My comment wasn't along the lines of anything malfunctioning, but just of AI doing what it's supposed to do: respond to dynamic situations, learn from those, add to its own database, and keep cranking. So saying, suppose through a series of "experiences," an AI unit was making "decisions" that didn't necessarily meet the approval of the designer? Well, that has nothing to do with it. The designer created it to make its own decisions, and the designer is not responsible for the experiences or the decisions that the unit makes "on its own."
I agree that AI is designed with a purpose in mind. (Which, I think, supports my idea that intelligence and informational data are best traced back to former intelligence and informational data. It's inferring a more reasonable conclusion than to think such things arise on their own.)
I would also agree that AI doesn't have "free will." Free will requires self-awareness (consciousness) and rational thought. Right now, at least for the time being, AI is somewhat "primitive" software in what it's capable of doing (like self-driving cars).
> doesn't the creator have a responsibility to stop the AI causing harm (if the creator can) even if he/she is not responsible for its activities?
The Bible is full of stories where that's exactly what's happening (God stopping harmful behavior). But if you want the "creator" to stop EVERY instance of harm, (1) then he's interfering with the very idea of AI because he is hindering it from making decisions, and (2) possibly the computer will never from its mistakes if it never allowed to make any. In other words, there may be reasons he lets it make decisions even that cause harm.
Board index ‹ Jesus
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by jimwalton » Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:06 pm
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by Book Mitten » Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:06 pm
> But you're talking about me. Love is not an alliance or even approval
I'm not saying it is
> or one could never love one's enemies, by definition
If you love them, they're not your enemy by definition, I don't think.
> But if love is sacrificing oneself for the other person's wellbeing, I could choose to do that.
Depends what you mean by sacrifice yourself. Do you mean going to your death? Or is it something else? Would you die for Hitler? More importantly, wouldn't you be indignant and in anguish at seeing someone you love in hell and suffering? If you don't, you don't love them as far as I'm concerned.
> Of course, that doesn't mean I would approve of his actions.
I would say his actions form a significant part of who he is.
> As Christians we are told to love everyone because it's a choice, not a compulsion.
Can you choose to love his evil actions then?
I'm not saying it is
> or one could never love one's enemies, by definition
If you love them, they're not your enemy by definition, I don't think.
> But if love is sacrificing oneself for the other person's wellbeing, I could choose to do that.
Depends what you mean by sacrifice yourself. Do you mean going to your death? Or is it something else? Would you die for Hitler? More importantly, wouldn't you be indignant and in anguish at seeing someone you love in hell and suffering? If you don't, you don't love them as far as I'm concerned.
> Of course, that doesn't mean I would approve of his actions.
I would say his actions form a significant part of who he is.
> As Christians we are told to love everyone because it's a choice, not a compulsion.
Can you choose to love his evil actions then?
- Book Mitten
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by jimwalton » Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:12 pm
> If you love them, they're not your enemy by definition, I don't think.
I would gladly do work for my parents, my siblings, and my friends. But I can also choose to do some work (out of kindness and grace) for someone who has been mean to me or hostile to me. I can choose that. As Christians we are called to a radical subversion of society's typical behaviors and standards. Jesus practiced it: he healed the ear of one man who came to arrest him, and expressed forgiveness for those who crucified him.
> Depends what you mean by sacrifice yourself. Do you mean going to your death? Or is it something else?
No, I don't mean death. I can shovel their driveway, make them a pie, rake their lawn, help them fix their brakes, give them money for rent—a thousand possibilities. I can choose to show my love for an enemy.
> Would you die for Hitler?
I'm pretty sure not, but Jesus did.
> More importantly, wouldn't you be indignant and in anguish at seeing someone you love in hell and suffering?
This is a tricky question. It's expected that those who are in heaven will gain a perfect understanding of God and learn to accept justice in rewards and justice in punishment, and so we deal with it in a different way than "Get over it, dude, your Mom is being tortured...".
In addition, we are specifically told that when we get to heaven our minds (the way we see, think, and understand) will be changed so that we will see as God sees and think as God thinks (1 Cor. 13.9-12; 1 John 3.2-3). Therefore we will understand that the action God has taken is not only perfectly fair, but His only reasonable choice, and the only possible response of love, holiness, justice, and mercy. When we see that, we will be more accepting and not overly swayed by emotions where somehow we think should have a higher priority than what is fair and right.
