The AI has learned Thomas Aquinas. Ask it some questions

[AlexB23]

Another question for AI: Does the above statement from Aquinas' 5 ways mean that all contingencies would have gone out of existence, or does it mean that no contingencies would ever have come to exist?

Here is the answer from the machine about Aquinas' 5 Ways. It basically says space and Earth would not exist without God. Seems that the machine does pretty well at theology. Should I install James Arminius into the machine next?

Prompt: "But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, nothing would exist now." Does this statement from Aquinas' 5 ways mean that all contingencies would have gone out of existence, or does it mean that no contingencies would ever have come to exist?

Response:

 

[Mark Quayle]

Here is the answer from the machine about Aquinas' 5 Ways. It basically says space and Earth would not exist without God. Seems that the machine does pretty well at theology. Should I install James Arminius into the machine next?

Prompt: "But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, nothing would exist now." Does this statement from Aquinas' 5 ways mean that all contingencies would have gone out of existence, or does it mean that no contingencies would ever have come to exist?

Response:

View attachment 354833

That's pretty much what I figured it would say. It has been indoctrinated with certain assumptions, among which are that what cannot be shown to be impossible, is therefore possible. But that is logically false.

 

[AlexB23]

That's pretty much what I figured it would say. It has been indoctrinated with certain assumptions, among which are that what cannot be shown to be impossible, is therefore possible. But that is logically false.

So, are you saying that the AI is indoctrinated in a bad way? How would you answer this question better (without using AI)?

 

[Mark Quayle]

So, are you saying that the AI is indoctrinated in a bad way? How would you answer this question better (without using AI)?

No more than the far majority of humanity, and even of the church, that assumes such things as "the command implies the ability to obey", and the validity of notions such as causation by chance or randomness.

But to be specific to the machine's assumptions: It did a good job of representing what was quoted to it as Aquinas' statement. But the last line is what got me. "...Aquinas acknowledges that God's knowledge is certain and infallible about future contingencies, which means some contingent beings do come into existence despite the possibility of non-existence." I can't help but wondering —WHAT possibility of non-existence?

It seems a poor way to describe the meaning of contingency, in the context of God. If God brings a contingent being into existence, where is the possibility that it might not have existed? But then, maybe my puzzlement here harks back to my disagreement with the notion that this proves God's existence, but instead, rather, proves only that if we say thus and such, then we should believe this and that.

Maybe I'm wrong, but to me, the philosophical use of 'contingency', here, has to do with HOW a thing exists —that is, whether the being, (let's say, being 2) is a necessary being or whether it is dependent on a necessary being (being 1)— not, after all, whether it is possible that the being 2 might not have existed. What God has determined will surely come to pass.

 

[AlexB23]

No more than the far majority of humanity, and even of the church, that assumes such things as "the command implies the ability to obey", and the validity of notions such as causation by chance or randomness.

But to be specific to the machine's assumptions: It did a good job of representing what was quoted to it as Aquinas' statement. But the last line is what got me. "...Aquinas acknowledges that God's knowledge is certain and infallible about future contingencies, which means some contingent beings do come into existence despite the possibility of non-existence." I can't help but wondering —WHAT possibility of non-existence?

It seems a poor way to describe the meaning of contingency, in the context of God. If God brings a contingent being into existence, where is the possibility that it might not have existed? But then, maybe my puzzlement here harks back to my disagreement with the notion that this proves God's existence, but instead, rather, proves only that if we say thus and such, then we should believe this and that.

Maybe I'm wrong, but to me, the philosophical use of 'contingency', here, has to do with HOW a thing exists —that is, whether the being, (let's say, being 2) is a necessary being or whether it is dependent on a necessary being (being 1)— not, after all, whether it is possible that the being 2 might not have existed. What God has determined will surely come to pass.

No idea here. We do not need theologians to believe that God is real. All we need is our faith.