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

[Diamond72]

And to my understanding, that is also what Calvin taught.

Humility does not allow people to feel infallible.

 

[Diamond72]

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?

Wesley argued that humans have the ability to choose to accept or reject God's grace and that salvation is available to all who believe, not just to a select few predetermined by God.

 

[Diamond72]

Who cares what AI says on the subject of free will... what does scripture say?

The question has to do with the logic and reason that AI uses. Is it valid or not? The Bible talks about wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. AI talks about mathematical and logical principles that enable it to analyze data, identify patterns, and make decisions based on that analysis.

If we study the Hebrew language we see that every letter has a mathematical value. The Hasidic and Kaballah talk about this quite a bit. For example, if two different words add up to the same value they are said to be related or connected in some way.

Gematria is a system of assigning numerical values to Hebrew letters, with the belief that the resulting numbers have significant meaning and symbolism.

A simple example of gematria:

The Hebrew word for "father" is אב (av), which has a numerical value of 3. The Hebrew word for "mother" is אם (em), which also has a numerical value of 3. When you add these two numbers together (3 + 3), you get 6, which is the numerical value of the Hebrew word for "child," ילד (yeled).

 

[fhansen]

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.

Natural intelligence should be able to come up with this same reasoning. I haven't understood why there's much of a debate to begin with.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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)​

Are you saying that Open AI reasons concerning morality? Has it discovered the solution to the "is-ought" problem?

 

[John Mullally]

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

Are you saying that Open AI reasons concerning morality? Has it discovered the solution to the "is-ought" problem?

The following Calvinist derivative not compute: God hold man responsible for actions that God decreed man do.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Wesley argued that humans have the ability to choose to accept or reject God's grace and that salvation is available to all who believe, not just to a select few predetermined by God.

Does Calvin say that some who believe and are not predetermined by God to believe are rejected contrary to that belief? In other words, do those whom God has not chosen, ever truly have saving faith? I have not seen Calvin deny John 3:16. After all, WHO, is that 'whosoever'?

 

[Mark Quayle]

The following Calvinist derivative not compute: God hold man responsible for actions that God decreed man do.

In other words, it is taking the word of others. AI cannot compute morality. It "took a poll".

 

[Diamond72]

n other words, do those whom God has not chosen, ever truly have saving faith?

I personally believe that every name is written in the Lamb's book of Life from the foundation of the world. So everyone is saved unless their name is blotted out. There are 8 billion people alive and 70 trillion possible combinations of DNA. That is why everyone is unique.
.

 

[Diamond72]

In other words, it is taking the word of others. AI cannot compute morality. It "took a poll".

AI cannot be held liable in a court of law. The source or the person that uses the information takes on full responsibility.