> I would say his actions form a significant part of who he is.
I agree, but I can have motives for kindness that reach beyond someone else's treatment of me. There is a much higher reality.
> Can you choose to love his evil actions then?
Nope. Evil actions come out of a person's heart, but there is possibly (for some) a place in their heart that is still reachable by kindness and love. I can try to reach a person without loving the evil that he does.
I would gladly do work for my parents, my siblings, and my friends. But I can also choose to do some work (out of kindness and grace) for someone who has been mean to me or hostile to me. I can choose that. As Christians we are called to a radical subversion of society's typical behaviors and standards. Jesus practiced it: he healed the ear of one man who came to arrest him, and expressed forgiveness for those who crucified him.
> Depends what you mean by sacrifice yourself. Do you mean going to your death? Or is it something else?
No, I don't mean death. I can shovel their driveway, make them a pie, rake their lawn, help them fix their brakes, give them money for rent—a thousand possibilities. I can choose to show my love for an enemy.
> Would you die for Hitler?
I'm pretty sure not, but Jesus did.
> More importantly, wouldn't you be indignant and in anguish at seeing someone you love in hell and suffering?
This is a tricky question. It's expected that those who are in heaven will gain a perfect understanding of God and learn to accept justice in rewards and justice in punishment, and so we deal with it in a different way than "Get over it, dude, your Mom is being tortured...".
In addition, we are specifically told that when we get to heaven our minds (the way we see, think, and understand) will be changed so that we will see as God sees and think as God thinks (1 Cor. 13.9-12; 1 John 3.2-3). Therefore we will understand that the action God has taken is not only perfectly fair, but His only reasonable choice, and the only possible response of love, holiness, justice, and mercy. When we see that, we will be more accepting and not overly swayed by emotions where somehow we think should have a higher priority than what is fair and right.
> I would say his actions form a significant part of who he is.
I agree, but I can have motives for kindness that reach beyond someone else's treatment of me. There is a much higher reality.
> Can you choose to love his evil actions then?
Nope. Evil actions come out of a person's heart, but there is possibly (for some) a place in their heart that is still reachable by kindness and love. I can try to reach a person without loving the evil that he does.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by Book Mitten » Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:31 am
> This is a tricky question. It's expected that those who are in heaven will gain a perfect understanding of God and learn to accept justice in rewards and justice in punishment, and so we deal with it in a different way than "Get over it, dude, your Mom is being tortured...".
Would this understanding detract from free will?
Would this understanding detract from free will?
- Book Mitten
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by jimwalton » Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:31 am
No it wouldn't. All of those who are heaven have voluntarily submitted their free will to the will of God. I have told God, "You have all of me. You can do with me whatever you want. Teach me how to think, how to act, how to feel, hear, and see." So when God conforms my way of thinking to His—that's actually what I want! It doesn't detract from my free will at all. In ways, it fulfills it. My will conformed to God's will is a supreme value.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by Book Mitten » Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:02 am
>> Would you die for Hitler?
> I'm pretty sure not, but Jesus did.
What I don't understand is how Jesus could be said to have died for those who reject him. Why did he even die in the first place if such a death only reaches a certain few? In what way does his suffering heal the wounds that are and have been perpetuated?
>> Depends what you mean by sacrifice yourself. Do you mean going to your death? Or is it something else?
> No, I don't mean death. I can shovel their driveway, make them a pie, rake their lawn, help them fix their brakes, give them money for rent—a thousand possibilities. I can choose to show my love for an enemy.
Perhaps we have a different definition of love. I don't consider doing those things to be the final say on what love is. I can do those things for someone I'm simply acquainted with or on good terms with.
>> If you love them, they're not your enemy by definition, I don't think.
> I would gladly do work for my parents, my siblings, and my friends. But I can also choose to do some work (out of kindness and grace) for someone who has been mean to me or hostile to me. I can choose that. As Christians we are called to a radical subversion of society's typical behaviors and standards. Jesus practiced it: he healed the ear of one man who came to arrest him, and expressed forgiveness for those who crucified him.
