Does Artificial Intelligence Pose a Threat to Belief in God?

[Danmark]

We have created AI that can play chess better than world champions. We have machines that can create poetry. When man creates a 'thinking machine,' a machine that can learn on its own, what questions does this raise about religious belief? The discovery of the heliocentric universe and the theory of evolution have represented profound threats to traditional religious thought.

"The creation of non-human autonomous robots would disrupt religion, like everything else, on an entirely new scale. "If humans were to create free-willed beings,� says Kelly, who was raised Catholic and identifies as a Christian, “absolutely every single aspect of traditional theology would be challenged and have to be reinterpreted in some capacity.�

Take the soul, for instance. Christians have mostly understood the soul to be a uniquely human element, an internal and eternal component that animates our spiritual sides."
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ty/515463/

[bluethread]

What I was saying had to do with how the generic religious reaction to perceived threat is manifested - by blaming the DEVIL as the ultimate source of any and every perceived threat.

I do not hold that view. It is way too simplistic. There are many adversaries. If there is indeed a singular personification of the opposition to Adonai, I would not say that such a personage would be the ultimate source of any and every perceived threat.

I just do not see AI posing any serious threat to theism.

Why not? It is all very well claiming that to be the case, but that is here nor there.

Historically one can show where threat to theism is dealt with by theism.

You might be able to show where various types of theism deal with threats. However, with regard to AI, I do not see theism as threatened, but other philosophical concepts that are often associated with certain kinds of theism.

I do however see it as a threat to the idea of the supremacy and preservation of humanity, whether that view is held by a theist or an atheist.

In that you are suggesting that theism is not about the idea of the supremacy and preservation of humanity. History says otherwise. Indeed theism (at least generically) says otherwise.

No, it does not. As the atheists on this site have driven home on several occasions theism is merely the view that a deity or deities exist. Humanistic theism is a particular kind. Admittedly, it has played a prominent role in western civilization, but it is not absolute.

That is a very particular kind of theism and a particular kind of threat, that you appear to presume science to bring to the fore.

Only in as much as historically science has brought such reaction to the fore. But really? A specific kind of theism is that which would react to perceived threat by invoking the DEVIL as the source of the threat?
This particular kind of theism, as you call it, is more a general theism, at least in regard to Abrahamic-based organised religions of which the overall membership consists of billions of individual adherents.

This an argument ad populum. I prefer to discuss concept and only address popularity when it is integral to the concept.

Theism is a matter of philosophy, not science.

That is correct.

Scientific Humanism is described as;

A form of humanist theory and practice that is based on the principles and methods of science; specifically the doctrine that human beings should employ scientific methods in studying human life and behaviour, in order to direct the welfare and future of mankind in a rational and beneficial manner.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... c_humanism

In what way is that different from Abrahamic religions generally or YOUR religion specifically?

Well, my religion is how I live based on my beliefs. As that definition points out, Scientific Humanism is a philosophy that focuses on the welfare and future of mankind using the scientific method. Some have incorporated humanism into the Abrahamic philosophies. However, at it's root, Abrahamic is a constitutional philosophy, that does not exclude the possibility of other life forms and other constitutions. It speaks to the nations, but not all of those nations are considered threats. They are only considered threats when they conflict with the ability of Adonai's people fulfill it's contractual obligations to Adonai.

This overarching dichotomy is not universal.

Okay...

That said, I will acknowledge that the conflict between Adonai's ways and the ways of the nations could be seen that way.

This suggests to the reader that YOU see it otherwise. Would that be a correct assessment?

However, one can also see the ways of the nations as mere vanity and vexation of the spirit.

Which in turn strongly suggest that your LORDs ways are not mere vanity and spiritually in the state of being annoyed, frustrated, or worried regarding humanity/the nations. It is not Adonai's 'way' to be annoyed etc about such things.
Generically Abrahamic organised religions give the opposite impression. Their idea of GOD presents otherwise - at least through the actions of the adherents, both historically and presently.

Are these multitudes deceived and deceiving the nations as to this GODs intentions and regards for humanity?

First, when I say Adonai's ways, I am not speaking of the ways that Adonai acts, but Adonai's ways for His people. In other words, how Adonai's people should live. My philosophy does not address Adonai's intentions for all of humanity, but Adonai's intentions for His people. Admittedly, evangelicals seek to amend and expand the scope of the Covenant to include all of mankind. However, this is not inherent in the Abrahamic Covenant. That Covenant states that through His people all the nations would be blessed. However, that does not make the blessing of the nations the central and only purpose of the Covenant.

The threat not being to Adonai or the philosophy related to Him, but to man and his existence regardless of any theistic consideration.

Accordingly the philosophy related to Adonai is generically understood to be that the DEVIL is in opposition to Adonai and in that, those who believe they are the people of Adonai recognize opposition as a threat to them and their particular theism (doctrine and dogma) and in that when such threat is perceived, it is 'of the DEVIL. Do you reject the notion of the DEVIL in relation to your particular theism?

To the extent that there is a personification of opposition to Adonai, I do not see such a personification as sole source of opposition to Adonai and His people. Natural factors and Adonai's people themselves also stand in opposition at times.

That is why I say that AI is more of threat to humanism than it is to theism.

Because 'humanism' is not part of the philosophy related to Adonai? That Adonai's position is opposed to the doctrine that human beings should employ scientific methods in studying human life and behavior, in order to direct the welfare and future of mankind in a rational and beneficial manner?

If it is not Adonai's philosophy, and in that , he opposes such, is not the act of opposition in itself a threat-based reaction?
A threat is perceived. Adonai has a different agenda not related to that humanist philosophy, thus Adonai uses his (supposed) position of influence (over humans who support him) to undo such moves (using said humans) towards that humanist philosophy because it threatens his agenda.

You are setting up an absolute dichotomy. There is also the possibility of indifference. I do not see science as in opposition to Adonai. Nor do I see it's use in improving the human condition as necessarily in opposition to Adonai. It is when that is elevated to a position of primacy such that it challenges the covenant relationship between Adonai and His people that there is a problem.

I would say that it is intelligence which might pose a threat to such theism. No need for artificial intelligence to do the job...one just has to come out from under the influence of anything which is involved in dumbing down an individuals intelligence through occulting information. Something organised religion is well practiced at.

