Philosophy Now Forum

Excusing God
Raymond Tallis highlights the problem of evil.

Why...should we believe that a God who is prevented by the laws of nature he has himself created from making that nature free of appalling suffering, or who sees the pain of the evolutionary process as an acceptable price to pay for the emergence of beings with free will, will be able to secure his favourites a decent after-life?

You bet your life? And, really, for any number of mere mortals around the globe that will always be what it comes down to. With God [most of them] you have access to moral commandments on this side of the grave. Nothing fractured and fragmented about the Ten Commandments, right? And then the point of all that...acquiring immortality and salvation on the other side for all of eternity.

And you don't have to actually demonstrate the existence of a God, the God, your God. Instead, you take a "leap of faith". Like Kierkegaard. Though some leaps [or wagers] appear to be considerably more sophisticated than others.

While it may seem plausible that, as Goff says, “a loving God would want to preserve our conscious lives after death and would want to move us towards a better world”, it is equally plausible, on the basis of his performance in this world, that this will beyond his limited powers.

Of course, this prompted those like Harold Kushner to argue precisely this in regard to the God of Abraham. A Divine rendition of "it's beyond My control". On the other hand, when you go down that path, you can't help but wonder what else might be beyond His control. Immortality? Salvation?

And then, historically, the part those who worshipped one God came to view those who worshipped a different God [or no God at all] as infidels. Deserving of one or another inquisition, crusade, jihad, final solution.

The supreme irony here being that these horrific conflicts can even revolve around the same God. And you know what I mean.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 7:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 7:29 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 7:22 pm
ChatGPT is only my research assistant .

Well, do some thinking about how you're trying to "use" it. You didn't ask it what the grounds of any such claims were, just whether or not there were some such in that code. And some of what it told you, like about Islamists, is just laughably wrong, and you didn't even catch that. A moment's thought, or even the most superficial knowledge of the history of slavery, should have alerted you to the mistake.

But it didn't. And why not? Because people blindly trust ChatGPT, and never imagine it can lie to them or be in error, or that it's been programmed by somebody, a somebody invariably with his own prejudices and PC interests. But they think all that doesn't matter, because technology = superior, in their thinking.

It's always correct, as you have done, to seek sources in a bibliography. I will if you like go back and ask ChatGPT what are its sources for the info I relayed to you .

Well, the problem is beyond even that. For even were it the case that all the philosophies you got from ChatGPT had codes that said X or Y, there's nothing in any of it that implies they have any rational grounds justifying or compelling compliance with their dictates. In other words, it's easy for me to say, "I don't think you should have your slave"; but I then need to go on to say on what basis you should regard enslaving people as bad. That's a whole other level of difficulty. But that's the level we're debating here.

It's one thing to have a code; it's quite another to have a justified and rationally-supportable axiom for that code.

Chat has a good reputation...

Oh, now you're just being funny.

For example, what sort of source delivers to you, with unabashed confidence, that Islam is against slavery? Only one that is entirely swallowed up by PC wishful thinking, and has no data at all that it will use on the history of Islam.

If ChatGPT gets a "good reputation," then God help us all...because it lies, omits and commits PC errors all the time.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 7:22 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 7:09 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 6:50 pm I got ChatGPT to answer your question

So the ol' brain just wasn't working today? You preferred some programmer's answer to your own judgment?...

...If you're not going to think, this is going to be a very short conversation.

ChatGPT is only my research assistant . It was I myself who asked it for details about Aquinas and Christianisation, and the people who influences Aristotle. ChatGPT has more access than I to recorded historiography. I could have researched all this myself in a library, however Chat is a lot faster.

You show you do not understand how to use an AI machine, Chat GPT is not a "programmer" it's a large language synthesiser. It combines language utterances sans input from a human.

Belinda, this is just one of the many reasons why IC gets so much flack from those of us who refuse to put up with his hypocritical horse crap.

