Chatbot and I Discuss Proving God and Using Love as a Theology

Chatbot and I  Discuss Proving God and

Using Love as a Theology

by R.E. Slater and OpenAI's ChatGPT

January 30, 2023

*Disclaimer: Reading through "Chatbot's" responses there are statements and replies I either would disagree with or tweak them a bit to be truer to the source. I will highlight those areas when I do. - R.E. Slater

Introduction

I developed this chat with the Internet a couple days ago as I was playing around with OpenAI's service tool. Today, I refined it a bit before releasing it. Mostly, I like CHAT-GPT because it presents grossly complicated ideas clearly and simply.

But this is also where I must distinguish AI-generated presentations, which I do here, in subject areas I have published a hundred different ways over the years by form and by function.

Today's chat is yet another iteration of how a new theology of important difference is seeking to counter older theologies overlooking difference based upon previous culturally-subjective philosophic models of bias.

Today's Christianity requires a better expression than the one I grew up in - and  of which I have become greatly discontent by - in its unbiblical positions and outcomes. Which I find humorous as its is usually my older Christian groups which would claim the same about me even as I find it more true of traditional church creeds and dogmas.

Which is also why so many people have drifted from the Christian church and Christianity itself, because such creeds and dogmas have produced so many ungodly perceptions and attitudes amongst its adherents.

And rather than struggle with building a progressive Christianity upon the older versions I was taught I simply removed the barriers to godly love to re-establish it's Jesus-core whereby progressive faiths might more easily rest when emphasizing God's love over God's judgments and wraths.

See what you think... this theology is there even in the vast realms of artificial intelligence. It lies there in plain view if we but look for it.

R.E. Slater

January 20, 2023

* * * * * * * * * *

Hi. Prove God

It is not possible to prove the existence of God using scientific methods, as God is generally considered to be a supernatural being. The existence of God is a matter of faith and belief, and different people have different beliefs about God. Some believe in the existence of one all-powerful God, while others believe in multiple gods or no gods at all. The concept of God is also central to many religions, and different religions have different beliefs about the nature and attributes of God.

Prove there is no God

It is not possible to prove the non-existence of God using scientific methods, as the existence of God is a matter of faith and belief. Arguments against the existence of God are typically based on philosophical and logical reasoning, rather than empirical evidence. Some argue that the concept of God is illogical or that the existence of God is incompatible with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. Others argue that the complexity and diversity of life can be explained through evolution and natural processes, rather than by the actions of a supreme being. However, these are arguments and perspectives, not proofs, as the existence of God is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested with empirical data.

Does process theology remove the problem of theodicy?

Process theology is a type of theology that emphasizes the idea that God is constantly involved in the world and that the universe is in a state of constant change and evolution. It views God as a dynamic and evolving being who is affected by the world and its events.

One of the key ideas in process theology is the concept of divine persuasion, which holds that God works to persuade creatures to act in certain ways, rather than forcing them to do so. This means that God does not control everything that happens in the world, but rather works to influence and guide it.

In terms of the problem of theodicy, which is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with the belief in a benevolent and all-powerful God, process theology offers an alternative perspective. It suggests that God is not the creator of evil, but rather that it arises from the free choices of creatures and the natural processes of the universe. God is seen as working to overcome evil and suffering, rather than causing it.

Process theology does not completely remove the problem of theodicy, but offers an alternative perspective on it, by emphasizing the dynamic and evolving nature of God and the world, and by de-emphasizing the idea of God as an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good being.

ADDENDUM: As such, process theology emphasizes an all-loving, uncontrolling God where love is free to be-and-become through a series of indeterminant creational events in which God participates with creation. Importantly, God is ontologically different from creation but intimately infilling freewilled creational events.

More so, that God's very being, God's DNA as it were, was poured into creation's birth and through continuous, processual cycles of rebirth. That it is unnecessary for God to control as God is on every leading edge of creational pronouncement as well as every series of creational rebirthing, both good and bad (re sin and evil).

Meaningfully, God is in every processual event along with every actualization of every processual event, as they twist-and-turn in relational enactment, bond, estrangement, cooperation, and union with other relationally interactive events. This is not divine control but divine birthing again-and-again in a cosmos infilled with God's love and generational insistence as a guiding teleology.