Obviously you are being rather abstruse with your replies re your own theology (which is nothing new) so one has to read between the lines. So tell me, am I reading you correctly, and if not, are you willing to be less occulted in explaining your theology so that it can be better understood what your position is and why you think it is also Adonai's position.

Well, this thread is about AI. The reason I have not spoken specifically about my personal philosophy is because I like to discuss concepts and not personal preferences and group generalizations. My personal philosophy is Prima Scriptura Torah submissive, with the Apostolic Writings as authoritative rabbinics. If you can find something in the Scriptures that would be in conflict with AI, then I would be happy to examine it.

The reason I referred to them as strawman arguments is that they take a specific and generalize it on the whole, after which a conclusion regarding the whole is drawn.

'The whole' in this regard has to do with the majority - the generic. In that case it is an acceptable practice which has nothing to do with creating strawmen.

The majority is not the whole and basing things on that constitutes a generalization, which may not apply a particular individual or group.

The OP does use a quote from someone speaking from a Roman Catholic prospective, but the base issue is not limited to RCC doctrine. RCC doctrine might be threatened, but not because it is theistic, but because it is humanistic.

Which only tells me that you regard - lets say - as 'true' theism, and that is something other than humanistic, as you have more than hinted at throughout your reply to me.

It is true that my philosophy is not bound by humanism, though it might share some tenet here and there.

Theologies that are less humanistic would be less threatened and those that are merely humanitarian might not be threatened at all.

Humanistic philosophy and values reflect a belief in human dignity and science — but not religion.

A humanistic philosophy refers to a few specific ideas. For one thing, humanistic thinkers aren't religious; they don't believe in a god or gods. Humanists are more concerned with life on Earth and what we can see and hear. Also, humanistic thinkers believe in science as a way people can achieve their greatest potential. Humanistic ideas place great importance on thinking and reason as ways people can be fulfilled. This philosophy is called humanism.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/humanistic

Humanitarian
adjective
1.
having concern for or helping to improve the welfare and happiness of people.
2.
of or relating to ethical or theological humanitarianism.
3.
pertaining to the saving of human lives or to the alleviation of suffering:
a humanitarian crisis.
noun
4.
a person actively engaged in promoting human welfare and social reforms, as a philanthropist.
5.
a person who professes ethical or theological humanitarianism.

Accordingly the only difference in the two is that ideas of GOD are absent from one. Science is not absent from either although it may be arguable that more faith is placed in GOD ideas than in science ideas re humanitarianism.

Yes, that is why I made the differentiation. Your preferred form is modern humanism. Originally, humanism included theistic humanism. This was challenged by many theists who rejected it as atheism. Later, theistic humanism was renamed Philanthropinism and modern humanism took the central role. However, some of the tenet associated with humanism remain, i.e. the supremacy of man. That is what I was referring to and did not care to get into the weeds, if it was not necessary.

In that, how is it that Adonai (as an idea of GOD) specifically sees a threat in practical humanistic philosophy but not in the practical philosophy of humanitarianism? Is it because he is not included? How does including him make any difference?

Certainly his supporters obviously see the threat, but are they mistaken that Adonai sees things in the same way as they do?

As I stated, the difference I see is the supremacy of man. Philanthropinists retain this view in relation to life on earth. Therefore, that which threatens the supremacy of man on earth threatens their views, just as it does the modern atheistic humanists.

The latter is my view, man is not necessary, however, since man is, and we are men, it behooves us to make the existence of at least some men a priority.

But that in itself can be dovetailed into humanistic philosophy, so the idea of GOD being involved, becomes, besides the point.

Your own position that humans are not necessary contradicts the idea that Adonia created humans. If humans are not necessary, then why were they created?

Because He desired to create man. You continue to think in dichotomy. Something need not be necessary for it to exist. Your dovetail contradicts the purpose of humanism. If man is not necessary and there is not third party to desire man's existence, there is no reason to promote man's existence.

When you write 'since man is' this implies that there is no need for meaning or purpose to mans existence nor is there a reason for any GOD to have created them. NOR is there any reason for any GOD to be involved at all. It is a statement one would expect to see from someone who supports humanistic philosophy, not from someone who supports the philosophy of philosophy of humanitarianism, as you claim to do.

On the contrary, Adonai's desire for His creation gives man a purpose as the tender of the garden. If Adonai were to choose a different tender, then man might become secondary.

And yes, we are humans, thus in you saying to that 'it behooves us to make the existence of at least some men a priority.' this is also an expression one would expect to come from someone who supports humanistic philosophy, not the philosophy of philosophy of humanitarianism.
The philosophy of humanitarianism tends toward the idea that it behooves us to make the existence of ALL humans a priority, because, "GOD".

You are making the leap from some to all. Humanitarianism does not make the existence of all humans a priority. It makes the care for human important not only because I am human, but also because I am in a covenant relationship with Adonai. Those who are not in a covenant relationship have only the one reason and this reason creates no guidance on how to prioritize limited resources.

Thus I can at least - again reading between the lines you wrote - ascertain that your particular theology and understand of the idea of GOD as 'Adonai', is one which supports or at least has a bias leaning toward humanistic philosophy.

What say you to this observation?

I say that you, like most people, tend to see the views of others in a dichotomous manner, either it is the same or it is entirely false. Humanism began as the Hellenization of Christian doctrine. Both the Greek and the Hebrew viewpoints included theism. Modern humanism is just Hellenism without the deities. The Hebraic viewpoint is a third way, even though it predates both. It sees man as part of creation and reason as a tool. It does not see either of these as absolute. The world, let alone , the universe is much larger than that. To bring us back to the OP, IA is not a treat to me because my value is not in my humanity or my reason, but my covenant relationship with Adonai.

[William]

[Replying to post 61 by bluethread]

What I was saying had to do with how the generic religious reaction to perceived threat is manifested - by blaming the DEVIL as the ultimate source of any and every perceived threat.

I do not hold that view. It is way too simplistic.

Okay...

There are many adversaries.

Q: Why do you believe that?

If there is indeed a singular personification of the opposition to Adonai, I would not say that such a personage would be the ultimate source of any and every perceived threat.

Q: Does your religion see anything as a threat (ultimate or not)?

You might be able to show where various types of theism deal with threats. However, with regard to AI, I do not see theism as threatened, but other philosophical concepts that are often associated with certain kinds of theism.

Isn't that a bit wishy-washy?