I mean, just behold his unmitigated gall in berating you for using ChatGPT as your research assistant in what he has previously (and condescendingly) referred to as "...outsourcing one's brain..." to AI,...

...while at the same time he clearly "outsources his own brain" to the writers of the Bible.

Again, this is not to insinuate that The Bible doesn't contain nuggets of truth and wisdom, no, it is to point out IC's brazen hypocrisy.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 11:13 pm ...he clearly "outsources his own brain" to the writers of the Bible.

Except that you'll find that I provide rational justifications for what I assert. ChatGPT provided a phony list, one that was laughably incorrect with regard to Islam, and did so with no justifications. A small difference? Quite a big one, actually.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 11:17 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 11:13 pm ...he clearly "outsources his own brain" to the writers of the Bible.

Except that you'll find that I provide rational justifications for what I assert. ChatGPT provided a phony list, one that was laughably incorrect with regard to Islam, and did so with no justifications. A small difference? Quite a big one, actually.

You should know by now that I am not easily drawn-in to your game of attempting to distract one away from the focus of the argument, for your reply had nothing to do with the point I was making.

And regardless of who was making the most sense between you and Belinda, the point was to highlight your, again, brazen hypocrisy in berating Belinda for "...outsourcing her brain..." to AI while conveniently ignoring the fact that you are just as guilty of "...outsourcing your brain..." to the myth-driven writers of the Bible.

My goodness, for a person who so strongly believes in the veracity of every jot and tittle written in a book by an amalgam of ancient minds, you sure do tend to ignore some of its more salient offerings, such as the following, for example...

"...Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye..."

-- Mathew 7:5 (KJV)

_______

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 12:54 am You should know by now that I am not easily drawn-in to your game of attempting to distract one away from the focus of the argument, for your reply had nothing to do with the point I was making.

You didn't have a point. You were just slandering me again. I'm used to that. But I gave you as much reply...plausibly more...than your cheap-shot deserved.

You're welcome.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 11:17 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 11:13 pm ...he clearly "outsources his own brain" to the writers of the Bible.

Except that you'll find that I provide rational justifications for what I assert. ChatGPT provided a phony list, one that was laughably incorrect with regard to Islam, and did so with no justifications. A small difference? Quite a big one, actually.

Take that up with ChatGPT itself. There is not space on this forum to paste all that ChatGPT said on the matter of comparative slavery. Chat actually did tell me a lot about the Islamic stance on slavery.
You should inform yourself about peer review . You are not a scholar , I wish you were!

I also wish you would read The Bible as a book about love not fear and near-Take that up with ChatGPT itself. There is not space on this forum to paste all that ChatGPT said on the matter of comparative slavery. Chat actually did tell me a lot about the Islamic stance on slavery.
You should inform yourself about peer review . You are not a scholar , I wish you were!
I wish too that you would read The Bible as a book about love , not a bool about fear and near-paranoia

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 10:50 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 11:17 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 11:13 pm ...he clearly "outsources his own brain" to the writers of the Bible.

Except that you'll find that I provide rational justifications for what I assert. ChatGPT provided a phony list, one that was laughably incorrect with regard to Islam, and did so with no justifications. A small difference? Quite a big one, actually.

Take that up with ChatGPT itself.

I don't bother with it. The most I ever take from it is a suggestion about where I might look for something. And if you know what a "scholar" is, I suspect you already know ChatGPT is not reliable and is not prized by scholars for academic work, just as Wikis are likewise rejected. It's the way in which both are constructed that make them an unhealthy mixture of truths and falsehoods. And all scholars know that.

The human brain is still the court of decision for these matters. Anybody who forgets that has, indeed, outsourced his or her brain.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 6:10 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 10:50 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 11:17 pm
Except that you'll find that I provide rational justifications for what I assert. ChatGPT provided a phony list, one that was laughably incorrect with regard to Islam, and did so with no justifications. A small difference? Quite a big one, actually.

Take that up with ChatGPT itself.