- re slater

How is divine omnipotence different from amipotence?

The terms "omnipotent" and "amipotent" are related to the concept of power and the nature of God.

Omnipotence is the belief that God is all-powerful, meaning that God has the ability to do anything that is logically possible. In other words, there is nothing that God cannot do. This is a traditional attribute of God in monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

Amipotence, on the other hand, is a term that is used in some theological and philosophical contexts to describe a God who has limited power, or the ability to do certain things but not others. This idea of a limited God is often associated with Process Theology and Open Theism, which propose a God who is not all-knowing, all-powerful or unchanging, but a God who is affected by the world and is in a state of evolution [with creation's own processual evolution. Further, amipotence refers to a loving, uncontrolling God rather than an all-powerful God who sometimes loves. - res].

In summary, the term "omnipotent" refers to the belief that God has the ability to do anything that is logically possible, while "amipotent" refers to the belief that God has limited power, or the ability to do certain things but not others [because of divine love and not because of divine fiat. By God's love comes a freewill creation. Which is to say that all Godly attributes come after God's love and not before God's love. - re slater]

Describe divine amipotence in terms of divine love

Divine amipotence, as it relates to divine love, suggests that God's power is not absolute or limitless, but rather is limited in some way. This idea is associated with the belief that God's power is directed towards promoting love and goodness in the world.

In this view, God does not have the power to control everything that happens in the world, but rather works to influence and guide it towards love and goodness. God's power is seen as being directed towards the well-being and flourishing of creatures, rather than the exercise of arbitrary control.

In this sense, God's love is not a passive or detached love, but rather an active and engaged love that is constantly working to bring about the best for creatures. God's love is seen as the source of God's power and the driving force behind God's actions in the world. This perspective on divine amipotence suggests that God's power is grounded in and directed by God's love, which is the foundation of God's relationship with the world.

It's important to note that this perspective on divine amipotence is different from the traditional perspective of God's omnipotence, where God's power is absolute and limitless, and God is not affected by the world or the actions of creatures [based upon previous Greek Hellenizations or beliefs about gods and godhead such as Zeus and the Olympiad. Process thought removes Greek influences upon church doctrine and in its place promotes a processual metaphysic of cosmology and godhead. - res]

Explain divine sovereignty from a process viewpoint

Divine sovereignty is the belief that God is the supreme authority and ruler over all things. From a process viewpoint, divine sovereignty is understood differently than in traditional theology.

In traditional theology, divine sovereignty is often understood as God having complete control over everything that happens in the world, including the actions of creatures. God is often seen as the creator and sustainer of the universe, who is in control of all events and outcomes.

However, in process theology, the concept of divine sovereignty is understood differently. It emphasizes the idea that God is not the creator of [determinator of divine causal opportunities within] the world, but rather that the universe is in a state of constant change and evolution [as its own divinely initiated self-creator]. God is seen as being involved in the world, but not as the one who controls it.

[This is a difficult paragraph which I find myself continually working on... that God and creation are separate but intimately part with one another as the result of a divinely initiated processual relation with each other birthing profoundly loving and good teleological events which are immediately corrupted at inception countering a divine insistence towards generative value.

A creational inception event which then requires continuous acts of divine atonement and redemption - and not just once by the Christian Cross of Jesus which among other things symbolizes this ying-yang between God and creation. That these continuous creational process events are deeply, intimately underlaid and infilled with divine love and goodness.

It's my own philosophic-theological struggle to remove divine determination in favor of divine design allowing creational response with an activating processually-evolving creational teleology. That is, creation has the potential to fully love but not the ability to do so on it's own... which I find as a paradox if creation was at one time activated by divine love.

