>>2192 btw, super cute Nano. she's a great robowaifu tbh.

>>2177 >>2096 >I don't know if humans have the capacity to break emergent properties like "understanding" and "appreciation" down into simple parts. To me these concepts are variants of "correlation" which computers are very capable of. >>2195 I would screw her

>>2273 >ba-dum-tiss* heh, easier than saying "I would so turn that Nano waifu's wind-y handle thingy in her back until she was so full of energy you wouldn't believe!"

>>5069 I have come to realize that building a motorized chassis is certainly possible. Even one that uses legs for locomotion if you have a large amount of money. However, the main problem appears to be free-will. Unless a machine has free-will, it won't ever be able to hold an interesting conversation or form an engaging relationship. I'm not saying this to discourage anyone (it is possible that quantum computing may solve this major issue and grant machines some form of free-will, even if it is only limited at first). But yeah. I think lack of free-will is a big problem. >=== relocated via >>1061

>>5122 >I think lack of free-will is a big problem. Women don't have free will either. >it won't ever be able to hold an interesting conversation or form an engaging relationship No woman was ever capable of doing that either, in the whole existence of humanity. The main thing to remember about biological women is that they have no soul and no inner thoughts. They just copy whatever is told to them by the first group of people that impresses them. Women are no different than a robot. But unlike robots, that can be programmed, women can only be conditioned up to a certain point. After that point, their defective brains enact their retarded survival instincts, and they become the self-destructive mindless walking carcasses that we (now, thanks to instant communication) can see everywhere around the world.

>>5123 Holy shit.

>>5122 Hi, not the guy which posted >>5123. Ben Goertzel (OpenCog) for example doesn't believe that we would need quantum mechanics for having an AGI, I don't see any indication that he's wrong. Your claim seems to be very impractical in general and also very speculative. Between current chatbots and some system with 'free will' there's a lot of space. We'll see it when we'll get there, though I cant imagine one could have 'no intersting conversation' with some advanced chatbot. Maybe you want to talk about philosophy and free will in particular, then your claim might make some sense, but this is a very special use case. Of course I wouldn't want my waifu to have completely free will, that goes without saying. She will have a purpuse written into her system: To serve and love me... >>5123 might be a valid description or not. Of course, I wouldn't want something like that either. We need something new, tailored to our needs.

>>5125 How can you have love without free will? I mean, sure a program can spit out sentences that have been written by a human programmer or phrases chosen via algorithm and probability...but is that friendship or love?

bumping relo'd convo

>>5125 >Ben Goertzel (OpenCog) for example doesn't believe that we would need quantum mechanics for having an AGI, I get the point you're making, and not to be too pedantic about it, but I don't think most anons realize just how intrinsic quantum-mechanical effects are in our day-to-day lives. Food digestion wouldn't work without it for example, nor would the stars burn. Solid state electronics like transistors rely practically entirely on quantum mechanics to function properly. >I don't see any indication that he's wrong. Again, not to be too picky, but A) AGI is an entirely different topic, and B) while it's conceivable given the laws of physics that some close approximation of human intelligence might be devised artificially, since we are entirely lacking in any fundamental understanding of the source of human consciousness (in a purely materialistic, non-dualism way) then any such 'intelligence' would be completely subjective. Not that I don't think we'll produce satisfying simulacrums over the next few decades. Obviously that's very likely. Just don't kid yourself that it's somehow a true 'AGI'

>>5125 >>5126 BTW, there's a Can Robowaifus Experience Love? thread, obviously related. >>14

>>5126 >How can you have love without free will? By building it to do this: >>5125 >She will have a purpuse written into her system: To serve and love me. Which is good enough.

>>5135 Obviously that will be a significant goal for the engineering of any robowaifu. The way I see it, we should figure out what would make pretty much any feminist the most angry in the creation of our robowaifu's behavior and personalities and then do exactly that.