Turning the other cheek works on some levels, but I'm picking extreme examples for a reason. You wouldn't serve Hitler in such a way. There comes a point where these things go overboard.
> I'm pretty sure not, but Jesus did.
What I don't understand is how Jesus could be said to have died for those who reject him. Why did he even die in the first place if such a death only reaches a certain few? In what way does his suffering heal the wounds that are and have been perpetuated?
>> Depends what you mean by sacrifice yourself. Do you mean going to your death? Or is it something else?
> No, I don't mean death. I can shovel their driveway, make them a pie, rake their lawn, help them fix their brakes, give them money for rent—a thousand possibilities. I can choose to show my love for an enemy.
Perhaps we have a different definition of love. I don't consider doing those things to be the final say on what love is. I can do those things for someone I'm simply acquainted with or on good terms with.
>> If you love them, they're not your enemy by definition, I don't think.
> I would gladly do work for my parents, my siblings, and my friends. But I can also choose to do some work (out of kindness and grace) for someone who has been mean to me or hostile to me. I can choose that. As Christians we are called to a radical subversion of society's typical behaviors and standards. Jesus practiced it: he healed the ear of one man who came to arrest him, and expressed forgiveness for those who crucified him.
Turning the other cheek works on some levels, but I'm picking extreme examples for a reason. You wouldn't serve Hitler in such a way. There comes a point where these things go overboard.
- Book Mitten
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by jimwalton » Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:03 am
> What I don't understand is how Jesus could be said to have died for those who reject him.
John 15.13 says, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." The noblest love is giving the best we have and giving all of ourselves to the one we love the most. There are many scenarios where parents, spouses, or friends risk (and give) their own lives to save their loved ones. We understand the higher nobility of making that sacrifice for those who are hostile to you.
Romans 5.8 says "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." The thought here is not that he loved us because we were so deserving, but the opposite. It was not because we were lovable, but because He is love.
Luke 19.10. Jesus says, "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." Jesus came specifically for those who were hostile to him, to find them, invite them, and save them. Seeking shows initiative, desire, and action oriented to the wellbeing of the other.
John 3.16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." The essence of his love is that he sacrificially gave.
> Why did he even die in the first place if such a death only reaches a certain few?
He died for all, and the invitation to enter into relationship with Him is issued to all. But love can never be forced, so his sacrifice is only efficacious for those who respond.
> In what way does his suffering heal the wounds that are and have been perpetuated?
Isaiah 53.5 says, "But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." His taking the punishment for us is what allows us to be set free from sin, healed inside, and saved from death. It's as if we were sick and he took the virus out of us and put it in himself.
> Perhaps we have a different definition of love. I don't consider doing those things to be the final say on what love is.
They're not the final say, but instead various expressions of love. Love doesn't take, it gives. Love isn't self-centered, it's other-centered. Love is sacrificial, not self-aggrandizing.
> Turning the other cheek works on some levels, but I'm picking extreme examples for a reason. You wouldn't serve Hitler in such a way. There comes a point where these things go overboard.
"Turning the other cheek" is not a general principle for all of life, but an alternative response to insult and injury (alternative to vengeance and violence). "Turning the other cheek" doesn't abrogate justice (courtrooms), the use of force, military, police, or just war.
But I can still choose to absorb insult rather than lash out in vengeance. I can choose to serve someone hostile to me instead of hate them or wish injury upon them. But that doesn't mean I'm a patsy for abuse, a personal doormat for people more than happy to walk all over me, or a reluctance to press charges or seek justice in certain cases.
John 15.13 says, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." The noblest love is giving the best we have and giving all of ourselves to the one we love the most. There are many scenarios where parents, spouses, or friends risk (and give) their own lives to save their loved ones. We understand the higher nobility of making that sacrifice for those who are hostile to you.
Romans 5.8 says "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." The thought here is not that he loved us because we were so deserving, but the opposite. It was not because we were lovable, but because He is love.
Luke 19.10. Jesus says, "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." Jesus came specifically for those who were hostile to him, to find them, invite them, and save them. Seeking shows initiative, desire, and action oriented to the wellbeing of the other.
John 3.16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." The essence of his love is that he sacrificially gave.