Further, creation's very "birth was as a continua creatio event ("from a primal state of somethingness") as versus creation ex nihilo, "out of nothing" referring to a primal state that wasn't, then was, by divine act. That creation was a clay awaiting a molder, a clay-organizer (rather than maker in the strictest sense), a clay-fashioner. Thus, process theology must speak to panentheism as opposed to Westernized classic theism on the one hand, or Eastern pantheism on the other hand. Here's a diagram of that arrangement: - re slater]

 

https://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2018/12/describing-relational-process-based.html

...From a process viewpoint, divine sovereignty is understood as God's ability to influence and guide the world towards love and goodness. God is seen as working to persuade creatures to act in certain ways, rather than forcing them to do so. This means that God does not control everything that happens in the world, but rather works to influence and guide it.

In this sense, divine sovereignty is understood as God's ability to guide the world towards love and goodness, rather than as an absolute and arbitrary control over it. It is also understood that God is affected by the world, God is in a state of evolution, and that the world is not a finished product, but a work in progress.

Using process theology, explain how there can be a creational telelogy, and if so, describe what this process-based teleology can mean.

In process theology, the concept of teleology refers to the idea that there is a purpose or goal to the universe, and that this purpose is guided by God.

In traditional theology, teleology is often understood as the idea that God created the universe with a specific purpose or goal in mind, and that this purpose is reflected in the natural laws and processes of the universe. However, in process theology, the concept of teleology is understood differently.

Process theology proposes that the universe is in a state of constant change and evolution, and that God is not the creator of the world, but rather involved in it. In this sense, teleology is not seen as something that is imposed on the world by God, but rather as something that emerges from the interactions and relationships between creatures and their environment.

From a process viewpoint, creational teleology refers to the idea that the universe is constantly evolving and that God is guiding this process towards the goal of greater love and goodness. This teleology is not a fixed or predetermined goal, but rather a dynamic and evolving one. It suggests that the purpose of the universe is not fixed but is constantly evolving as the universe itself evolves.

This process-based teleology can be understood as the idea that God is working to bring about the best possible outcome for creatures, and that this outcome is constantly evolving as the universe itself evolves. It also means that God is not the one who determines the outcome, but the one who guides the process towards the best possible outcome, and that the outcome is not predetermined but rather a result of the interactions between the creatures and their environment.

In summary, in process theology, creational teleology refers to the idea that the universe is constantly evolving, and that God is guiding this process towards the goal of greater love and goodness, and that this goal is not predetermined but rather a result of the interactions between the creatures and their environment.

Excellent. Thank you.

You're welcome! I'm glad I could help. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

Chatbot and I Discuss Quantum Mechanics and Whiteheadian Cosmic Panpsychism

Whitehead, The Concept of Nature (1920)

Chatbot and I Discuss

Quantum Mechanics and Cosmic Panpsychism

by R.E. Slater and OpenAI's ChatGPT

January 30, 2023

*Disclaimer: Reading through "Chatbot's" responses there are statements and replies I either will disagree with or tweak them a bit more to more fuller speak to where I might go with it's information. I will highlight those areas when I do. - R.E. Slater

Today I explore Whiteheadian Process Philosophy by applying it into the realm of quantum indeterminacy versus determinacy. But before doing so, I might recommend viewing the following two YouTube shorts (16-18 min) so that this morning's "discussion" with Chatbot (it's name for itself and upon which we have agreed to use) might be the more helpful (and yes, I am purposely dialoging with Chatbot in anthropomorphic terms) as a way to disrupt and disturb our senses of a responding inanimate Internet of things.

Remember too, my inquiring conjectures and speculations are only initial philosophic-theologic explorations into the cosmic significance of our eco-spheres and not definitive concrete descriptors of cosmic reality. You'll understand more of what I mean in my dialogues below.

And finally, if Whiteheadian Process Philosophy is to be pertinent to quantum physics as a cosmological metaphysic for the development of a "philosophic-theology of (holographic?) reality" it should at least be able to play well with today's current sciences. Sciences, which I believe, are actually studying a processual cosmos in all its relational results whether Science admits it or not.

These kind of interpretive speculations then places folks like myself into the anti-mechanistic, or anti-reductionistic, camps birthed from the Enlightenment Era of Western culture as we look to explain cosmic significance through processual organic and relational sublimity. A cosmic eco-sphere in which we exist without comprehending how deeply we exist within the cosmos' (holographic?) structures; from the very origins of our life-force to our eventual processual death back into the processual process from which we were birthed.

