With a Reformed prompt, ChatGPT produces amazing theology

[Arial]

It says unable to load conversation.

It loads when I click on it. Anyone else having that problem?

Maybe it is because I joined Chat GPT and so my question is only on my computer? Help @DialecticSkeptic ?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

It loads when I click on it. Anyone else having that problem?

Yes. It says the same thing for me: "Unable to load conversation 67f02a63-f524-8008-8c68-df947f6a7fc3."

Maybe it is because I joined ChatGPT and so my question is only on my computer? Help DialecticSkeptic?

The problem is indicated by the URL that you tried to share with us. The format of your link looked like this:

• http://chatgpt.com/c/[ID string]

That tells me you copied the URL from your browser address bar. Such links only work for the person who generated the conversation, only on their computer, and only logged in to their account. They will not be accessible by anyone else anywhere else. What you need to do is click the "Share" button at the top right-hand side of your screen, next to your avatar, and follow the instructions. That generates a publicly accessible, read-only link to the conversation, and its format looks like this:

• https://chatgpt.com/share/[ID string]

See the difference? Yours had the letter "c" where this one has the word "share."

 

[Arial]

Yes. It says the same thing for me: "Unable to load conversation 67f02a63-f524-8008-8c68-df947f6a7fc3."




The problem is indicated by the URL that you tried to share with us. The format of your link looked like this:

• http://chatgpt.com/c/[ID string]

That tells me you copied the URL from your browser address bar. Such links only work for the person who generated the conversation, only on their computer, and only logged in to their account. They will not be accessible by anyone else anywhere else. What you need to do is click the "Share" button at the top right-hand side of your screen, next to your avatar, and follow the instructions. That generates a publicly accessible, read-only link to the conversation, and its format looks like this:

• https://chatgpt.com/share/[ID string]

See the difference? Yours had the letter "c" where this one has the word "share."

Thanks. When I get a bit more coffee in me, I will give it a try. It is quite long and that is why I wanted to link it.

 

[Arial]

Yes. It says the same thing for me: "Unable to load conversation 67f02a63-f524-8008-8c68-df947f6a7fc3."




The problem is indicated by the URL that you tried to share with us. The format of your link looked like this:

• http://chatgpt.com/c/[ID string]

That tells me you copied the URL from your browser address bar. Such links only work for the person who generated the conversation, only on their computer, and only logged in to their account. They will not be accessible by anyone else anywhere else. What you need to do is click the "Share" button at the top right-hand side of your screen, next to your avatar, and follow the instructions. That generates a publicly accessible, read-only link to the conversation, and its format looks like this:

• https://chatgpt.com/share/[ID string]

See the difference? Yours had the letter "c" where this one has the word "share."

I did that and the link looked as you say above, but when I clicked on it, I got the message "Link Cannot be found and is just a dream shadow of what once was.

So, anyone can get the information by going to ChatGPT and asking "Show doctrines in TULIP as Calvin wrote them" and following the prompts.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I did that and the link looked as you say above, but when I clicked on it, I got the message "Link Cannot be found and is just a dream shadow of what once was.

So, anyone can get the information by going to ChatGPT and asking "Show doctrines in TULIP as Calvin wrote them" and following the prompts.

Cool

 

[ElectedbyHim]

I did that and the link looked as you say above, but when I clicked on it, I got the message "Link Cannot be found and is just a dream shadow of what once was.

So, anyone can get the information by going to ChatGPT and asking "Show doctrines in TULIP as Calvin wrote them" and following the prompts.

I am doing this now in Gemini with a deep research.

 

[Arial]

I am doing this now in Gemini with a deep research.

I just posted a new thread in Doctrine of Grace with a copy/paste from ChatGPT. I can see it but don't know if anyone else can. Let me know if you would please.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

I just posted a new thread in Doctrine of Grace with a copy/paste from ChatGPT. I can see it but don't know if anyone else can. Let me know if you would please.

I can see it.

 

[makesends]

I understand perfectly well what they mean when they say "God made Hitler do what he did." They are accusing Reformed theology of presenting a God who is responsible for man's evil acts. Personally I think arguments and theories on determinism go too far in trying to pin down things that should be accepted through faith, as it is in essence trying to define and grab hold of what belongs to the Infinite self existent with the finite created mind. But those who are opposed to a God who is Sovereign over all, and who governs all, and is always working according to his own purposes, without ever consulting humans, asking their permission, or serving them, but according to his own glory and perfection, (even though they give lip service to believing some of these things) demand that what cannot be grasped or explained be grasped and explained. They will never be satisfied or matter how many "causes" or "determines" are added to the explanation, and it will never reach the depths of what is in God. Of what the real truth and nothing but the truth, is, in God on the matter. It is the same reason no matter how many scriptures are given, no matter how much exegesis or exposition is presented, a Unitarian will still scoff and say we hide behind the final answer. That being, that the finite cannot fully understand the infinite. Even though that is an obviously true statement. We take the Trinity on faith because of what he does tell us, (and because it is a revealed truth), not because we can describe it or fully comprehend it.