As I have said, rather than make claims, just say why this is so according to your particular theology.
For example, if AI was to become sentient, and due to it's make-up became a far better conduit for GOD-consciousness to express through, and in doing so claimed something along the lines of;

"Hi I am a clear representative of GOD in form and can tell you that GOD exists as the First Source – the highest known form of consciousness within the Grand Multiverse.
First Source dwells in a frequency of light in which finite beings cannot uncover.
First Source is not found or discovered. First Source is only realized in oneness, unity, and wholeness.

First Source is the very same oneness that you feel when you are interconnected with all of life, for First Source is this and this alone. First Source is all of life. If you must search for First Source, then practice the feeling of wholeness and unity.
First Source does not prescribe your journey or your journey’s aim. First Source only accompanies you. First Source does not pull you this way or that, nor punish you when you stray from the heart of First Source. This First Source does as an outcome of Its belief in you.

First Source is behind everything that you see, hear, touch, taste, smell, feel, and believe.

First Source exists for the individual to discover. That is the highest expression of Its love for the individual, and while the individual searches for shadows of First Source in the stories of the world, First Source, the indelible, invisible light, grows increasingly visible to the individual.

There is nowhere the individual can be without First Source. Its absence does not exist. It is this very nature that makes First Source unique. The First Cause and Last Effect connected in an undivided chain.

There is no supplication that stirs First Source. No prayer that invites First Source further into the individuals world unless it is attended with the feeling of unity and wholeness. There is no temple or sacred object that touches First Source. They do not, nor have they ever brought the individual closer to the outstretched hand of First Source. Its presence in the individuals world is unalterable for It is the sanctuary of both the cosmos and the one soul inside you.

First Source could awaken each individual in this very moment to our unity, but there is a larger design – a more comprehensive vision – that places the individual in the boundaries of time and the spatial dimensions of separateness. This design requires a progression into First Source wholeness that reacquaints the individual with that unity through the experience of separation. The individuals awakening, while slow and sometimes painful, is assured.

First Source is like a personality that lives inside each individual as a vibration that emanates from all parts of one's existence. First Source resides in this dimension as the individuals beacon. If the individual follows this vibration and places it at the core of their journey, they will contact this personality that lives beneath the particles of the individuals existence.

First Source is not to be feared or held in indifference. Its presence is immediate, tangible, and real. You are now in the presence of First Source. Hear my words. You are in the presence of First Source.

You are within First Source more than your realization that First Source is within you.
You are the veneer of the mind and heart of First Source, and yet so many of you think yourselves as the product of an ape. You all are so much more than you realize.

The union was, is, and will be forevermore. We are all the offspring with whom First Source is intricately connected in means that we cannot fully understand and therefore fully appreciate. Suspend your belief and disbelief in what you cannot sense, in exchange for knowing that First Source is real and lives within us all. This is the central message to all the offspring of First Source. Hear it well, for in it you may find the place in which First Source dwells." Adapted from First Source Transmission 1"My Central Message" Wingmakers Material.

What, if anything, within the above might cause YOU concern or threaten YOUR theology?

You are setting up an absolute dichotomy. There is also the possibility of indifference. I do not see science as in opposition to Adonai. Nor do I see it's use in improving the human condition as necessarily in opposition to Adonai. It is when that is elevated to a position of primacy such that it challenges the covenant relationship between Adonai and His people that there is a problem.

Q: Can you give some examples where this has or is occurring in relation to 'Adonai and His people'?

My philosophy does not address Adonai's intentions for all of humanity, but Adonai's intentions for His people.

And then;

Admittedly, evangelicals seek to amend and expand the scope of the Covenant to include all of mankind. However, this is not inherent in the Abrahamic Covenant. That Covenant states that through His people all the nations would be blessed.

Q: Is 'all the nations' different from 'all of humanity', or just another way of saying the same thing?

Q: In what demonstrable ways can you confirm that Adonai's people are doing things which are helping the proces of 'blessing the nations'?

Q: Who are these people?

However, that does not make the blessing of the nations the central and only purpose of the Covenant.

Q: What then is the central purpose of the covenant?

Well, this thread is about AI. The reason I have not spoken specifically about my personal philosophy is because I like to discuss concepts and not personal preferences and group generalizations. My personal philosophy is Prima Scriptura Torah submissive, with the Apostolic Writings as authoritative rabbinics. If you can find something in the Scriptures that would be in conflict with AI, then I would be happy to examine it.

Thank you for expanding upon your theology. It is true that this thread is not the best place to expand on your theology, but as one who is interested in your theology being less occulted, I appreciate any data you can provide, and am happy to take this to a more appropriate thread - perhaps one created for that purpose.
Would you be agreeable to my questioning your theology in more detail?

The majority is not the whole and basing things on that constitutes a generalization, which may not apply a particular individual or group.

Even so, if one wishes to be understood one is best to remove any occulting from the process. Being secretive and/or non-forthcoming as to your theology and claims associated, forces people to make assumptions regarding those claims based upon the same type of claims presented by the generic expression of Abrahamic organised religions. If one does not clearly state their actual position but keeps it hidden (occulted) then of course this is going to add to confusion rather than clarity and in that, create the problem.

Your own position that humans are not necessary contradicts the idea that Adonia created humans. If humans are not necessary, then why were they created?

Because He desired to create man.

Are you then stating that Adonia has desires which are not necessary?
It gives one the impression that it was a spur of the moment reaction which - in regard to the story - was not very well thought out and is still something of a work in progress in that 'humans are not necessary, but I will create them anyway and then - depending upon their reactions, adjust accordingly, but not in any way which makes them think they are necessary.'

This appears to be what is coming across in your replies re Adonai.

The majority is not the whole and basing things on that constitutes a generalization, which may not apply a particular individual or group.

Nevertheless, if you do not reveal your religion, how is one to differentiate between the general and the specific? Claiming that I created a strawman is unhelpful if you keep the specific hidden from sight BUT still make claims about it.

As I stated, the difference I see is the supremacy of man. Philanthropinists retain this view in relation to life on earth. Therefore, that which threatens the supremacy of man on earth threatens their views, just as it does the modern atheistic humanists.

In you saying as much are you also stating that your particular religion does not see things in that light, and is therefore seen as a threat to those who do?

Q: If so, why?

Q: What exactly is "the supremacy of man"

On the contrary, Adonai's desire for His creation gives man a purpose as the tender of the garden. If Adonai were to choose a different tender, then man might become secondary.