Enjoy,

R.E. Slater

January 20, 2023

What If We Live in a Superdeterministic Universe?

July 20, 2022

Is The Future Predetermined By Quantum Mechanics?

Oct 20, 2020

Good Morning. What other explanations are there for the quantum collapse of the wave function due to observer measurement?

Quantum collapse due to observer measurement is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics, but there are various interpretations of this phenomenon. Some of the most notable interpretations include:

• Copenhagen interpretation: This interpretation asserts that the act of measurement causes a quantum system to collapse into one of its possible states.

• Many-worlds interpretation: This interpretation suggests that each measurement outcome exists in a separate parallel universe.

• Bohmian mechanics: This interpretation proposes that quantum systems have a definite position at all times, and the wave function is merely a guide to that position.

• Objective collapse theories: These theories suggest that the wave function collapses due to some objective physical process, rather than due to observer measurement.

• Information interpretation: This interpretation asserts that quantum mechanics can be understood in terms of the information that is obtained through measurement.

These are some of the main interpretations of quantum collapse, but there are many others, and the debate over which interpretation is correct continues.

Chose another theory which is unrelated to observer relevance or acts of observer relevance.

An alternative theory to quantum collapse that is unrelated to observer relevance is the pilot wave theory or de Broglie-Bohm theory.

This theory proposes that particles in a quantum system have definite positions, and that these positions are guided by an underlying wave function. According to this theory, the wave function provides the probabilities for the positions of particles, but it also physically guides their motion. This theory allows for a deterministic explanation of quantum phenomena, as the positions of particles are determined by the wave function and their initial conditions.

In this theory, the wave function does not collapse due to observer measurement, but instead evolves continuously according to the Schrödinger equation. This makes the pilot wave theory a deterministic alternative to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is probabilistic and relies on the concept of wave function collapse.

Could this type of theory be called superdeterminism?

The term "superdeterminism" has been used in the past to describe theories that are more deterministic than standard quantum mechanics. The pilot wave theory, or de Broglie-Bohm theory, is one example of a theory that has been referred to as superdeterministic.

In superdeterministic theories, the evolution of a quantum system is determined by both the wave function and hidden variables that specify the exact initial conditions of the system. These hidden variables are not accessible to observers and are assumed to exist outside the realm of observation.

The idea behind superdeterminism is to provide a more complete and deterministic explanation of quantum phenomena, while still maintaining the predictions of standard quantum mechanics. However, superdeterminism is a highly debated topic in the physics community, and many physicists believe that it is not a viable alternative to standard quantum mechanics.

I would propose that a sufficient, necessary, and comprehensive metaphysic of cosmology must include panpsychism due to the intimate relationships between cosmic elements based upon Whiteheadian cosmology.

Whitehead's philosophy, which is known as process philosophy or process theology, emphasizes the idea that the universe is composed of ongoing processes and events, rather than fixed objects. Whitehead's cosmology asserts that the universe is composed of actual entities, which are events or processes that have a definite individuality and unity.

In this context, panpsychism, as a philosophical theory that asserts that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe and is present in all matter, including inanimate objects, may be seen as a natural extension of Whitehead's process philosophy. Panpsychism emphasizes the idea that the universe is a holistic and interconnected system, where all matter is interconnected and has [it's own] subjective experience.

So, it could be argued that incorporating panpsychism into a comprehensive metaphysics of cosmology would be consistent with Whitehead's view of the universe as a system of ongoing processes and events. Panpsychism provides a means of explaining the intimate relationships between cosmic elements by suggesting that all matter has a subjective experience and is connected by a universal consciousness.

I would explore this more but must leave our discussion here. thank you. bye

You're welcome! It was great answering your questions. If you have any further questions, feel free to reach out. Have a great day!

* * * * * * *

Based upon our last discussion... Are there any other quantum theories which might better explain our discussion which lean towards Alfred North Whitehead's observations of cosmic indeterminancy?

