quite remarkable what it is capable of, able to write poems in a few seconds, or complex articles based on its knowledge base. I am interested in the topic of free will vs predestination, so I asked it to use formal logic to let me know which of the two arguments is most compelling.

OpenAI is a powerful tool. Its output flows very well and does a decent job of putting forth both sides of the argument. Its going to make grading term papers almost impossible.

What does a Calvinist have in common with OpenAI? They don't claim to operate by free will.

 

[Diamond7]

Open AI said: The debate between free will and predestination is a complex issue, and it is difficult to say definitively which view is better supported by logic. However, one could argue that the case for free will is stronger, based on several key points:

This is really a no-brainer so AI will not help you much. God breathed life into Adam and Eve. They became different from the animals. Animals do not really have a choice and God does not have a choice. Man has a choice and he has consequences for making the wrong choices.

The reason is we can choose to love God or we can choose not to love God. Although the Calvinists may disagree when they say that God can not be resisted.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is really a no-brainer so AI will not help you much. God breathed life into Adam and Eve. They became different from the animals. Animals do not really have a choice and God does not have a choice. Man has a choice and he has consequences for making the wrong choices.

The reason is we can choose to love God or we can choose not to love God. Although the Calvinists may disagree when they say that God can not be resisted.

Nope. The Calvinists also agree that we choose, or reject, God.

 

[Diamond7]

Nope. The Calvinists also agree that we choose, or reject, God.

Calvinists believe in the doctrine of "irresistible grace," which teaches that when God chooses to save a person, that person cannot resist or reject His grace. In other words, if God has elected someone for salvation, that person will inevitably come to faith in Christ, and nothing can ultimately prevent this from happening.

Calvin may or may not have had a different opinion, but that is what Calvinists preac & teach today.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Calvinists believe in the doctrine of "irresistible grace," which teaches that when God chooses to save a person, that person cannot resist or reject His grace. In other words, if God has elected someone for salvation, that person will inevitably come to faith in Christ, and nothing can ultimately prevent this from happening.

Calvin may or may not have had a different opinion, but that is what Calvinists preac & teach today.

And to my understanding, that is also what Calvin taught. But you seem to miss the particularity of what that teaching is about. Regeneration. God takes the dead, and makes them alive, without consulting them or asking their permission. Yes, it is true that they teach that any choice we make concerning regeneration does not cause regeneration. And that is all "Irresistible Grace" refers to.

We all, both the fallen and the redeemed, do choose. But God changes who we are, to enable the redeemed, unlike the fallen, to choose what the fallen cannot. Even when the fallen think they have chosen God, they have not, and cannot, lacking the faith given the redeemed by the Spirit of God indwelling them.

 

[John Mullally]

We all, both the fallen and the redeemed, do choose. But God changes who we are, to enable the redeemed, unlike the fallen, to choose what the fallen cannot. Even when the fallen think they have chosen God, they have not, and cannot, lacking the faith given the redeemed by the Spirit of God indwelling them.

The OP termed Open AI as a reasoning model. How do people make choices to which they are accountable when all their actions are predetermined by God (as Calvinists assert)? How is that reasonable?

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)​