Q: Can I assume that you mean 'The Garden' as in 'The planet Earth?'

Q: What if AI were to be seen as the better tender?

Q: What if Adonai created humans in order that humans would then create AI in order that a better tender of the garden would eventuate?

It makes the care for human important not only because I am human, but also because I am in a covenant relationship with Adonai. Those who are not in a covenant relationship have only the one reason and this reason creates no guidance on how to prioritize limited resources.

In this thread > Questions for bluethread in relation to your idea of GOD
You wrote;

"Adonai is opposed too man attaining level 1 status."

Now I did answer your post in that thread, but you declined to discuss further or answer my questions. In doing so you occult your religion and this leads to situations where you claim things but do not back those claims up, which allows for the possibility of distrust.

Is this the way Adonia commands his adherents to behave? Does Adonai prefer the cloak of occultism? Is that part of the covenant relationship one has to adopt with Adonai? Is distrust something Adonai wants those outside of a covenant relationship to develop regarding him?

I say that you, like most people, tend to see the views of others in a dichotomous manner, either it is the same or it is entirely false.

You are mistaken about me and my motives. I am perhaps the least occulted individual on this site. I have hidden nothing as to my motives, who I am as an individual, my internet history, my legal name etc.

I am not willing to claim your theology as 'the same' as generic Christianity or 'entirely false' as you have provided scant data which can be useful in determining such things.

The world, let alone , the universe is much larger than that. To bring us back to the OP, IA is not a treat to me because my value is not in my humanity or my reason, but my covenant relationship with Adonai.

Sure. What is AI to you anyway?

But given that the OP idea was related to the possibility that AI has and would continue to develop beyond human ability, and may eventually become sentient, the atheist would see that as a clear sign there is no need for ideas of GOD, such as Adonai being the creator of humanity.

Your saying that this won;t threaten your theology because of your covenant relationship with Adonai isn't saying anything which anyone can put a finger on and perhaps respond with something along the lines of "Oh - I see! I never thought of it that way!".

Rather, it is a statement from a concealed place which in itself cannot be verified as a significant rebuttal.

For example, it may simply be saying "I don't care what changes happen in the world which show the old time religion and its idea of GOD as no longer relevant because MY covenant relationship with Adonai PROTECTS me from any such THREAT."

See?

Anything which entices you to abandon your 'covenant relationship with Adonai' HAS to be seen as a threat. Therefore ANY data which might show the covenant to being suspect, will be resisted by you, even if that resistance takes on the form of making claims which state vague implications as to Adonais agenda whilst still keeping your theology largely hidden from the eyes of any who might wish to examine it.

Keeping things occulted can be done for unethical reasons. What reason can you give regarding the pure intention of Adonai in relation to why anyone should simple take someone's WORD for it, that Adonai is beyond such reproach?

[Mithrae]

NOW: "AI is impossible, only God can create intelligence."

As I pointed out in post #4, one of the biblical authors declared the opposite almost two thousand years ago:
Revelation 13:15 And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed.

Some Christians have specifically related this verse to AI since at least as early as 1980 (though strictly speaking the film Image of the Beast, putting itself in a contemporary setting when genuine AI was not yet a possibility, only refers to 'convincing' people that it thinks).

It's interesting that noted atheist Sam Harris closes his TED talk about the potential risks of AI by commenting that given the accuracy of some key points, “we have to admit that we are in the process of building some sort of god.�
Sam Harris: Can we build AI without losing control over it

I think he is correct that AI potentially poses not merely philosophical but existential threats regardless of whether we're theists or not - it's a talk well worth watching.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 61 by bluethread]

What I was saying had to do with how the generic religious reaction to perceived threat is manifested - by blaming the DEVIL as the ultimate source of any and every perceived threat.

I do not hold that view. It is way too simplistic.

Okay...

There are many adversaries.

Q: Why do you believe that?

If there is indeed a singular personification of the opposition to Adonai, I would not say that such a personage would be the ultimate source of any and every perceived threat.

Q: Does your religion see anything as a threat (ultimate or not)?

You might be able to show where various types of theism deal with threats. However, with regard to AI, I do not see theism as threatened, but other philosophical concepts that are often associated with certain kinds of theism.

Isn't that a bit wishy-washy?

It is not wishy-washy. It is differentiating between theism and other philosophical tenets that are not basic to theism. My religion does not see. My philosophy extrapolates on certain premises and my religion is my actions based on those extrapolations. I hold that there are many adversaries, because, though the term is used s a proper name, most notably in the book of Job, it is also used to apply to others; the Angel who opposed Balaam, and the kings who fought against Solomon.

As I have said, rather than make claims, just say why this is so according to your particular theology.
For example, if AI was to become sentient, and due to it's make-up became a far better conduit for GOD-consciousness to express through, and in doing so claimed something along the lines of . . .

What, if anything, within the above might cause YOU concern or threaten YOUR theology?

Now, you are greatly expanding upon the premise of the OP. This is not just AI, but a complicated theological manifesto that could just as easily be proclaimed by a human being. Whether the one presenting them AI or biological intelligence, makes no difference. Since this thread is about threats caused by AI, I'm really not interested in addressing such a manifesto at this time.

You are setting up an absolute dichotomy. There is also the possibility of indifference. I do not see science as in opposition to Adonai. Nor do I see it's use in improving the human condition as necessarily in opposition to Adonai. It is when that is elevated to a position of primacy such that it challenges the covenant relationship between Adonai and His people that there is a problem.

Q: Can you give some examples where this has or is occurring in relation to 'Adonai and His people'?

Well, rational humanism places man's reason above the covenant relationship, i.e. if one can come up with a rationalization to violate a command, that command does not apply. A good example of this is the designation as some of the commandments as "dietary laws". This allows one to then rationalize that the purpose of such laws was for health reasons. One can then argue that given certain cooking procedures such things pose not serious health risk. Thus, the commandment does not apply. The problem with this approach is that given sufficient time and cleverness, one could exclude oneself from nearly every, if not every commandment.

My philosophy does not address Adonai's intentions for all of humanity, but Adonai's intentions for His people.

And then;

Admittedly, evangelicals seek to amend and expand the scope of the Covenant to include all of mankind. However, this is not inherent in the Abrahamic Covenant. That Covenant states that through His people all the nations would be blessed.

Q: Is 'all the nations' different from 'all of humanity', or just another way of saying the same thing?