There are several theories in quantum mechanics that align with Alfred North Whitehead's concept of cosmic indeterminacy. Some of them are:

1. The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI)
2. Bohmian Mechanics
3. Modal Interpretations
4. Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM)
5. Contextual Quantum Mechanics (CQM)

These theories propose that physical phenomena are not deterministic and are influenced by the observer's perspective and measurement. They also suggest that reality is not absolute but is dependent on the relationships between particles and their interactions.

Explain theory 4

Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) is a interpretation of quantum mechanics that emphasizes the role of the observer in shaping the reality of a quantum system. It suggests that quantum states are not independent but are relational and dependent on the observer's measurement.

In this interpretation, the fundamental objects in the universe are not individual particles but the relationships between them. It argues that the properties of a particle are not fixed and inherent, but rather they are established through the particle's relationship with other particles.

According to this theory, the observer and the observed system form a holistic entity, and the act of observation collapses the wave function and determines the properties of the system.

Relational Quantum Mechanics was proposed by Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin as an alternative to the traditional Copenhagen interpretation and has received support from some physicists and philosophers.

Explain theory 5

Contextual Quantum Mechanics (CQM) is a theory that suggests that the outcome of a quantum measurement depends on the context in which it is made. In other words, it asserts that the properties of a quantum particle are not absolute but are dependent on the experimental setup and the measurement performed.

CQM proposes that quantum particles are not described by fixed properties, such as position and momentum, but by a set of potentialities that are determined by the experimental context. In this view, quantum mechanics is not a theory of particle behavior but a theory of measurement.

This interpretation of quantum mechanics asserts that quantum measurements are inherently indeterminate and that the act of measurement collapses the wave function and determines the properties of the particle. It also suggests that the quantum state is not just a mathematical description but it is a real entity that determines the properties of the particle.

CQM has received support from some physicists and has been applied in the development of new quantum technologies, such as quantum cryptography and quantum computing.

Which is to say. "The experiment fixes the results?"

Yes, in the Contextual Quantum Mechanics (CQM) theory, the experimental setup and the measurement performed determine the properties of the quantum particle. The outcome of a quantum measurement is dependent on the context in which it is made. The properties of a quantum particle are not absolute and fixed but are dependent on the experimental setup and the measurement performed. The act of measurement collapses the wave function and determines the properties of the particle.

Please explain theory 3

Modal Interpretations of quantum mechanics are a family of interpretations that assert that the quantum state represents the properties that a particle could have, rather than the properties it actually has.

In modal interpretations, quantum particles are considered to have a set of potential properties, such as position and momentum, that are defined by the wave function. The wave function describes the probabilities of each of these potential properties being realized upon measurement.

The modal interpretations suggest that the quantum state is complete and that the properties of a particle are not fixed and inherent, but are determined by the measurement performed. In this view, the act of measurement collapses the wave function and determines the properties of the particle.

Modal interpretations include the De Broglie-Bohm theory and the Many-Minds interpretation. They offer an alternative to the traditional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and have received support from some physicists and philosophers.

I prefer theory 4. Can we expand on its topic?

Sure, let me elaborate further on Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM).

RQM asserts that the properties of a particle are not inherent but are established through its relationship with other particles. In this interpretation, the universe is not comprised of independent and fixed objects, but of relationships between objects. The relationships between particles determine the properties of each particle.

According to RQM, the observer and the observed system form a holistic entity, and the act of observation collapses the wave function and determines the properties of the system. The observer's measurement is not seen as a passive process, but as an active process that shapes the reality of the quantum system.

RQM also asserts that the quantum state is not just a mathematical description but is a real entity that determines the properties of the particle. It suggests that quantum mechanics is not just a theory of particle behavior but a theory of measurement and that the wave function describes the relationship between the observer and the observed system.

In summary, RQM emphasizes the role of the observer and the relationships between particles in shaping the reality of a quantum system and offers a holistic and relational view of quantum mechanics.

How is this different from manipulation of forces through panpsychicism?

Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) and Panpsychism are two distinct concepts in philosophy and physics that offer different explanations for the nature of reality.

RQM is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that emphasizes the role of the observer and the relationships between particles in shaping the reality of a quantum system. It suggests that the properties of a particle are not fixed and inherent but are established through its relationship with other particles.