I don't bother with it. The most I ever take from it is a suggestion about where I might look for something. And if you know what a "scholar" is, I suspect you already know ChatGPT is not reliable and is not prized by scholars for academic work, just as Wikis are likewise rejected. It's the way in which both are constructed that make them an unhealthy mixture of truths and falsehoods. And all scholars know that.



The human brain is still the court of decision for these matters. Anybody who forgets that has, indeed, outsourced his or her brain.

Plenty of serious academics use ChatGPT . It’s just a tool. People use it to try out ideas, tidy up their writing, or look at something from a fresh angle. Even major journals are okay with that, as long as the author takes full responsibility.

Saying ChatGPT kills originality is like saying Google killed curiosity or calculators killed maths. Tools don’t replace thinking — they just help you get to the good part quicker.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 8:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 6:10 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 10:50 am

Take that up with ChatGPT itself.

I don't bother with it. The most I ever take from it is a suggestion about where I might look for something. And if you know what a "scholar" is, I suspect you already know ChatGPT is not reliable and is not prized by scholars for academic work, just as Wikis are likewise rejected. It's the way in which both are constructed that make them an unhealthy mixture of truths and falsehoods. And all scholars know that.



The human brain is still the court of decision for these matters. Anybody who forgets that has, indeed, outsourced his or her brain.

Plenty of serious academics use ChatGPT .

No, any of them who cited ChatGPT for academic work would be laughed out of the conference. It's not credible, and it would amount to an admission that that writer could not do proper research for herself.

But if you don't believe me, here's what your outsourced brain, ChatGPT says about that:

For serious academic work, ChatGPT is not acceptable as an author or primary source, but it can be used ethically and transparently as an assistive tool. The key is to use it as a learning aid rather than a replacement for your own critical thinking and effort.

Ethical restrictions on using ChatGPT Academic institutions and journals have published strict guidelines for AI tools, largely driven by fundamental concerns about academic integrity.

Fabrication and "hallucination": A primary concern is that AI chatbots like ChatGPT can generate plausible-sounding but completely false information, including fake references and statistics. You are responsible for any incorrect information you include in your work, regardless of its source.
Plagiarism: While ChatGPT creates unique responses rather than copying from a single source, its output is derived from vast amounts of existing data. Submitting AI-generated content as your own original work is considered a form of plagiarism or academic misconduct.

You couldn't get a more damning fault, when it comes to research, than "generating plausible-sounding but completely false information." That's what we call "telling lies." And you couldn't get anything less academically ethical than stealing other people's work, which is what ChatGPT does...in fact, it's whole method.

So there. ChatGPT has spoken. It must be true, right?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 9:09 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 8:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 6:10 pm
I don't bother with it. The most I ever take from it is a suggestion about where I might look for something. And if you know what a "scholar" is, I suspect you already know ChatGPT is not reliable and is not prized by scholars for academic work, just as Wikis are likewise rejected. It's the way in which both are constructed that make them an unhealthy mixture of truths and falsehoods. And all scholars know that.



The human brain is still the court of decision for these matters. Anybody who forgets that has, indeed, outsourced his or her brain.

Plenty of serious academics use ChatGPT .

No, any of them who cited ChatGPT for academic work would be laughed out of the conference. It's not credible, and it would amount to an admission that that writer could not do proper research for herself.

But if you don't believe me, here's what your outsourced brain, ChatGPT says about that:

For serious academic work, ChatGPT is not acceptable as an author or primary source, but it can be used ethically and transparently as an assistive tool. The key is to use it as a learning aid rather than a replacement for your own critical thinking and effort.

Ethical restrictions on using ChatGPT Academic institutions and journals have published strict guidelines for AI tools, largely driven by fundamental concerns about academic integrity.

Fabrication and "hallucination": A primary concern is that AI chatbots like ChatGPT can generate plausible-sounding but completely false information, including fake references and statistics. You are responsible for any incorrect information you include in your work, regardless of its source.
Plagiarism: While ChatGPT creates unique responses rather than copying from a single source, its output is derived from vast amounts of existing data. Submitting AI-generated content as your own original work is considered a form of plagiarism or academic misconduct.