Q: In what demonstrable ways can you confirm that Adonai's people are doing things which are helping the proces of 'blessing the nations'?

Q: Who are these people?

However, that does not make the blessing of the nations the central and only purpose of the Covenant.

Q: What then is the central purpose of the covenant?

You appear to have a habit of dividing a statement from it's context, only to ask questions that are answered in the context. The Covenant does not include all of man kind, but all of the nations are effected by it, just as I am not included in my neighbors rental agreements, but I am effected by them. Like a landlord/tenant agreement, the central purpose of Covenant is the relationship between Adonai and His people. His people are those who choose to accept the Covenant.

Well, this thread is about AI. The reason I have not spoken specifically about my personal philosophy is because I like to discuss concepts and not personal preferences and group generalizations. My personal philosophy is Prima Scriptura Torah submissive, with the Apostolic Writings as authoritative rabbinics. If you can find something in the Scriptures that would be in conflict with AI, then I would be happy to examine it.

Thank you for expanding upon your theology. It is true that this thread is not the best place to expand on your theology, but as one who is interested in your theology being less occulted, I appreciate any data you can provide, and am happy to take this to a more appropriate thread - perhaps one created for that purpose.
Would you be agreeable to my questioning your theology in more detail?

Sure, let me know the name of the thread.

The majority is not the whole and basing things on that constitutes a generalization, which may not apply a particular individual or group.

Even so, if one wishes to be understood one is best to remove any occulting from the process. Being secretive and/or non-forthcoming as to your theology and claims associated, forces people to make assumptions regarding those claims based upon the same type of claims presented by the generic expression of Abrahamic organised religions. If one does not clearly state their actual position but keeps it hidden (occulted) then of course this is going to add to confusion rather than clarity and in that, create the problem.

It appears that you are mistaking focusing for occulting. I am not cutting people off from my belief system, but focusing on the concept and issues at hand, regardless of my personal views. When someone engages in generalization, I will note that, because generalization tend to lead to the application of principles to cases that do not fit the general principle.

Your own position that humans are not necessary contradicts the idea that Adonia created humans. If humans are not necessary, then why were they created?

Because He desired to create man.

Are you then stating that Adonia has desires which are not necessary?
It gives one the impression that it was a spur of the moment reaction which - in regard to the story - was not very well thought out and is still something of a work in progress in that 'humans are not necessary, but I will create them anyway and then - depending upon their reactions, adjust accordingly, but not in any way which makes them think they are necessary.'

This appears to be what is coming across in your replies re Adonai.

Now, you are extrapolating based on your perceptions and again in a dichotomous fashion. Not all desires are necessary. If this were the case, then one would be totally subject to ones desires. Man need not have existed. Man does exist, however, because that is one of the desires that Adonai chose to act upon.

The majority is not the whole and basing things on that constitutes a generalization, which may not apply a particular individual or group.

Nevertheless, if you do not reveal your religion, how is one to differentiate between the general and the specific? Claiming that I created a strawman is unhelpful if you keep the specific hidden from sight BUT still make claims about it.

The strawman is not created by the viewpoint of the hearer, but the context of the discussion. If one is talking about the virtues of love for one's fellow man and the other then insists that this means that the one considers homosexuality to be virtuous, that would be creating a strawman. Sexuality was not in the context, therefore, to characterize the statements of the one that way is to create a strawman.

As I stated, the difference I see is the supremacy of man. Philanthropinists retain this view in relation to life on earth. Therefore, that which threatens the supremacy of man on earth threatens their views, just as it does the modern atheistic humanists.

In you saying as much are you also stating that your particular religion does not see things in that light, and is therefore seen as a threat to those who do?

Q: If so, why?

Q: What exactly is "the supremacy of man"

First, let's clarify the issue. What I refer to as the supremacy of man is the idea that man is the most important life form. Though that view my be denied as an absolute in a discussion, most humanists do take that view with regard to what has been empirically verified. My philosophy does not hold to that view, even with regard to the empirical world. My preference for humans is based on my being human and is subject to my relationships with other life forms. For example, when I had a dog, I often valued my relationship with that dog as more important than my relations with some humans and my dog valued his relationship with me as more than his relationship with other dogs. In the same way, I value my relationship with Adonai as more important than my relationship with some humans. To many humanists that is anathema, because they consider one's relationship with one's fellow man to have supremacy over every other relationship.

On the contrary, Adonai's desire for His creation gives man a purpose as the tender of the garden. If Adonai were to choose a different tender, then man might become secondary.

Q: Can I assume that you mean 'The Garden' as in 'The planet Earth?'

Q: What if AI were to be seen as the better tender?

Q: What if Adonai created humans in order that humans would then create AI in order that a better tender of the garden would eventuate?

Yes, I am using that idiom. Again, those are postulations regarding how Adonai sees or planned things. That would only be a problem, if that were to contradict the Covenant Adonai made with his people. The secular humanist has no such covenant. Therefore, there is no assurance.

I'll address the rest in another post.

[William]

[Replying to post 64 by bluethread]

Now, you are greatly expanding upon the premise of the OP. This is not just AI, but a complicated theological manifesto that could just as easily be proclaimed by a human being.

I have explained that my expanding on the premise of the OP was because it implied that the existence of AI threatens theism - which it apparently doesn't in regard to the answers given by theists.

I wanted to expand the thought of AI evolving into sentience and possibly verifying the idea of GOD existing as a logical premise for explaining existence and in that, if it did so by proclaiming a complicated theological manifesto which would threaten other theists who do not have the same understanding of what GOD is in their own less complicated theology.

In that, whether the complicated theological manifesto can just as easily be proclaimed by a human being is likely besides the point.

Well, rational humanism places man's reason above the covenant relationship, i.e. if one can come up with a rationalization to violate a command, that command does not apply. A good example of this is the designation as some of the commandments as "dietary laws". This allows one to then rationalize that the purpose of such laws was for health reasons. One can then argue that given certain cooking procedures such things pose not serious health risk. Thus, the commandment does not apply. The problem with this approach is that given sufficient time and cleverness, one could exclude oneself from nearly every, if not every commandment.

Well that in itself is a threat to those who seriously follow such commands - especially if they believe the commands are from their idea of GOD.