Panpsychism, on the other hand, is a philosophical theory that asserts that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe and is present in all matter, including inanimate objects. It proposes that consciousness is not just a property of complex biological systems but is a basic and universal feature of the universe.

While both theories suggest that the properties of physical systems are not fixed and inherent but are shaped by relationships, RQM focuses on the relationships between particles in the context of quantum mechanics, while panpsychism extends this idea to include the relationships between consciousness and matter.

So, in short, RQM and Panpsychism offer different explanations for the relationships between physical systems and the shaping of reality, with RQM focusing on the relationships between particles in quantum mechanics and panpsychism extending this idea to include relationships between consciousness and matter.

* * * * * * *

RESOURCING ADDENDUM

“The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.” –Alfred North Whitehead

For additional referencing follow up with Matt Segall's read here. Matt is someone I go to who is more studied than I am in Whitehead and among other topics as taken on process-based panpsychism -

• https://footnotes2plato.com/2019/09/29/physicalism-and-its-discontents-a-study-in-whiteheads-panexperientialist-alternative-draft/

• https://footnotes2plato.com/2020/10/30/consciousness-between-science-and-philosophy-response-to-philip-goff-on-panpsychism/

Consciousness Between Science and Philosophy

(response to panpsychist Philip Goff)

by Footnotes2Plato: Matt Segall

Oct 30, 2020

[18 min]

Experience pervades and reverberates through Nature, “inside” and “outside” the mind, and is not bundled up into tiny private particles. The world isn’t that cold. It’s warm and alive, leaving every drop of experience open to be grown into by its internal relations with others. Reality is not fundamentally made of externally related mind dust, each particle watching its own private qualia screen, trapped in its own solipsistic egg shell universe. Rather, reality is made of experiential relations, or prehensions. Whiteheadian prehensions are not just passive feelings: they grow together into subjects who express aims.

Is there aim or value being realized in the non-human cosmos in Goff’s panpsychist vision? The reality of aim is relevant to his defense of ethics from scientific explanation. If there is such a thing as ethics in the universe, it’s because at least some animals have the ability to behave on purpose, that is, to act by launching an intention beyond the immediate moment in the hopes of effecting some ideal change upon the future. If conscious humans are ethical creatures (and ethics is not reducible to Sam Harris’ laboratory experiments), then the universe includes aims, at least in the form of our human actions. Where do these aims come from? I think we are left having to make the same move when it comes to explaining the place of aim in Nature that Goff accepts we had to make to explain consciousness. Aims also go all the way down. They evolve and accrue enhancements upon the way. Humans are just an especially intense expression of something Nature has been doing from the get go.

In Whitehead’s process ontology, we can think of the experiential ground of reality as an eternal pulse whereby what is objectively public in one moment becomes subjectively prehended in the next, and whereby the subject that emerges from its feelings then perishes into public expression as an object (or “superject”) aiming for novelty. There is a rhythm of Being between object and subject, not an ontological division. This rhythm powers the creative growth of the universe from one occasion of experience to the next. This is the Whiteheadian mantra: “The many become one and are increased by one.”

- Matthew Segall (article summation of dialogue here)

For more basic reads on Panpsychism

go here:

Panpsychism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Panpsychism
In the philosophy of mind, panpsychism is the view that the mind or a mindlike aspect is a ... Alfred North Whitehead, Bertrand Russell, and Galen Strawson.

Panpsychism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://plato.stanford.edu › entries › panpsychism

by P Goff · 2001 · Cited by 161 — Panpsychism is the view that mentality is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world. The view has a long and venerable history in ...

Physicalism and Its Discontents: A Study in Whitehead's ...

https://footnotes2plato.com › 2019/09/29 › physicalism...

Sep 29, 2019 — Despite the initial incredulity it provokes, this paper argues that panpsychism—specifically Whitehead's process-relational, panexperiential ...

Archetypal Panpsychism: Whitehead, Jung, & Hillman
https://footnotes2plato.com › 2016/08/26 › archetypal-...
Aug 26, 2016 — Matthew and Becca will explore the convergence of two streams of thought: the panpsychist cosmology of Alfred North Whitehead and the ...