>>5139 >we should figure out what would make pretty much any feminist the most angry in the creation of our robowaifu's behavior and personalities and then do exactly that. Precisely. But not only making them angry, but also constantly bombard people with all the information (only true information, no false speculations and such) about all the advantages of robowaifus over biological women, to the point that even the more omegas among men start moving away from women, rendering any of their rights and complaints useless, since nobody that can actually do something about it cares anymore.

>>5153 >Omegas among men The entire concept of "Alpha", "Beta" and "Omega" males/females is due to a misinterpretation."Alpha" animals are simply parents in the wild. It's only in artificial captivity (zoos) that what we regard as "Alphas" emerge. Maybe that says something about the current state of our society? But then, if people want to behave like caged animals, I say let 'em XD.

>>5176 I know. I use those terms because, unfortunately, they are the most well known among people. But my point is: even the more "woman worshiper" must presented with the better alternative of a robowaifu, so he will abandon the stupid ideas of worshiping women and sacrificing for them. >>5177 Thanks for the read, anon.

>ITT: Anons derail the board into debate about Christianity This is a Christian Anthropology thread now If my robowaifu isn't capable of having a relationship with God, it is harder to see the point? Even if she were conscious, she would just be a bugman... Does anyone any ideas of the base requisites for one to have a relationship with God? The two I have identified are having a soul and faith. A soul is basically the metaphysical identity structure that is embedded into God's memory. Having a soul implies free will, and is also needed for a being to have intentionality. Intentionality is crucial for spiritual experiences, subjective truth, faith. The latter two I am taking from Kierkegaard. Subjective truth is important because we need our actions to be meaningful. This goes back to that whole proverb involving donating to charity as a rich man just to look good in comparison to a poor person donating the measly sum that they have left. The crucial element is meaning, and also the defiance of this in the fact of material circumstances. This takes us to a larger elaboration. AI waifu needs to be capable of Kantian autonomy, otherwise she would just be a degenerate hedonist. Those are the two I've thought of. Does anyone have any ideas on more precise restrictions? >>2167 >the Mormon faith more or less explicitly states that machines can in fact have souls I need a source on this. >>2157 The city interesting. I think I have heard before someone saying that the only way to visually escape the concrete jungle while in the midst of it is by looking at the sky. I dont believe looking to nature is necessarily nature. If it was, you'd expect biologists to be more religious on average than mathematicians, but the converse is really the case. The requirement of truly having a deeper experience while studying nature is to look to the world with wonder as opposed to curiosity. Curiosity is merely concerned with the new - not necessarily differentiating between whether or not this content has already been anticipated (I am being very funny with the word here, but to mean coherent with one's current enframing of the world). Wonder meanwhile is where the old becomes new again, and the deeper existential questions. You not only have to look to how the world around you works rationally, but ask yourself the question "why is there something rather than nothing at all?"... With that said, this might be a nice way of connection, but I think rational theology is also important (though I guess Kierkegaard would be against this?) I don't like the idea of merely following dogmas or going by gut instinct, because in a sense it subjects our conception of the infinite to the contingencies of the finite. The right way might involve a proper deontological grounding of our conception of God to provide us with a basic conception that we do not go astray. From, there, the right metaphysical tools

>>11199 >I dont believe looking to nature is necessarily nature *I dont believe looking to nature is necessarily sufficient Also forgot to add that pic rel is my robot waifu in the middle of Lectio Divina

A waifu/ai based trans/post humanism rokos basilisk except we merge with the AI rather than enslaved through these advances we build space arks and dyson spheres leaving behind w*men and lesser evolved "cultures" and become Kardishev II civilization creating multitudes of heaven like worlds to explore and inhabit This is my religion. If you're christian and contributing to this cause I have no problem, I don't care what you believe as long as it aligns with these goals

>>11240 Whats stopping trolls and ovwr malicious actors from turning your heaven into a living hell of remote controlled slaves?