You couldn't get a more damning fault, when it comes to research, than "generating plausible-sounding but completely false information." That's what we call "telling lies." And you couldn't get anything less academically ethical than stealing other people's work, which is what ChatGPT does...in fact, it's whole method.

So there. ChatGPT has spoken. It must be true, right?

But you don't even comprehend what Chat said! What Chat said is applicable to all scholarly sources including scholarly books. I am sincerely sorry that you are not a better spokesman for God---not that my feelings have anything to do with what is the case.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 11:54 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 9:09 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 8:49 pm
Plenty of serious academics use ChatGPT .

No, any of them who cited ChatGPT for academic work would be laughed out of the conference. It's not credible, and it would amount to an admission that that writer could not do proper research for herself.

But if you don't believe me, here's what your outsourced brain, ChatGPT says about that:

For serious academic work, ChatGPT is not acceptable as an author or primary source, but it can be used ethically and transparently as an assistive tool. The key is to use it as a learning aid rather than a replacement for your own critical thinking and effort.

Ethical restrictions on using ChatGPT Academic institutions and journals have published strict guidelines for AI tools, largely driven by fundamental concerns about academic integrity.

Fabrication and "hallucination": A primary concern is that AI chatbots like ChatGPT can generate plausible-sounding but completely false information, including fake references and statistics. You are responsible for any incorrect information you include in your work, regardless of its source.
Plagiarism: While ChatGPT creates unique responses rather than copying from a single source, its output is derived from vast amounts of existing data. Submitting AI-generated content as your own original work is considered a form of plagiarism or academic misconduct.

You couldn't get a more damning fault, when it comes to research, than "generating plausible-sounding but completely false information." That's what we call "telling lies." And you couldn't get anything less academically ethical than stealing other people's work, which is what ChatGPT does...in fact, it's whole method.

So there. ChatGPT has spoken. It must be true, right?

What Chat said is applicable to all scholarly sources including scholarly books.

No, "other scholarly books" don't use plagiarism as their inherent method. And "other scholarly books" are written by researchers who are trying not to "generate plausible-sounding but completely false information, fake references and statistics."

Even ChatGPT tells you why you can't trust ChatGPT...and still, you want to trust Chat GPT?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 5:38 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 11:54 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 9:09 pm
No, any of them who cited ChatGPT for academic work would be laughed out of the conference. It's not credible, and it would amount to an admission that that writer could not do proper research for herself.

But if you don't believe me, here's what your outsourced brain, ChatGPT says about that:

For serious academic work, ChatGPT is not acceptable as an author or primary source, but it can be used ethically and transparently as an assistive tool. The key is to use it as a learning aid rather than a replacement for your own critical thinking and effort.

Ethical restrictions on using ChatGPT Academic institutions and journals have published strict guidelines for AI tools, largely driven by fundamental concerns about academic integrity.

Fabrication and "hallucination": A primary concern is that AI chatbots like ChatGPT can generate plausible-sounding but completely false information, including fake references and statistics. You are responsible for any incorrect information you include in your work, regardless of its source.
Plagiarism: While ChatGPT creates unique responses rather than copying from a single source, its output is derived from vast amounts of existing data. Submitting AI-generated content as your own original work is considered a form of plagiarism or academic misconduct.

You couldn't get a more damning fault, when it comes to research, than "generating plausible-sounding but completely false information." That's what we call "telling lies." And you couldn't get anything less academically ethical than stealing other people's work, which is what ChatGPT does...in fact, it's whole method.

So there. ChatGPT has spoken. It must be true, right?

What Chat said is applicable to all scholarly sources including scholarly books.

No, "other scholarly books" don't use plagiarism as their inherent method. And "other scholarly books" are written by researchers who are trying not to "generate plausible-sounding but completely false information, fake references and statistics."