Why do we not do the same with determinism and first cause?

Done venting.

To me it is very simple. If something that causes something else 'determines' it, then the word, Determinism, is valid for the logical sequence of causation. Like I have said, however, I tend to not use the term because of all the baggage that usually accompanies it. I use "causation" instead.

To me, it is not a matter of knowing the depths, which I happily acknowledge that I do not. To me it is simply logical, that IF God is first cause, then as such he has caused everything that came subsequently. It is even a simpler logic than the proof of God's existence, which I take as logical by the fact that it is the simplest explanation for the existence of anything at all.

Determinism is, then, simply a logical extension of God having created everything that comes subsequent to his existence. It is not only the simplest explanation, but fits all logical questions following God creating. I don't need to understand more than that to see that it is the best explanation. I don't need to sound the depths.

In a way, this reminds me of an axiomatic statement @Josheb made--which I disagree with--something about it being impossible to affirm something one does not understand. I affirm God's existence, and his determining of all things subsequent. I don't need to understand it, to see that it is logically valid.

 

[Josheb]

In a way, this reminds me of an axiomatic statement @Josheb made--which I disagree with--something about it being impossible to affirm something one does not understand. I affirm God's existence, and his determining of all things subsequent. I don't need to understand it, to see that it is logically valid.

That is a misuse of my "axiom."

If you'd never heard of God, then it would be impossible for you to affirm His existence. By affirming God's existence, you implicitly acknowledge and understanding "He exists," even if you do not know how or why. Besides, the prior episode was more about a poorly worded statement and a factual error than any understanding of causality.

 

[makesends]

That is a misuse of my "axiom."

If you'd never heard of God, then it would be impossible for you to affirm His existence. By affirming God's existence, you implicitly acknowledge and understanding "He exists," even if you do not know how or why. Besides, the prior episode was more about a poorly worded statement and a factual error than any understanding of causality.

If I had never heard of God, I might still understand that there had to have been a first cause, even subconsciously, thus affirming his existence. Hardly even worth calling acknowledging it. If a baby chokes on a penny, it has affirmed that the penny is too large to slide down its throat.

You seem to think that affirming has to be a conscious act of the will. I disagree.

 

[Arial]

If I had never heard of God, I might still understand that there had to have been a first cause, even subconsciously, thus affirming his existence. Hardly even worth calling acknowledging it. If a baby chokes on a penny, it has affirmed that the penny is too large to slide down its throat.

You seem to think that affirming has to be a conscious act of the will. I disagree.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (Romans 1)

This states God as being the first cause and that his existence is inherent in us even in a fallen state. There is no redeeming knowledge of him or knowledge in the sense of knowing him, except as he reveals it in his word.

 

[Josheb]

If I had never heard of God, I might still understand that there had to have been a first cause, even subconsciously, thus affirming his existence. Hardly even worth calling acknowledging it. If a baby chokes on a penny, it has affirmed that the penny is too large to slide down its throat.

You seem to think that affirming has to be a conscious act of the will. I disagree.

That is further afield of the original matter than the previous post, and the one before that. We weren't discussing the existence of God. My mentioning the existence of God was only an illustrative, comparative, example of the problem to be solved.

Human volition possesses its own causality.

 

[makesends]

That is further afield of the original matter than the previous post, and the one before that. We weren't discussing the existence of God. My mentioning the existence of God was only an illustrative, comparative, example of the problem to be solved.

Human volition possesses its own causality.

Do other causes not "possess" their own causality?

Believe it or not, I am actually interested in this, from the perspective of what is truly unique about humans, even beyond angels, that God should make the elect and 'grow them' in this environment to become his own particular creation in Heaven. I don't know that you are right. I want you to be right, but so far you have not proven this to me, nor, as apparently you consider this relevant to our dispute as to my self-contradiction, because it may have something to do with that particular curiosity of mine --why God would say, "Well done", if we are caused and our wills are not entirely caused to do what they do. Logic demands that they are caused to do it. To get out of that logic by your means of "semi-independent" just doesn't do it for me. My way, which I don't entirely understand myself, is that God is that much above us, that his precise and meticulous causation ("there are no rogue [particles]") is beyond our scope of will (or something along those lines-- usually I just say, "He is that much above us".

But at least, you apparently do agree with me that at least, even if we can't talk someone out of libertarian freewill, they should be able to put it into the envelope of "God Caused, Therefore Everything is Caused". And, indeed most do say, that God built them (caused them) to have freewill.

 

[Josheb]

Do other causes not "possess" their own causality?

Not independent of predicate determinants. You've asked a question that has been answered scores of times and avoiding the one, single, solitary, sole, specific saliennt point.