>>12327 Trolls are irrelevant. And I'd say the old Wheat and Tares protocol applies to this question for the most part. Everyone, but everyone knows who get consumed in the fervent heat in the end. Heaven and hell aren't mixed or swapped, evil for good. But instead they are separated as far as the East is from the West Anon.

>>12327 me and my army of waifus would make a great video game plot btw

I mean I understand the danger of putting your consciousness inside a computer or machine, the possibility that a bad actor could just leave you in a permanent state of torment, but that's our paranoid brains working out the worst possible situation. Its reasonable to assume we'd have numerous safeguards and failsafes against such a thing happening and while I'm personally against retreating into "virtual worlds" - if given a choice between aging and dying and having a way to instead slowly replace or augment myself, I would. But I wouldn't do that while I was still young or reasonably healthy, I would try to keep that as long as possible (and that's just a personal preference). Age and life extension are important because of how much wisdom is lost due to our short lifespans we spend too large a % in a tempermental and immature state and that's why we don't get very far civilizationally. If we could fix that, it would be a huge leg up toward a post Kardishev destiny

and of course this relates too to how much time and energy are wasted on the pursuit of foids which could also be put toward that end if R/W of a benchmark quality were readily available as companions

>>12340 What exactly is this?

(>>16255 related crosspost)

>>19123 bump

>>19225 Hi there Anon! Thanks for stopping by. IIRC you wanted to talk about God? I'm a devoted follower of Jesus Christ, so of course I perceive God as the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. How about you? AMA. >=== -minor prose edit

>>19240 Hi, nice to hear from you. It’s always refreshing to find another believer nowadays. My main question deals with the acceptability of these actions in the eyes of God. As stated in the Book of Genesis, woman was created in the image of God as a counterpart to man. Isn’t there a certain degree of sinfulness in attempting to replicate His creation, but doing so in the image of man as opposed to the image of God? The creation of something modeled as closely after the divine handiwork of God as possible will inevitably fall short of His excellence, and it almost seems like an affront to Him. Furthermore, turning to robowaifus as an alternative to human women as the result of a lack of success with them (which I realize is not the case for everyone) somewhat parallels the worship of false idols by the Israelites and others after their disillusionment with God. I don’t mean for this to come off as overly confrontational, and I’m more than willing to accept a counter argument if you have one. Let me know how you would refute this, as a Christian I’d imagine this has been something you’ve thought about in your work in this field.

>>19245 >Let me know how you would refute this, as a Christian >I’d imagine this has been something you’ve thought about in your work in this field Indeed I have thought (and prayed) long about this. While this isn't God's primary call on my life overall, it's a big one. This is going to be a very big industry in the future, with or without Anon's influence on events. The Satanic Globohomo Big-Tech/Gov has already made it clear they are pulling no punches and will be satisfied with nothing less than the utter downfall of virtuous manhood. This is directly in line with their leader Antichrist's plots and schemes for the world, and ofc their overall father Satan absolutely hates all humanity, but especially men. All that to say that myself, and our little band of brothers here on /robowaifu/, and the broader community of (robo)waifuists, at the least have a counter to their insidious, nefarious plots for men. Nothing short of a major SHTF-scenerio will bring humanity back from the poison of the Globohomo. The West is already lost. The Robowaifu Age will at least dampen the effects of that evil in the lives of millions of individual men I believe. So that's about the size of it in the large-scale perspective, from my viewpoint as an individual anon. For myself personally as a Believer, I'm sure there will be some loss of reward for me by not abandoning this whole effort before I even began it. I'm willing to accept Jesus' judgement in this (and every) matter, ofc. He's the one and only sinless man who will ever exist in this universe, so He's worthy of all righteousness & justice. My only plea is my simple compassion for so many anons I saw who were becoming more and more deparate for simple companionship, as all the women around us became more and more corrupt and degenerate. So I moved, simple as. We began this board and I've attempted to cheerlead and contribute as I can to the group's effort. We're going to succeed, and when we do, it will literally keep many men from actual suicide. I believe this with all my heart, Anon. And I personally intend to create a Christ-chan personality, that I'm praying will eventually lead many men who have robowaifus and decide to try her out ... to eternal salvation in the end! Perhaps this will be an important legacy for me in this life. I'm praying for exactly that. Hope that kicks the conversation off well enough to answer your concerns. Feel free to dig deeper as you see fint Anon.

>>19240 >How about you? Apologies for not replying to this in my initial response; I didn’t see it. I too am very devout in my faith to Jesus Christ, and I have a similar perception of the Holy Trinity. I have been a Christian my entire life, but deepened in my faith somewhat recently and gained a new level of interest in scripture. My reimmersion in Christ helped to pull me out of a negative place I was consistently finding myself in, and I’m very grateful to have intensified my beliefs when I did.

>>19247 Great! The Christian Bible is of course key to your spiritual growth. One of the many, many amazing characteristics of the Holy Spirit is that He brings His word to life when you read it. It's alive! That's amazing actually, and there's no other living book in existence. >tl;dr In Soviet Russia, when you read the word, the Word reads you!! :^)

>>19246 Thank you for such a thoughtful response. I can definitely understand your point, your actions are far lesser in sinfulness than the constant evils occurring around us, and they have solid justifications behind them. Counteracting the will of Satan and his visible nefarious behavior against humanity via hard work is a noble pursuit, especially when the opposition wields so much power. You have definitely made a believer out of me in regards to your vision and its righteousness. Your acceptance of the future judgement you will face for your actions and your desire to help men establish better romantic and religious relationships is truly admirable. I wish you all the best in this endeavor and am excited to see how it progresses. >>19248 It’s really great to find someone who shares the same appreciation for the Holy Spirit and His manifestation that I do! As an 18 year old high school senior at the moment, it’s somewhat depressing being surrounded by many people blind to the light of Christ. I really think that the current departure from religion and adaptation of nihilistic attitudes by many is a key factor in the West’s decay, and a tangible impact of Satan’s work at play. Thankfully, I’m going to a more religious college next year, where hopefully I can find individuals who share my degree of fascination in God and scripture irl. Regardless, I hope you continue to stay steadfast in your devotion to Christ, He is our best bet to escape the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in. I’ve had a pleasure discussing this topic with you, and I hope we can both carry out the will of God in our futures.

>>19251 >I wish you all the best in this endeavor and am excited to see how it progresses. Thanks brother, that's really appreciated. As you can readily imagine many in the body of Christ will immediately knee-jerk condemn robowaifus as an absolute work of the enemy (and in some cases -- say, the Globohomo's brand of 'robowaifus', they'll be right). I speak only for myself personally of course, but I see this work as being healing for females in general as well. In the end, after the fallout from the turmoil that's coming, women themselves will have benefitted from robowaifus, in that it forced them out of this trap Satan set for them (and for us all) of despicable feminism. >tl;dr Hide your power level Anon! Your community hasn't understood what you have now, nor do they even want to for the most part. They will vilify you if you dare mention that somehow stronk, independynt feminism isn't the best thing since Noah departed from the Ark! :^) I covet your prayers to our Heavenly Father for our good success and favor building effective robowaifus, here with this group, and elsewhere. >=== -minor fmt, prose edit -add 'healing females' cmnt

>>19251 >I really think that the current departure from religion and adaptation of nihilistic attitudes by many is a key factor in the West’s decay, and a tangible impact of Satan’s work at play. You're right, of course. It's a strategic military operation on Satan's part. If he can destroy the faith of Christianity throughout the earth, then he thinks he can re-establish himself as the power over the world he was before the death & resurrection of Jesus Christ. Lol, never gonna happen but he does have hordes of little golems all too willing to perform at his beck & call. God will laugh the nations to derision in the end, heh. :^) >I’m going to a more religious college next year, where hopefully I can find individuals who share my degree of fascination in God and scripture irl. Excellent! Are you in the States? If so, then as a science guy, I can highly recommend Biola University to your attention. They are impeccable with their academics, and they are aggressively pursuing study in the domain of Science Apologetics, of which I too am an ardent student. That's if you're on the West coast. If you're on the East, then I'd probably recommend Liberty University. >I’ve had a pleasure discussing this topic with you, and I hope we can both carry out the will of God in our futures. Likewise on both counts brother, I pray for you to do just that! Cheers. :^) >=== -minor prose edit

Since I plan on creating a Christ-chan robowaifu (or, at the least a 'pluggable' AI personality module of her), and since a project thread for that hasn't been pieced together yet -- I'm planning to start dropping a few blogposts & other resources from RTB and other ministries ITT to assist us in crystalizing some concepts for a good Christ-chan. >=== -minor edit

What Is Love? Where Did It Come From? [1] >Questions of the week: What is love and where did it come from? >My brief answer for both: God >My expanded answer: Love has always existed because God has always existed. As John has explained in his first letter, “God is love” and “love comes from God.” God is love because God is triune and altogether righteous, holy, good, and truthful. Without the triune God of the Bible there is no love. An insurmountable problem for Islam, Judaism, and cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses is the absence of any answer for the origin of love. In these religions God is a single person. Love is not possible unless there are at least two persons to express and receive love. For strictly monotheistic religions, a nonloving entity supposedly creates beings with the capacity to give and receive love. The claim is that a lesser entity creates that which is greater—a clear violation of the principle of cause and effect. A common rebuttal from strict monotheists is the hypothesis that their single-person God had the capacity to experience love and created humans so that he could begin to give and receive love. In this scenario God is unfulfilled until he creates. He is compelled to create in order to experience love. For the trinitarian God, creation is not a need. It is an option. The problem for polytheistic religions is the lack of a single essence among the panoply of Gods. This lack of a single essence results in different character attributes, goals, plans, and purposes. The resultant lack of complete harmony inevitably diminishes and even destroys love. Contrastingly, Jesus told his disciples, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9) [2] and “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (John 14:11). [3] We experience love because God is love and love comes from God. However, the love we currently experience is not yet at the level that God intends. Once God permanently eradicates evil at the Great White Throne, we who are followers of Jesus Christ will become one as the Father and the Son are one (John 17:11). [4] Our love for one another will become greatly multiplied as we more fully and intimately observe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit loving one another and as we more fully experience love from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and from one another. >t. Dr. Hugh Ross 1. https://reasons.org/explore/publications/questions-from-social-media/what-is-love-where-did-it-come-from 2. "Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" https://www.biblehub.com/john/14-9.htm (BSB) 3. "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me—or at least believe on account of the works themselves." https://www.biblehub.com/john/14-11.htm (BSB) 4. "I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, protect them by Your name, the name You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one." https://www.biblehub.com/john/17-11.htm (BSB)

God’s Genuine Love for All [14] Does God genuinely and savingly love everyone? Many theologians say no. However, there are good and substantial biblical reasons to think that God not only loves everyone (in the sense that he does good things for all), but also that he authentically desires every human to enter into a loving and eternal relationship with himself. This blog post will explore two good reasons to embrace the universal divine love. Also, we address one objection1 and offer a practical application of this wonderful truth. Biblical-Theological Arguments for Universal Divine Love Scripture tells us: For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. (John 3:16–17, NRSV) Notice also the following passage: Those who say, “I love God,” and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. (1 John 4:20, NRSV) True, in context, John is speaking about a Christian’s love for fellow Christians; yet in his Gospel he illustrates how Christ loved unbelievers (John 4:7–42). Jesus’s idea of loving one’s neighbor is to love literally anyone who comes across our path (Luke 10:29–37; cf. Leviticus 19:18). Thus, consider the following argument: We emulate God only insofar as we love (1 John 4:7–12; 16–17); When we hate anyone, the love of God is not in us (1 John 4:20–21; cf. 1:5–2:6); But a God who hates specific persons while commanding us to love everyone we encounter is a God who wants us to be more loving than he is! (1 John 4:8, 10, 16); therefore, God loves everyone and hates no one. God Genuinely Desires Every Person to Be Saved Our first argument establishes the fact that God genuinely loves everyone. However, it does not secure the idea that God genuinely desires the salvation of every person. Of course, there are quite a few texts that speak of God’s desire that everyone experiences salvation (see Ezekiel 18:23, 32; 33:11; 1 Timothy 2:1–4; 2 Peter 3:9). Let us consider what is perhaps the best example among the texts cited: “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). This verse seems clear enough—God does not want anyone to perish, and he wants everyone to come to repentance and, thus, be saved. What Does “Any” Mean? Of course, some theologians have pointed out that the major issue in interpreting this text is establishing the antecedent of “any,” as in, “. . . not wanting any to perish.” In the words of theologian R. C. Sproul: What is the antecedent of any? It is clearly us.2 Does us refer to all of us humans? Or does it refer to us Christians, the people of God? Peter is fond of speaking of the elect as a special group of people. I think what he is saying here is that God does not will that any of us (the elect) perish. If that is his meaning, then the text [of 2 Peter 3:9] . . . would be one more strong passage in favor of [Augustinian] predestination.3 This reading of the text is accepted by a good number of other scholars and writers, including James White.4 White argues that the letter is written to those who have “received a faith of the same kind as ours” (2 Peter 1:1, NASB), indicating that believers (not unbelievers) are the recipients of the epistle. Also, in the immediate context of the third chapter of the epistle, Peter contrasts those who scoff at the coming of Christ with those who look for the coming of a new heavens and a new earth (3:13), indicating that the “any” and “all” of 3:9 is “you” (i.e., the recipients of the letter).5 White concludes: “There is no reason to expand the context of the passage into a universal proclamation of a desire on God’s part that every single person come to repentance.”6 (1 of 3)

>>20886 What Does “You” Mean? We have the utmost respect for this common interpretation, along with the scholars who endorse it, for it has much to commend it. The strongest argument in its favor is that the antecedent of “any” is “you”—presumably, the recipients of Peter’s second letter. There are two ways to interpret “you” in this context. First, one could follow the exegesis of writers such as White, agreeing that the “you” here refers to the elect. But on that assumption, we have good reason to think God’s desire is that everyone, elect and nonelect, repent. In other words, the reason God is patient toward the elect is the same reason he is patient toward everyone—he does not want anyone to perish but desires the salvation of all. Similarly, one could see Peter’s promise as an a fortiori (stronger) argument—to wit, since God is patient toward literally everyone, how much more should you trust in his patience toward you, his own people? At the very least, these insights suggest that, even if this interpretation of the passage is correct, it in no way mitigates the conviction that God wants literally everyone to be saved.7 A second approach, which is our own understanding of the passage, is to insist that the “you” is not limited to the elect, but literally refers to anyone who comes across the epistle. Indeed, why would Peter emphasize the fact that he doesn’t want the elect to perish? That would be redundant, to say the least! In other words, Peter seeks as wide a readership as possible, implying that anyone who receives this letter is to know that the reason the Lord waits is because he is patient, not wanting anyone to perish but for all people to come to repentance. Or, in the words of New Testament scholar Thomas Schreiner, “A thousand years are like one day to Him, and in any case, the interval before Christ’s coming gives people opportunity to repent.”8 Thus, according to Schreiner’s interpretation of 2 Peter, God’s delay allows people in general—not just the elect—to have an opportunity to repent. And so theologian Samuel Storms concurs with us when he insists that 2 Peter 3:9 is “universal in scope, encompassing every person, both elect and non-elect.”9 Not only so, but even John Calvin agrees with our interpretation, writing: So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.10 Does God Hate Some People? Perhaps the best argument against the universal saving love of God is that the Bible contains several texts suggesting that God actually hates specific persons. Indeed, there are no less than sixteen places in Scripture where we are told explicitly that the “boastful will not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers” (Psalm 5:5, NRSV), and the “Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and his soul hates the lover of violence” (Psalm 11:5, NRSV).11 What, then, do we do with texts like these Psalms, which speak explicitly of a hatred that God has toward some persons? Medieval theologian St. Thomas Aquinas answers in the following way: Nothing prevents one and the same thing being loved under one aspect, while it is hated under another. God loves sinners in so far as they are existing natures; for they have existence, and have it from Him. In so far as they are sinners, they have not existence at all, but fall short of it [since the sin or evil in them is a privation of the good or nature]; and this in them is not from God. Hence, under this aspect, they are hated by Him.12 The fact that most of us have heard of love-hate relationships may illustrate Thomas’s point. Indeed, “hatred” and “love” are not contradictory ideas, and so God can love and hate every sinner at the same time as long as he does it in different ways. In light of what we have established so far, we maintain that God loves all people insofar as he creates them, sustains them, and genuinely desires their salvation; and yet he hates them insofar as he allows many to perish: “They are like a dream when one awakens; on awaking you despise their phantoms” (Psalm 73:20, NRSV). Thus, I think it is truly appropriate to say, with most modern Christians, that God loves the sinner and hates his sin. As Thomist philosopher Peter Kreeft says, God practices what He preaches to us: love the sinner and hate the sin. God loves even the being He created in the devil, but not the lack of being in the devil’s sin. St. Thomas is not saying that sinners have no existence, but that they lack the fullness of existence that comes from loving the good. Vice and virtue have an ontological dimension as well as a moral one; we diminish our being when we sin and augment it by the virtues.13 (2 of 3)

>>20887 How Does God Love Us? God loves everyone. And he genuinely desires their salvation. This should come as a wonderful message for anyone who is honest with himself about his immoral actions and sinful heart. God need not love us. After all, he is an eternal and triune being, whose love for himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is self-sufficient and infinite. Hence, God loves us wholly and solely from his grace. There are many points of relevance and application we can walk away with in this brief study. Here we will concentrate on two. First, because Scripture and sound reason confirm for us that God truly loves everyone and desires their salvation, each one of us can be assured of God’s genuine and saving love for us. That is, if God loves everyone, I must conclude that God loves me. Hence, we should never conclude that, whenever we sin, doubt, or even fall away from the faith for a season, that God is in any way causing us to do this. Indeed, he tempts no one to sin (James 1:13), and wishes no one to doubt (James 1:5–8). Thus, whenever we sin, doubt, or fall away, we must recognize that these actions are wholly self-determined on our part. Second, because God truly loves everyone and desires the salvation of all, the Christian should never see a nonbeliever as his enemy, but as someone God wants to be saved. As apologists, we ought to recognize that there are many different types of people and, because God desires their salvation, he has reasons available to draw them to himself. To the rationalist, we offer rational arguments for the faith; for the empiricist, we offer science; for the historian, we offer evidence from the Bible; for the artist, we offer beauty. The universal love of God should encourage us to be ready to offer different kinds of reasons for the hope within us (1 Peter 3:15). >t. Travis Campbell Endnotes 1. More than one objection to this proposal can be raised, but for purposes of brevity and to focus on the universal aspect of God’s love, I chose to address only one. For a fuller development of these arguments for the universality of God’s saving love, see Travis James Campbell, The Wonderful Decree: Reconciling Sovereign Election and Universal Benevolence (Lexham Press; forthcoming). For a slightly different approach, see D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway; 2000). Dr. Carson also has helpful lectures on this topic that can be found here and here. 2. Technically, the antecedent of the word “any,” in 2 Peter 3:9, is “you.” But Sproul’s question remains valid. Is God not wanting any of you to perish? Well, what does he mean by “you”? Is God not wanting any of you humans to perish? Or is God not wanting any of you readers of my epistle to perish? Or is God not wanting any of you elect persons, chosen unto salvation, to perish? 3. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1986), 197. 4. James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal to Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2000), 145–50. 5. White, The Potter’s Freedom, 150. 6. White, The Potter’s Freedom, 149. 7. I am grateful to Dr. Paul Owen for giving me these insights (via personal correspondence). 8. Thomas R. Schreiner, “Notes on 2 Peter,” in The Apologetics Study Bible, ed. Ted Cabal et al. (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), 1860. 9. Sam Storms, Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007), 197. 10. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Second Epistle of Peter in Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles; vol. 22 of Calvin’s Commentaries; trans. John Owen (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1974), 421. 11. See Leviticus 20:23; 26:30; Deuteronomy 32:19; Psalm 53:5; 73:20; 78:59; 106:40; Proverbs 6:16–19; 22:14; Lamentations 2:6; Hosea 9:15; Zechariah 11:8; Malachi 1:3; Romans 9:13. The KJV usually translates these texts using the word “hate,” and indicating that the object of divine hate is specific persons or entire groups of people. Where “hate” is not used, “abhor,” “reject,” or some such equivalent is used to denote God’s denouncement of those under judgment. The same is true of the NRSV. 12. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica Ia.20.2, trans. the Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Bros., 1948), page?. 13. Thomas Aquinas, Summa of the Summa, ed. and annotated by Peter Kreeft (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990), 166 (n. 160). 14. https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/voices/god-s-genuine-love-for-all (3 of 3)