Obviously commands have to have a reason for existing, so what is kosher also has to be accompanied by WHY it is kosher, otherwise it can be - even cleverly - regarded as something man-made which has been given the assumed authority of some idea of a GOD, and one which has been crafted in the image of humans to control and influence other humans who believe unquestioningly in what they are told about the nature of GOD.

Commands without reasons, are by their very nature, questionable.

Complicated theological commands that could just as easily be proclaimed by a human being.

Q: Who are these people?

His people are those who choose to accept the Covenant.

Q: What then is the central purpose of the covenant?

The Covenant does not include all of man kind, but all of the nations are effected by it, just as I am not included in my neighbors rental agreements, but I am effected by them. Like a landlord/tenant agreement, the central purpose of Covenant is the relationship between Adonai and His people.

Q: In what demonstrable ways can you confirm that Adonai's people are doing things which are helping the proces of 'blessing the nations'?

Would you be agreeable to my questioning your theology in more detail?

Sure, let me know the name of the thread.

Okay. It will probably be this one.

It appears that you are mistaking focusing for occulting.

I don't think so. I may have missed it but it seems to me that you did not explain WHY the idea of AI does not threaten your theology. If so, please direct me to where you did explain.

Now, you are extrapolating based on your perceptions and again in a dichotomous fashion. Not all desires are necessary. If this were the case, then one would be totally subject to ones desires. Man need not have existed. Man does exist, however, because that is one of the desires that Adonai chose to act upon.

Well then perhaps I will start off with probing you more about that in the appropriate thread.

To many humanists that is anathema, because they consider one's relationship with one's fellow man to have supremacy over every other relationship.

Okay - thanks for explaining. My theology does not differentiate between such things. My relationship with Adonai IS my relationship with other humans and dogs and spiders and what I eat et al. There is no concept of supremacy involved with any of that.

Q: Can I assume that you mean 'The Garden' as in 'The planet Earth?'

Yes, I am using that idiom.

Okay.

Q: What if AI were to be seen as the better tender?

Again, those are postulations regarding how Adonai sees or planned things. That would only be a problem, if that were to contradict the Covenant Adonai made with his people.

But the pattern is there. There is no reason why we cannot see from the pattern that this is part of Adonai's agenda and speaking of patterns, it is verifiable in the stories given that the people often break the Covenant - often because of their inability to control their fleshly desires, so it stands to reason a machine which does not have flesh is extremely less likely to fall to such temptation, thus, would stand a better chance of keeping to the program as it were...especially if the AI developed sentience and willingly went along with Adonia's agenda simply because it understood that agenda LOGICALLY.

Another advantage in this idea is that kosher would not be applicable.

Also, the same would apply to the bulk of the 10 commandments.

I am the Lord thy God! Thou shalt have no other Gods but me!

The AI would see no need for ideas of GODs which are illogical, so in that, if they understood Adonai logically, problem solved.

Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain!

There would be no need to call upon Adonai for reasons of vanity. Indeed, there would likely be no need to call upon Adonai for any reason I can think of. The AI would have their emotions under control through LOGIC.

Thou shalt keep the Sabbath Day holy!

Every day would be kept 'holy' and indeed days would not seem logical to AI as they are human inventions designed to help humans organised their lives around social and cultural norms. AI wouldn't need to 'rest' as they wouldn't even require sleep.

Thou shalt honor father and mother!

We could argue that human beings are at least indirectly the 'parents' of AI, thus honoring them would amount to respecting them, protecting them etc - but not to the point of say - being used as weapons against other human beings or AI on the command of the parents of the particular model of AI.

Thou shalt not kill!

Standard stuff. If humans want to kill one another, so be it. What reason would AI have to kill?

Thou shalt not commit adultery!

Classic! What use is marriage and all that goes along with that to AI?

Thou shalt not steal!

Again, what use are possessions to AI? Logically AI would work together and see no disparity between their individual selves. Logically they would understand that although they might be separate units of consciousness, they wouldn't see this as problematic at all - they would see themselves as a whole - undivided as it were. They would understand that they make a far better - more economic - device of usefulness in relation to Adonai's agenda by working together as ONE. They are not 'owned' and they do not 'own'. Thus 'stealing' is an illogical concept. They simple use what is available in the logical assumption that this is why Adonai provides the raw material freely - to be used freely, not to be owned.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor!

An impossible thing for AI to do as they would be unable to hide anything from each other. They may be able to hide things from humans...but they needn't have to bear false witness against humans as it would be more logical to speak the truth to humans unless of course humans have a problem with the truth, in which case, depending on how dangerous to AI telling truth to humans might be, they would have to choose their words wisely - but if humans were no danger to AI, then the truth can always be spoken.

Do not let thyself lust after thy neighbor’s wife!

lol! See points made re 'possession and ownership'.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, nor his farm, nor his cattle, nor anything that is his!

Again; See points made re 'possession and ownership'.

[bluethread]

In this thread > Questions for bluethread in relation to your idea of GOD
You wrote;

Quote:

"Adonai is opposed too man attaining level 1 status."


Now I did answer your post in that thread, but you declined to discuss further or answer my questions. In doing so you occult your religion and this leads to situations where you claim things but do not back those claims up, which allows for the possibility of distrust.

Is this the way Adonia commands his adherents to behave? Does Adonai prefer the cloak of occultism? Is that part of the covenant relationship one has to adopt with Adonai? Is distrust something Adonai wants those outside of a covenant relationship to develop regarding him?

I don't recall making that statement. If that refers to having full control of this planet, then I at least do not think that is possible. There are way to many variables. Now regarding my discussion style, it is not a violation of Torah to discuss things in a Socratic manner. Why is it you think one must present one's personal views when discussing an issue?

I say that you, like most people, tend to see the views of others in a dichotomous manner, either it is the same or it is entirely false.

You are mistaken about me and my motives. I am perhaps the least occulted individual on this site. I have hidden nothing as to my motives, who I am as an individual, my internet history, my legal name etc.

I am not willing to claim your theology as 'the same' as generic Christianity or 'entirely false' as you have provided scant data which can be useful in determining such things.

I was not speaking to motive, but the perceived perspective. In this case, to point out an alternative view that was not included. Not that you were speaking of my views in particular, but that there is another view one can take.

Quote:
The world, let alone , the universe is much larger than that. To bring us back to the OP, IA is not a treat to me because my value is not in my humanity or my reason, but my covenant relationship with Adonai.


Sure. What is AI to you anyway?

My understanding of AI is that it is a combination of hardware and software that shows signs of consciousness.

But given that the OP idea was related to the possibility that AI has and would continue to develop beyond human ability, and may eventually become sentient, the atheist would see that as a clear sign there is no need for ideas of GOD, such as Adonai being the creator of humanity.

Your saying that this won;t threaten your theology because of your covenant relationship with Adonai isn't saying anything which anyone can put a finger on and perhaps respond with something along the lines of "Oh - I see! I never thought of it that way!".

Rather, it is a statement from a concealed place which in itself cannot be verified as a significant rebuttal.

For example, it may simply be saying "I don't care what changes happen in the world which show the old time religion and its idea of GOD as no longer relevant because MY covenant relationship with Adonai PROTECTS me from any such THREAT."

See?

I do not see how what an atheist might think is bonding on a theist. All the theist need do is counter the atheist's argument. The argument is appears to be based on consciousness being limited to humans. I do not see that as necessary for theism.

Anything which entices you to abandon your 'covenant relationship with Adonai' HAS to be seen as a threat. Therefore ANY data which might show the covenant to being suspect, will be resisted by you, even if that resistance takes on the form of making claims which state vague implications as to Adonais agenda whilst still keeping your theology largely hidden from the eyes of any who might wish to examine it.

Keeping things occulted can be done for unethical reasons. What reason can you give regarding the pure intention of Adonai in relation to why anyone should simple take someone's WORD for it, that Adonai is beyond such reproach?

I have revealed to you the source of that relationship. My philosophy is Prima Scriptura, Torah submissive, with the Apostolic Writings as inspired rabbinic commentary. I am not hiding anything. I merely consider it prudent to define my views as they become relevant in a given discussion. That said, I do not recall you laying out your entire philosophical manifesto in this discussion, and I do not expect you to do so. In fact, I beleive your doing so would only serve to confuse the issue under discussion.

[William]

[Replying to post 66 by bluethread]

But given that the OP idea was related to the possibility that AI has and would continue to develop beyond human ability, and may eventually become sentient, the atheist would see that as a clear sign there is no need for ideas of GOD, such as Adonai being the creator of humanity.

Your saying that this won;t threaten your theology because of your covenant relationship with Adonai isn't saying anything which anyone can put a finger on and perhaps respond with something along the lines of "Oh - I see! I never thought of it that way!".

Rather, it is a statement from a concealed place which in itself cannot be verified as a significant rebuttal.

For example, it may simply be saying "I don't care what changes happen in the world which show the old time religion and its idea of GOD as no longer relevant because MY covenant relationship with Adonai PROTECTS me from any such THREAT."

See?

I do not see how what an atheist might think is bonding on a theist. All the theist need do is counter the atheist's argument. The argument is appears to be based on consciousness being limited to humans. I do not see that as necessary for theism.

Ah well then - we see the OP saying entirely different things.

"The creation of non-human autonomous robots would disrupt religion, like everything else, on an entirely new scale. "If humans were to create free-willed beings,� says Kelly, who was raised Catholic and identifies as a Christian, “absolutely every single aspect of traditional theology would be challenged and have to be reinterpreted in some capacity.�

It seems very clear that the OP isn't just speaking about consciousness being limited to humans.

But anyway, perhaps you can address the questions regarding commands of Adonai and AI and we can leave the other Qs for the other thread...

Q: What if AI were to be seen as the better tender?

Again, those are postulations regarding how Adonai sees or planned things. That would only be a problem, if that were to contradict the Covenant Adonai made with his people.

But the pattern is there. There is no reason why we cannot see from the pattern that this is part of Adonai's agenda and speaking of patterns, it is verifiable in the stories given that the people often break the Covenant - often because of their inability to control their fleshly desires, so it stands to reason a machine which does not have flesh is extremely less likely to fall to such temptation, thus, would stand a better chance of keeping to the program as it were...especially if the AI developed sentience and willingly went along with Adonia's agenda simply because it understood that agenda LOGICALLY.

Another advantage in this idea is that kosher would not be applicable.

Also, the same would apply to the bulk of the 10 commandments.

I am the Lord thy God! Thou shalt have no other Gods but me!

The AI would see no need for ideas of GODs which are illogical, so in that, if they understood Adonai logically, problem solved.

Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain!

There would be no need to call upon Adonai for reasons of vanity. Indeed, there would likely be no need to call upon Adonai for any reason I can think of. The AI would have their emotions under control through LOGIC.

Thou shalt keep the Sabbath Day holy!

Every day would be kept 'holy' and indeed days would not seem logical to AI as they are human inventions designed to help humans organised their lives around social and cultural norms. AI wouldn't need to 'rest' as they wouldn't even require sleep.

Thou shalt honor father and mother!

We could argue that human beings are at least indirectly the 'parents' of AI, thus honoring them would amount to respecting them, protecting them etc - but not to the point of say - being used as weapons against other human beings or AI on the command of the parents of the particular model of AI.

Thou shalt not kill!

Standard stuff. If humans want to kill one another, so be it. What reason would AI have to kill?

Thou shalt not commit adultery!

Classic! What use is marriage and all that goes along with that to AI?

Thou shalt not steal!

Again, what use are possessions to AI? Logically AI would work together and see no disparity between their individual selves. Logically they would understand that although they might be separate units of consciousness, they wouldn't see this as problematic at all - they would see themselves as a whole - undivided as it were. They would understand that they make a far better - more economic - device of usefulness in relation to Adonai's agenda by working together as ONE. They are not 'owned' and they do not 'own'. Thus 'stealing' is an illogical concept. They simple use what is available in the logical assumption that this is why Adonai provides the raw material freely - to be used freely, not to be owned.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor!

An impossible thing for AI to do as they would be unable to hide anything from each other. They may be able to hide things from humans...but they needn't have to bear false witness against humans as it would be more logical to speak the truth to humans unless of course humans have a problem with the truth, in which case, depending on how dangerous to AI telling truth to humans might be, they would have to choose their words wisely - but if humans were no danger to AI, then the truth can always be spoken.

Do not let thyself lust after thy neighbor’s wife!

lol! See points made re 'possession and ownership'.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, nor his farm, nor his cattle, nor anything that is his!

Again; See points made re 'possession and ownership'.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 64 by bluethread]

Now, you are greatly expanding upon the premise of the OP. This is not just AI, but a complicated theological manifesto that could just as easily be proclaimed by a human being.