> Why did he even die in the first place if such a death only reaches a certain few?
He died for all, and the invitation to enter into relationship with Him is issued to all. But love can never be forced, so his sacrifice is only efficacious for those who respond.
> In what way does his suffering heal the wounds that are and have been perpetuated?
Isaiah 53.5 says, "But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." His taking the punishment for us is what allows us to be set free from sin, healed inside, and saved from death. It's as if we were sick and he took the virus out of us and put it in himself.
> Perhaps we have a different definition of love. I don't consider doing those things to be the final say on what love is.
They're not the final say, but instead various expressions of love. Love doesn't take, it gives. Love isn't self-centered, it's other-centered. Love is sacrificial, not self-aggrandizing.
> Turning the other cheek works on some levels, but I'm picking extreme examples for a reason. You wouldn't serve Hitler in such a way. There comes a point where these things go overboard.
"Turning the other cheek" is not a general principle for all of life, but an alternative response to insult and injury (alternative to vengeance and violence). "Turning the other cheek" doesn't abrogate justice (courtrooms), the use of force, military, police, or just war.
But I can still choose to absorb insult rather than lash out in vengeance. I can choose to serve someone hostile to me instead of hate them or wish injury upon them. But that doesn't mean I'm a patsy for abuse, a personal doormat for people more than happy to walk all over me, or a reluctance to press charges or seek justice in certain cases.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by Book Mitten » Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:21 pm
> "Turning the other cheek" is not a general principle for all of life, but an alternative response to insult and injury (alternative to vengeance and violence).
Turning the other cheek seems to go out the window then in the afterlife. God uses more vengeance and violence than anyone in his damnation of undesirables.
> But love can never be forced, so his sacrifice is only efficacious for those who respond.
I don't get why "believe and obey or go to hell" is not seen as force by Christians.
Regarding sacrifice, God could simply prevent the worst sins in the first place, by making his presence known to the evil doer (who would likely then I imagine be compelled to cease the crime). You say that God may have some higher reason for not doing so, but if that is the case, why is his inflicting punishment on sinners necessary, if the perpetuation of their evil act was necessary for some higher purpose in the first place?>
Turning the other cheek seems to go out the window then in the afterlife. God uses more vengeance and violence than anyone in his damnation of undesirables.
> But love can never be forced, so his sacrifice is only efficacious for those who respond.
I don't get why "believe and obey or go to hell" is not seen as force by Christians.
Regarding sacrifice, God could simply prevent the worst sins in the first place, by making his presence known to the evil doer (who would likely then I imagine be compelled to cease the crime). You say that God may have some higher reason for not doing so, but if that is the case, why is his inflicting punishment on sinners necessary, if the perpetuation of their evil act was necessary for some higher purpose in the first place?>
- Book Mitten
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by jimwalton » Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:32 pm
> Turning the other cheek seems to go out the window then in the afterlife. God uses more vengeance and violence than anyone in his damnation of undesirables.
As I mentioned, "turning the other cheek" has to do with personal insult, not with justice. God's treatment of people in the afterlife will be the perfect application of justice, and there is no intersection at all with derogatory insult.
Also, to be clear, God isn't damning "undesirables," but only those who want nothing to do with life. If they want no association with life and grace (God's person), then they choose non-life and non-grace. There's nothing vengeful about it; it's justice.
> I don't get why "believe and obey or go to hell" is not seen as force by Christians.
Hell is the absence of God and of good, of life and of grace. If you have no desire to turn to God and share in His life and goodness, then being separated from Him, his life and his goodness are what you choose. Right now the people in California have a choice. They can obey the mandates to get out of town while there's a chance, or they choose the fire and its consequences. Believe the weather guys, the firemen, and the the evidence, or you suffer the consequences of your own choice. It's not honest to claim someone inflicted this condition on them if they refuse to respond to the invitation to be saved from it.
That's why it's not "force." You make your decisions and you live with the consequences of those decisions.
> Regarding sacrifice, God could simply prevent the worst sins in the first place, by making his presence known to the evil doer (who would likely then I imagine be compelled to cease the crime).