Even ChatGPT tells you why you can't trust ChatGPT...and still, you want to trust Chat GPT?

I think you are mistaking quoting which is allowable, with plagiarism which is pretending to be the originator of the material.Chat does not pretend to be the originator of the material , but is the tool which collects the material requested by the user.The first need of the user is to originate her own question/


# Ethical AI Use in Academic Research — Short Guide

### 1. Define your question first
Start with your own words and ideas. Don’t let AI frame your topic.

### 2. Use AI to map, not to answer
Ask for overviews, key scholars, and useful search terms — then verify they exist.

### 3. Read selectively but genuinely
Use AI to identify which works matter most, but read those works yourself (at least abstracts or core chapters).

### 4. Let AI clarify, not claim
Use it to explain theories, compare authors, or outline arguments — never as a source of facts or quotations.

### 5. Synthesize and draft ethically
Use AI to help organize your notes or improve structure and style, but make sure the reasoning and evidence are yours.

### 6. Verify everything
Check every claim and citation against real publications before including it in your work.

### 7. Disclose use transparently
Include a short note such as:
> “AI assistance (OpenAI GPT-5) was used for idea organization and drafting support;

I got the above sequence from ChatGPT.
I confess I did not always check ChatGPT by reading the cited material .("Verify everything") But sometimes I did. I will be more careful to do so unless the material cited is something I have already read. For instance I have read Spinoza, and the Book of Ruth, and will reread the Book of Ruth .
.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 5:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 5:38 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 11:54 am
What Chat said is applicable to all scholarly sources including scholarly books.

No, "other scholarly books" don't use plagiarism as their inherent method. And "other scholarly books" are written by researchers who are trying not to "generate plausible-sounding but completely false information, fake references and statistics."

Even ChatGPT tells you why you can't trust ChatGPT...and still, you want to trust Chat GPT?

I think you are mistaking quoting which is allowable, with plagiarism which is pretending to be the originator of the material.Chat does not pretend to be the originator of the material , but is the tool which collects the material requested by the user.

Don't be silly. "Quoting" is done by "citing," which means acknowledging the source, so the source can be checked. ChatGPT mashes things, without citations, and then presents them as if they were fact. And I note you ignore ChatGPT's admission of outright fabrication and production of false information, references and statistics. Any academic who did these things, and was caught, would be censured or fired. Somebody who knows how real academics work knows all this, too.

ChatGPT says ChatGPT lies and falsifies. That's such a circular admission it cannot be untrue. For if it were, ChatGPT would just be lying again...this time, lying about its own unreliability.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 6:23 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 5:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 5:38 pm
No, "other scholarly books" don't use plagiarism as their inherent method. And "other scholarly books" are written by researchers who are trying not to "generate plausible-sounding but completely false information, fake references and statistics."

Even ChatGPT tells you why you can't trust ChatGPT...and still, you want to trust Chat GPT?

I think you are mistaking quoting which is allowable, with plagiarism which is pretending to be the originator of the material.Chat does not pretend to be the originator of the material , but is the tool which collects the material requested by the user.

Don't be silly. "Quoting" is done by "citing," which means acknowledging the source, so the source can be checked. ChatGPT mashes things, without citations, and then presents them as if they were fact. And I note you ignore ChatGPT's admission of outright fabrication and production of false information, references and statistics. Any academic who did these things, and was caught, would be censured or fired. Somebody who knows how real academics work knows all this, too.

ChatGPT says ChatGPT lies and falsifies. That's such a circular admission it cannot be untrue. For if it were, ChatGPT would just be lying again...this time, lying about its own unreliability.

That is why , like you do when you read the bibliography at the end of a book, you should ask ChatGPT to reveal its sources.

Concerning your last paragraph, Immanuel, if ChatGPT got a bad reputation for consistently lying or hallucinating this would be bad for business. OpenAI who own ChatGPT are doing exceedingly well the least time I checked.