Is there an answer?

[bluekelebek]

I wasn't raised religious, and tbh I dont know what/if I do believe in.. but is there an answer to - if there is a God, why is there so much suffering? Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do bad people seem to get on with life with no repercussions, regardless of thei actions?

I think if there is a god they wouldn’t create bad things. We just assume gods the source of those. I don’t know if I believe or not but last night I was in pain and worried it would get worse. I went to sleep thinking god will take care of me and it crossed my mind maybe he can only help you if you believe in him

Re imagination - what is palpably absurd is you seem to think imagination is purely a biological act, a synthesis of many different inputs If it was it would have been recreated by AI by now.

Are you an AI expert? What do you even mean by 'a biological act'? People's imaginations are in large part created by their experiences, which are a very complex, multi-faceted type of 'input'. That doesn't mean they can't all be contained in or generated by the biological organ that is the brain. It certainly doesn't mean that there is any religious or supernatural aspect to imagination.

So if imagination is just the processing of lots of inputs and AI is basically a mechanism to process lots of inputs does AI have imagination???

none of what you said excludes supernatural input into the dream world. Your world view just doesn’t include that possibility

Your world view just doesn’t include that possibility

You're dead right it doesn't. Because there is no evidence for it whatsoever, in spite of the fact that mystics, religious people and charlatans have been desperately trying to find evidence since the year dot.

AI is basically a mechanism to process lots of inputs does AI have imagination???

Not really, I don't think. I'm not an AI expert, but surely the clue is in the name - 'artificial'. Humans have lived experience. AI just creates outputs based on its collating of reported human experience.

Actually humans having been “desperately trying to evidence since the year dot” lmfao. What would you count as “evidence”?

So what is the “human experience” in your world if not a series of inputs?

If it was it would have been recreated by AI by now.

What on earth gives you that idea? This stuff is in its infancy and really isn't very 'intelligent' at all yet.

Because AI is able to scan literally millions of pieces of data and amalgamate them and people are saying imagination is human amalgamating much fewer inputs. I would then think AI should be able to perform this most basic of human activities, as it’s already doing the very thing people are saying imagination is

I'm not sure - what would you consider evidence?

People have been trying for 2000 years to "prove" the existence of the Jesus character, but so far nobody has ever been able to.

Considering the absolute dearth of any evidence, why do you think the default should be that there are any gods?

I don’t think there is really any point in talking about evidence beyond individual experience when it comes to the divine. Therefore I don’t ask for evidence. That’s why I asked you as you were the one talking about evidence.

Thanks for the picture, as a perenialist
it shows the diversity in which the source, the All has permeated humanity (although there are obviously many missing - but that’s alright).

Oh do you believe 2000 years ago was year dot and Christian’s constitute the whole of humanity? I’m not sure even in this tiny representation many people have been trying to prove the existence of this iteration of God.

Because AI is able to scan literally millions of pieces of data and amalgamate them and people are saying imagination is human amalgamating much fewer inputs. I would then think AI should be able to perform this most basic of human activities, as it’s already doing the very thing people are saying imagination is

Humans have emotional responses to things. AI does not.

So are you claiming that imagination is divinely inspired then?

A bit pathetic. There's literally no evidence of any of the thousands of "gods" who have been worshipped over the millenia. I chose the most common one in this country as an example.

You obviously don't care about evidence, because it's all about the "feelz". But, frankly, that's a pathetic excuse to try and convince people that there is anything at all...

Well on a purely materialistic basis surely emotions are just responses to inputs so it would be possible to replicate this in AI? If not, why not?

im very much with Coleridge and Blake on the source of imagination.

“I will not cease from mental fight nor shall my sword sleep in my hand til we have built Jerusalem in Englands green and pleasant land.”

Ah great, ad hominem arguments, how very scientific.

I very much care about scientific method in its place, in the physical world. The spiritual world, though is beyond the design of the scientific method.

“What demon has formed this abominable void? Some said it Urizen. But alone, abstracted, brooding, secret, the dark power hid.”

Well on a purely materialistic basis surely emotions are just responses to inputs so it would be possible to replicate this in AI? If not, why not?

I get the impression that (like mine) your knowledge about AI probably doesn't extend to being able to quantify in scientific terms how an AI 'response to input' differs from a human one. That doesn't mean that difference doesn't exist or that it's not perfectly explicable without the need to invent spiritual reasons for it.

“I will not cease from mental fight nor shall my sword sleep in my hand til we have built Jerusalem in Englands green and pleasant land.”

What on earth has that got to do with the discussion?

The spiritual world, though is beyond the design of the scientific method.

Where is this 'spiritual world' of which you speak? I've never seen it.

“What demon has formed this abominable void? Some said it Urizen. But alone, brooding secret, the dark power hid.”

Ummm... demons? I'm a fan of fantasy fiction, but at least I'm aware it is fiction.

Here's quite a good article about why human creativity/imagination is different from how AI creates things. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2023/03/27/the-intersection-of-ai-and-human-creativity-can-machines-really-be-creative/

“Well on a purely materialistic basis surely emotions are just responses to inputs so it would be possible to replicate this in AI? If not, why not?

I get the impression that (like mine) your knowledge about AI probably doesn't extend to being able to quantify in scientific terms how an AI 'response to input' differs from a human one. That doesn't mean that difference doesn't exist or that it's not perfectly explicable without the need to invent spiritual reasons for it.”

But what are we if not essentially computers responding to external stimuli? My answer would be spiritual beings.

“I will not cease from mental fight nor shall my sword sleep in my hand til we have built Jerusalem in Englands green and pleasant land.”

What on earth has that got to do with the discussion?”

imagination (you might want to look at the original words in the context of its Preface to Milton rather than Parry’s war fuelled jingoism”

“The spiritual world, though is beyond the design of the scientific method.

Where is this 'spiritual world' of which you speak? I've never seen it.”

You might want to follow the golden thread to Jerusalem’s wall.

No one will see the spiritual world of the only rely on the “narrow chinks in their cavern”. You’re watching shadows on the wall.

“What demon has formed this abominable void? Some said it Urizen. But alone, brooding secret, the dark power hid.”

Ummm... demons? I'm a fan of fantasy fiction, but at least I'm aware it is fiction.”

Maybe explore the quote in its wider context.

Yes that’s a really great article. What does make us human? Where do all those things it lists which differentiate humanity from machines come from? Why do we need those things? Is creativity just a series of connections? It appears not. As the article says imagination largely remains a mystery (in its widest sense - Mystical).

The article is basically expressing something I mentioned a few posts back- the definition Coleridge gave to imagination (or more particularly, three kinds of imagination) a couple of hundred years ago

people are saying imagination is human amalgamating much fewer inputs.

Are they? I don't think it's just that. Human imagination and creativity can think 'what if'. We can do thought experiments and real ones. Current AIs are very largely bounded by their training data and the accuracy of its labelling.

So how does a person answer those “what ifs?”

We either search for and answer, or wait patiently for science to come up with one.

It makes more sense than just inventing a deity so that you don't have to think any more...

Speaking as a recently returned Christian, I would say No, there is no definitive, complete answer to this problem, which is the most serious argument against belief in a god.
However, there are threads, or clues, or ways in which the basic argument ("Assume the following: God is all loving. God is all-knowing. God is all-powerful. Add in one fact: We all suffer in this world, even the innocent and animals. Explain this contradiction") can be turned on its head, or at least is not fully satisfied by simply saying "Therefore there is no god".
I'll try and explain how I see it. (Excuse lack of paragraph breaks).
Physicists are trying to find a complete unified theory of the laws of physics, incorporating things on a tiny scale (quantum mechanics) and things on an immense scale (gravity). However, they have realised that there is one huge problem with trying to comprehend the totality of the universe: the fact that we are already part of the thing we are trying to comprehend. In order to truly, totally understand it we would need to be 'outside observers' looking down on it. Otherwise, it's possible that we are, by definition, limited in what we can perceive. It's like an eye trying to look at itself to see what it looks like. It can't; because it IS itself! (Bear with me, I'm not quite at the point of this yet)...
It seems (to me) that something follows on from this, and it is; Us humans, being a part of the universe, we should therefore be "content" with the way the universe works, and with our place in it. How could we not be, being part of it? And yet something is very wrong. We are abssolutely and deeply unhappy with what we are, and with the suffering that life throws at us. It's almost as if we are in the universe but we feel that we should be in another universe where there is no suffering. That feels like the "right" sort of universe to be in. Some of us have this idea of a god existing, but if he is all-loving/powerful/good etc then how come we suffer? So we say "ok then, so there is no god, everything is random, there is no eternal goodness or 'happy ever after', everything is just what it is". But the problem is, getting rid of the idea of God does not resolve the problem. We don't say to ourselves "Aaah! Ok, there's no god and the universe is random, so I see now that it's perfectly OK for children to die of cancer, after all, why shouldn't they, as it's all random and there's no final justice". No, we still protest at the utter, eternal unfairness of such things. - Even though (as I have tried to explain?) we SHOULDN'T complain, if we are a natural random part of the natural random universe! - So, when people say "It's simple, there is no god - problem solved", no, in my opinion it's not solved at all. I hope all that makes kind of sense (it makes sense in my head, but I'm strange) 😜

But having a deity doesn’t exclude thought. In fact, some of the greatest thinkers in history have had a deity, have contemplated an existence beyond.

To say having a deity gives an excuse to not think indicates you know little about spirituality.

Where does your faith that science will eventually find an answer come from?

So how does a person answer those “what ifs?”

That depends on the question. Some questions are very clearly in the domain of applying the scientific method, or of building on it for technological advancement. Others are a matter for philosophising in various ways. Some people will want to do this on the basis of logic and evidence, others won't.

Science won't answer the question 'is there a diety' but the scientific method can be applied to questions such as 'does intercessory prayer work'.

What do you mean applying the scientific method? Do you mean reason? What feeds into that reason?

Where questions are best answered through philosophy- where does that philosophy come from?

Surely if this all purely reason computers can be just as originally creative as humans. All you need to do is plug in all the relevant information.

Re the scientific method being applied to intercessory prayer, in reality it can’t (unless you’re mistaken on what intercessory prayer is). Intercessory prayer is praying on behalf of someone else. It is not asking God for something and only measuring success if the exact thing a person asks for is answered. this view would be predicated on the person doing the praying knowing Gods plan better than God. Hence you get phrases like “if it pleases the Lord”, etc. As intercessory prayer(assuming the existence of God) will always involve and unknowable variable, the scientific method cannot be applied there.

I'm bemused at the assertion that the existence or absence of evidence, observable, measurable, quantifiable data, experiments which can be replicated infinitely, and so on, is all just a "reflection of my view on life", but then, this is far from the first time in this sub-forum that a poster has implied that the nature of the universe is determined by human whims and desires.

It's beyond the ridiculous.