God has made Himself known. Go back to the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4. God specifically approached Cain and said, "Don't do this. It will end badly and take you nowhere you want to go." Cain did it anyway. God did make His presence known, and it was rebuffed and ignored.
God said to Adam, "Hey, there are thousands of trees of goodness and blessing you can eat from. Don't follow the path of disobedience, or the consequences are dire." Adam did it anyway. Obviously revelation and warning don't prevent sin.
The same thing happens thousands (millions?) of times a day even now. People rebuff and ignore the evidence of God's revelation.
> why is his inflicting punishment on sinners necessary, if the perpetuation of their evil act was necessary for some higher purpose in the first place?
The perpetuation of their evil act isn't necessary for a higher purpose, but God can turn it to be that. It would be better if they didn't do evil. It would be better if they didn't disobey. God has good things and blessing in store for us if we will just follow his way. But people choose to rebuff, ignore, and rebel. They choose the negative course, and they will suffer the consequences of their choices. Any good judge will not turn a blind eye to evil and let it go unaddressed.
As I mentioned, "turning the other cheek" has to do with personal insult, not with justice. God's treatment of people in the afterlife will be the perfect application of justice, and there is no intersection at all with derogatory insult.
Also, to be clear, God isn't damning "undesirables," but only those who want nothing to do with life. If they want no association with life and grace (God's person), then they choose non-life and non-grace. There's nothing vengeful about it; it's justice.
> I don't get why "believe and obey or go to hell" is not seen as force by Christians.
Hell is the absence of God and of good, of life and of grace. If you have no desire to turn to God and share in His life and goodness, then being separated from Him, his life and his goodness are what you choose. Right now the people in California have a choice. They can obey the mandates to get out of town while there's a chance, or they choose the fire and its consequences. Believe the weather guys, the firemen, and the the evidence, or you suffer the consequences of your own choice. It's not honest to claim someone inflicted this condition on them if they refuse to respond to the invitation to be saved from it.
That's why it's not "force." You make your decisions and you live with the consequences of those decisions.
> Regarding sacrifice, God could simply prevent the worst sins in the first place, by making his presence known to the evil doer (who would likely then I imagine be compelled to cease the crime).
God has made Himself known. Go back to the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4. God specifically approached Cain and said, "Don't do this. It will end badly and take you nowhere you want to go." Cain did it anyway. God did make His presence known, and it was rebuffed and ignored.
God said to Adam, "Hey, there are thousands of trees of goodness and blessing you can eat from. Don't follow the path of disobedience, or the consequences are dire." Adam did it anyway. Obviously revelation and warning don't prevent sin.
The same thing happens thousands (millions?) of times a day even now. People rebuff and ignore the evidence of God's revelation.
> why is his inflicting punishment on sinners necessary, if the perpetuation of their evil act was necessary for some higher purpose in the first place?
The perpetuation of their evil act isn't necessary for a higher purpose, but God can turn it to be that. It would be better if they didn't do evil. It would be better if they didn't disobey. God has good things and blessing in store for us if we will just follow his way. But people choose to rebuff, ignore, and rebel. They choose the negative course, and they will suffer the consequences of their choices. Any good judge will not turn a blind eye to evil and let it go unaddressed.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by Book Mitten » Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:42 pm
> All of those who are heaven have voluntarily submitted their free will to the will of God. I have told God, "You have all of me. You can do with me whatever you want. Teach me how to think, how to act, how to feel, hear, and see." So when God conforms my way of thinking to His—that's actually what I want! It doesn't detract from my free will at all. In ways, it fulfills it. My will conformed to God's will is a supreme value.
So why doesn't God bless this higher understanding to us in this world? Wouldn't it make the world better, at least according to his standards?
I myself have attempted communication with God to ask for understanding of what I have trouble with, and have received no answer. This is precisely one of the things that blocks my relationship with him, thus I can't freely choose to love a God that doesn't allow me the means to an understanding relationship.
So why doesn't God bless this higher understanding to us in this world? Wouldn't it make the world better, at least according to his standards?
I myself have attempted communication with God to ask for understanding of what I have trouble with, and have received no answer. This is precisely one of the things that blocks my relationship with him, thus I can't freely choose to love a God that doesn't allow me the means to an understanding relationship.
- Book Mitten
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests