AI Affirms The Necessity Of God...!

[Crossbreed]

I Convinced Grok God Is Real (Using Math, Science, and Logic)

 

[Jumpinbare]

While I am convinced of God's existence, I sm not impressed with an AI's "opinion". They are simulating how a large number of people would react based on training data, not on actual logic.

 

[Crossbreed]

The limiting criteria was not popular opinion, but mathematics, observable science & mathematical probability.

 

[Outdated]

Funny, last week it was the reincarnation of Hitler. What's it going to be next week?

 

[Crossbreed]

Funny, last week it was the reincarnation of Hitler. What's it going to be next week?

1. Acknowledging God, alone, does not confer innocence.
   
   "You believe that there is one God. You do well.​
   Even the demons believe—and tremble!" James 2:19​
2. Grok is shown to rescind that conclusion toward the end of the video when said parameters are lifted.

 

[Hypnalis]

The limiting criteria was not popular opinion, but mathematics, observable science & mathematical probability.

It's impossible to prove the existence of anything supernatural using science.

But it's easy to lie to an AI while it's being trained.

A common example of a self-cancelling claim.

A simple question: what is the probability that there is intelligent life (using homo sapiens as a yardstick for intelligence) somewhere outside our star system?

That question cannot be answered. Probability is defined around using observations of a sample (usually a subset of something larger) to make inferences about something else (usually a superset of the sample).
There are conditions on the nature of the sample, and how large it must be.

We have only one observation to base out inference on - by my definition, we know there is one case of "intelligent life".

Probability cannot be used to project that onto the universe. It makes no difference that we now know there are many other planets. We have only one observation (and it's the same one) to make inferences about the likelihood that a planet will "produce" intelligent life.

Guesses are possible, and the web is full of them. Some, made by people who use reasonable means to make their "guesstimates", are very interesting.
But anyone who claims that their guess is actually an inference based on math is ignorant, an fool, or a liar.

This is a very convenient "reality check" though.
False claims based on "probability" with no or an invalid sample instantly bounce the claimant's reality check.
:
:
BTW: the one sample/one exception rhetorical trick (used to undermine valid heuristics) isn't the same as inference based on mathematical techniques.
Some claims (commonly in math) can be disproven with a single counter-example.

Heuristics don't claim to be right all the time. They are "soft" rules that are true most of the time.
So "one exception does not void a heuristic".

But you still can't construct a valid heuristic about extra-solar life.

 

[Crossbreed]

It's impossible to prove the existence of anything supernatural using science.

The video did not claim to prove God's existence. It just agreed that He was a (more) viable explanation for the directed, intelligent design (that we can observe).

But it's easy to lie to an AI while it's being trained.

The AI's default training was evolution, not creation. It even said so.