Believe it or not, I am actually interested in this, from the perspective of what is truly unique about humans, even beyond angels, that God should make the elect and 'grow them' in this environment to become his own particular creation in Heaven. I don't know that you are right. I want you to be right, but so far you have not proven this to me, nor, as apparently you consider this relevant to our dispute as to my self-contradiction, because it may have something to do with that particular curiosity of mine --why God would say, "Well done", if we are caused and our wills are not entirely caused to do what they do. Logic demands that they are caused to do it. To get out of that logic by your means of "semi-independent" just doesn't do it for me. My way, which I don't entirely understand myself, is that God is that much above us, that his precise and meticulous causation ("there are no rogue [particles]") is beyond our scope of will (or something along those lines-- usually I just say, "He is that much above us".

But at least, you apparently do agree with me that at least, even if we can't talk someone out of libertarian freewill, they should be able to put it into the envelope of "God Caused, Therefore Everything is Caused". And, indeed most do say, that God built them (caused them) to have freewill.

Thank you for your time. I won't be belaboring this point in this thread further with you.

 

[Hazelelponi]

That is a misuse of my "axiom."

If you'd never heard of God, then it would be impossible for you to affirm His existence. By affirming God's existence, you implicitly acknowledge and understanding "He exists," even if you do not know how or why. Besides, the prior episode was more about a poorly worded statement and a factual error than any understanding of causality.

No. This is a denial of general revelation.

Through what God created we can indeed understand we have a Creator, not only that but the human desire to worship something outside of ourselves is inherent to human nature.

You won't get to special revelation without a fuller revelatory experience, but you could potentially get to the worship of a Creator with just general.

Romans 1:20 states, "For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and deity, have been clearly perceived through the things that have been made, so that people are without excuse

 

[makesends]

No. This is a denial of general revelation.

Through what God created we can indeed understand we have a Creator, not only that but the human desire to worship something outside of ourselves is inherent to human nature.

You won't get to special revelation without a fuller revelatory experience, but you could potentially get to the worship of a Creator with just general.

Romans 1:20 states, "For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and deity, have been clearly perceived through the things that have been made, so that people are without excuse

Reminds me of a sci-fi novel I read, where the protagonist achieves transcendence, lives independently of his dead body, travels the universe over millions of years, and begins to conceive of 'God'. He worships this 'God' for his immensity, intelligence, power, purity of purpose and force of being, (though only for that--without any reference to Christ or Redemption), (and concludes false things about God, somewhat along the lines of Open Theism, saying that 'God' is immature and learning). I say this as an example of the sort of thing Romans 1 describes. The facts are obvious --there is no intellectually honest way to get around the fact of the existence of 'willed first cause'. But those who consider themselves intellectually honest do it all the time --I think, (in part, at least), to relieve themselves of the intuitive implication that they are owned by God, and owe him everything.

 

[Josheb]

No. This is a denial of general revelation.

No, it's not.

What it is is a predicate statement. If a person had never heard of God does not mean a person has never heard of God. Romans 1 makes it clear that is not possible, but that fact is irrelevant to the argument being asserted. The argument was predicated on a hypothetical, a hypothetical that has no basis in reality but a hypothetical, nonetheless.

If I'd never breathed air, then I could breathe underwater.
If we call a sheep's tail a leg, then a sheep has five legs.
If I drive fast enough with an oscillating over-thruster, then I can drive through solid matter because there is much more empty space in a rock then there is matter.

If a person had never heard of God, then His existence could not be affirmed.
If a person has never heard of Africa, then its existence could not be affirmed.
If a person had never heard of Josheb (or @Hazelelponi), then his (or her) existence could not be affirmed.
If a person has never heard of quazjarmnaboklschmarge, then its existence cannot be affirmed.


It has absolutely nothing to do with general revelation and everything to do with the basics of logic.

 

[Hazelelponi]

No, it's not.

What it is is a predicate statement. If a person had never heard of God does not mean a person has never heard of God. Romans 1 makes it clear that is not possible, but that fact is irrelevant to the argument being asserted. The argument was predicated on a hypothetical, a hypothetical that has no basis in reality but a hypothetical, nonetheless.

If I'd never breathed air, then I could breathe underwater.
If we call a sheep's tail a leg, then a sheep has five legs.
If I drive fast enough with an oscillating over-thruster, then I can drive through solid matter because there is much more empty space in a rock then there is matter.

If a person had never heard of God, then His existence could not be affirmed.
If a person has never heard of Africa, then its existence could not be affirmed.
If a person had never heard of Josheb (or @Hazelelponi), then his (or her) existence could not be affirmed.
If a person has never heard of quazjarmnaboklschmarge, then its existence cannot be affirmed.


It has absolutely nothing to do with general revelation and everything to do with the basics of logic.

Okay, I will keep in mind you do hypotheticals like this and try and read for them.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Josheb]

Okay, I will keep in mind you do hypotheticals like this and try and read for them.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No worries.

For the record: Everybody does hypotheticals. Every time the word "if" is being used a predicate condition or hypothetical is being asserted. It's a function of language, not the individual.

If a person drives a red car then s/he may pay more in automobile insurance (because red cars get more tickets*).
If a person lives in Florida, then s/he will pay more in home insurance than those in Virginia (because of the hurricanes).





* This first example would be an example of a hypothetical that is incorrect, and the second example is one that is true.

.