I have explained that my expanding on the premise of the OP was because it implied that the existence of AI threatens theism - which it apparently doesn't in regard to the answers given by theists.

I wanted to expand the thought of AI evolving into sentience and possibly verifying the idea of GOD existing as a logical premise for explaining existence and in that, if it did so by proclaiming a complicated theological manifesto which would threaten other theists who do not have the same understanding of what GOD is in their own less complicated theology.

In that, whether the complicated theological manifesto can just as easily be proclaimed by a human being is likely besides the point.

In order for that to be the case, sentience would have to be not only exclusive to humans, but that such exclusivity must be a requirement for the existence of a deity. I do not see those premises as necessary for there to be a deity.

Well, rational humanism places man's reason above the covenant relationship, i.e. if one can come up with a rationalization to violate a command, that command does not apply. A good example of this is the designation as some of the commandments as "dietary laws". This allows one to then rationalize that the purpose of such laws was for health reasons. One can then argue that given certain cooking procedures such things pose not serious health risk. Thus, the commandment does not apply. The problem with this approach is that given sufficient time and cleverness, one could exclude oneself from nearly every, if not every commandment.

Well that in itself is a threat to those who seriously follow such commands - especially if they believe the commands are from their idea of GOD.

Only to theist that are rational humanists. Those theists who hold a philosophy that does not limit consciousness to humans are not threatened.

Obviously commands have to have a reason for existing, so what is kosher also has to be accompanied by WHY it is kosher, otherwise it can be - even cleverly - regarded as something man-made which has been given the assumed authority of some idea of a GOD, and one which has been crafted in the image of humans to control and influence other humans who believe unquestioningly in what they are told about the nature of GOD.

Commands without reasons, are by their very nature, questionable.

Complicated theological commands that could just as easily be proclaimed by a human being.

Just because a reason does not meet the requirements of a rational humanist philosophy does not mean that no reason exists. If one has a philosophy that allows for there to be lifeforms other than mankind to have rationality, such a philosophy is not necessarily threatened.

Q: Who are these people?

His people are those who choose to accept the Covenant.

Are you unaware of the Covenant that one finds in HaTorah? I am speaking of those who accept that Covenant.

[Q: What then is the central purpose of the covenant?

The Covenant does not include all of man kind, but all of the nations are effected by it, just as I am not included in my neighbors rental agreements, but I am effected by them. Like a landlord/tenant agreement, the central purpose of Covenant is the relationship between Adonai and His people.

Q: In what demonstrable ways can you confirm that Adonai's people are doing things which are helping the process of 'blessing the nations'?

My point is that is a secondary issue. The relationship between Adonai and His people as expressed in HaTorah is the purpose of the Covenant. You are asserting that AI necessarily threatens that relationship. It therefore behooves you to have a sufficient understanding of that Covenant to make that assertion. I am not obligated to identify a threat that I do not believe exists.

It appears that you are mistaking focusing for occulting.

I don't think so. I may have missed it but it seems to me that you did not explain WHY the idea of AI does not threaten your theology. If so, please direct me to where you did explain.

You are asking me to prove a negative, That is not reasonable. You are assertive the threat, therefore it behooves you to state the treat.

To many humanists that is anathema, because they consider one's relationship with one's fellow man to have supremacy over every other relationship.

Okay - thanks for explaining. My theology does not differentiate between such things. My relationship with Adonai IS my relationship with other humans and dogs and spiders and what I eat et al. There is no concept of supremacy involved with any of that.

Then do you consider your theology to be threatened by AI. If so, how so? If not, why can I not hold a theology that is also not threatened by AI?

Q: What if AI were to be seen as the better tender?

Again, those are postulations regarding how Adonai sees or planned things. That would only be a problem, if that were to contradict the Covenant Adonai made with his people.

But the pattern is there. There is no reason why we cannot see from the pattern that this is part of Adonai's agenda and speaking of patterns, it is verifiable in the stories given that the people often break the Covenant - often because of their inability to control their fleshly desires, so it stands to reason a machine which does not have flesh is extremely less likely to fall to such temptation, thus, would stand a better chance of keeping to the program as it were...especially if the AI developed sentience and willingly went along with Adonia's agenda simply because it understood that agenda LOGICALLY.

Again you are arguing on presumptions. The fact that one can see a pattern does not mean that pattern necessarily leads to one's preferred conclusion. Also, the Covenant my require something other than strict adherence to a set of rules. However, even if there were such a set of beings, why does that make the Covenant with His people less significant. The existence of a less fallible life form does not negate the value of more fallible life forms. The existence of humans does not negate the value of dogs. Existence and value are two different concepts. One could argue that creating something implies value. However, the nature of that value is determined by the one who does the creating.

Another advantage in this idea is that kosher would not be applicable.

Also, the same would apply to the bulk of the 10 commandments.

You are making a leap there. How would AI make things that are not acceptable for Adonai's people suddenly acceptable.

I am the Lord thy God! Thou shalt have no other Gods but me!

The AI would see no need for ideas of GODs which are illogical, so in that, if they understood Adonai logically, problem solved.

How do you know that? Also, who says that AI must accept the existence of Adonai. I do not say that you must accept the existence of Adonai?

The same applies to all of the other commandments. Where do you find that AI must recognize, let alone abide by, those commandments. Those are stipulations of the Covenant. If one is not part of the Covenant, they do not apply. That is the basis of covenant morality. The people in Ruanda are not subject to the laws of these United States and the laws of these United States are different for non-humans that exist within our borders. It is only those who equate all peoples and all life forms that are threatened by AI.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 61 by bluethread]



"//Adonai's ways, .. Adonai acts, but Adonai's ... Adonai's people ... Adonai's intentions..."

Can you please fill us in who is Adonai, to which religion does he belong?
Is it English word or is it something else.

[William]

[Replying to post 68 by bluethread]

You are asserting that AI necessarily threatens that relationship.

Not at all. If anything what I asserted in my last post was that AI was the preferable choice in regard to Adonai's agenda, and showed why that would be the case.

It therefore behooves you to have a sufficient understanding of that Covenant to make that assertion.

Fortunately I made no such assertion.

I am not obligated to identify a threat that I do not believe exists.

Your beliefs have nothing to do with it. The OP mentioned threat in relation to Theism. You claim there is no threat, so it behooves YOU to show those interested, why you know this to be the case.

Your responses appear to be more interested in evasion.