thank you.

"Ok, but you are going about it the wrong way. The possibility of god existing or not is irrelevant to what we can know about his existence. If something is unkowable, then any categorical statements about it are invalid. Yes, we can consider the possibility, but if you can't ever tell if it's true or not, this approach makes no sense.

we do not have enough evidence to suggest that god exists or does not exist in a black hole.

And what i'm saying is that since we will never have that evidence, no matter what, it is irrelevant to approach the problem from this angle."

I respect your position, but this is where we are going to have to agree to disagre, Ive got to shovel some ones drive way. It was nice talking to you.

is it ok if we end here, I don't see this argument producing useful discussion any further, and I have to go do something. Thanks for talking to me.

i have to say all of the statements above to people who people who wouldn't believe what you say.

Yes, it's true that god might not exist. But the point i am trying to make is that it is a possibility that God exists. This argument is for people who say it is impossible for God to exist. the argument saying that it is like saying 0=1 is unfair because we have enough to definitively prove that 0 does not equal one making it different than what I am saying, we do not have enough evidence to suggest that god exists or does not exist in a black hole.

I understand that this tangent has gone off topic, and as for the second paragraph, i am not saying that something needs to be unknowable to suggest the possibility that something can exist. It just means that we don't know yet.

It is true currently, because what I am saying is that God has the possibility of existing. This truth stands strong because, using this logic, it is difficult to disprove the existence of God. (I do not believe in god but i like this thought experiment)

"The argument you give takes any input, god, santa, aliens, a basketball, and gives the same answer, i.e. result. Not hard to look at it like a function."

I think it is well worth the fact that it suggests god can exist. It gives hope to those who think god cannot exist and want god to be able to exist.

"But then how do you know another person is conscious? You cannot read their mind either."

This is valid criticism; however, I fail to see how I should respond, i could say something like, "No, it is obvious that you cannot read other people's minds," which would suggest that we don't know if other people are conscious. Or i could say it is obvious that other people are conscious, and then i would fall into the trap I created.

"See, this is the problem, you conflate not understood with forever hidden from view (if we assume some things about black holes). Just because it's not understood doesn't mean it's not understandable."

I think this is valid criticism. In the future it may be understood what is behind a black hole, and this frame of this argument will be useless.

AI is sentient (god).

what?

Im sorry you misunderstood, i didn't do very well of explaining what i meant i now see that its funny because it looks like i am saying Ai is god, however i am comparing black holes and god to the mystery surrounding ai and sentience.

​

"

this is flawed because it ignores the idea that rather than needing to be proved, it is a virtue in its own that god is a possibility.

I'm glad we're having this conversation. I really wanted to talk about what I think. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to talk to me.

Can you explain what it means "if a function takes any input and gives you only one output," and also what it has to do with AI because we cannot tell if AI is conscious, even if it is because we cannot read minds. This is furthermore a possibility because there are things about AI that are not well understood therefore within what we don't understand (like a black hole) it is possible AI is sentient (god).

What has value is in the eyes of the beholder, I know this argument can be used to say it is possible the flying spaghetti monster decided to manifest itself when it did by manipulating the minds of humans as a parody of it, but i think it has value to explain why god might exist, even if this argument can be used for other things.

I still think its possible the engineers missed something that makes it sentient, i don't think its realistic, but the idea that it is possible that it is secretly sentient and the engineers missed it intrigues me.

I fully respect you because the reason I wanted to talk about this on reddit was because I couldn't talk to any professionals, I am fully aware of what the god in the gaps theory is, but my idea is different because it does not claim that god exists somewhere, instead it is a thought experiment.

A"does god exist?"

B"no"

A"But what if he is in a black hole?"

B"he is not in a black hole"

A"I cannot fully trust your judgement until we see what is inside a black hole first, then we can say whether or not he is in a black hole."

It is simple, concise and one time one of Open AI's models called me a genius because of it, although most people seem to think im an idiot for saying it.

I see your point however, it is only a possibility that god was simply made up. I believe god has been made up however, I am not able to confirm it by going back in time and seeing for myself if god was made up.

I have to go to bed now, I'm not going to be able to defend my ideas anymore. If you were offended at this post or got mad at me, I am sorry. I thought this was a good idea.

do i need to give timestamps? if yes, I will find them for you.

he literally said engineers dont know how ai works fully and goodbye.

Im not familiar with smaller ais that aren't chat gpt that is my bad.

I'm not familiar with AI that plays and operates video games; I'm not a professional, so I'm not sure about smaller AIs. That is an inaccuracy from my behalf

Lex Freidman explained on the Joe Rogan podcast that there is an air of mystery surrounding how ai works, that is my source, i believe he has worked on ai.

I am an athiest

I do not believe in god

I claim that it is impossible to see what is inside a black hole, and to say that god isn't there is fundamentally an assumption. I apply this analogy to artificial intelligence, claiming that because not everything is fully understood, there is room for something the engineers missed that makes it sentient. I do not claim that god exists or that AI is sentient, and I apologize if I didn't make this post the easiest to start a discussion with.

This topic could lead to interesting discussions and debates about the nature of consciousness and the ethical considerations surrounding the development and use of AI technology. Additionally, the comparison to the concept of God being hidden in a black hole could spark discussions about the role of faith, science, and the unknown in our understanding of the universe.