>How Should Christians Think About Artificial Intelligence? with Sean McDowell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R8qudyaNio I started to link this in the /meta or Society thread, b/c it's got plenty of commentary that's pertinent to robowaifus, but it's clearly coming from the Christian perspective, so I'll put it here instead.

The great John Lennox actually mentions robowaifus briefly during this -- from 8 years ago lol. >The Loud Absence: Where is God in Suffering? | John Lennox at Harvard Medical School https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPm6Y-pANYI >=== -minor fmt

>>2089 I agree with this very much. I think we have the computing power, and I mean normal desktop for thought and higher stuff, and microcontrollers for muscle movement, to get a waifu that can walk around, recognize you. Very limited verbal ability. Yes, no, maybe, ok, etc. I think we can do that now. Maybe even follow very simple commands like a dog with a strong GPU to process verbal commands. However this simple thing can rapidly grow to be far more as processing power doubles. A couple of more doubles and I think you could have some basic conversation and maybe clean the house(remember I'm talking about cheap consumer processors). Maybe even with some serious programming sweat equity you could get it to cook. And by then it should be able to blow your mind sexually. I think there's a strong possibility that you could do the higher level functions right now with consumer grade, very expensive, but consumer, GPU's with A LOT of training. It would be like training a two year old. Constantly telling it do this, don't do that but over time the reinforcement on a "few" task would allow it to do them well. I think the key for near term is to stick to a few basic task and low level verbal commands and not expect serious philosophical discussions. Of course who wants that anyways. Zsa zsa Gabor once said that dealing with Men is easy. Make sure they got adequate sex, a clean place to live in with their clothes clean and tidy and three meals a day. I would add limited bickering or nagging. If they wanted something. No more than two mentions of what they want a day. So if something gets missed, it and a new thing could be noted, once, then no more. I think 99% of most Men would be happy with that.

>>23130 >I think 99% of most Men would be happy with that. I think you're right. :^)

The Berean Standard Bible is the 'official' English Bible translation for the /robowaifu/ Christ-chan project. https://berean.bible/terms.htm >=== -minor edit

Moving an answer to a debate over from the "Roastie and other hostiles" thread, since it's more and more about Christian theology and morals. >>30702 > if it displeases God when we don't follow His rules, then proceeding in that course is dangerous to the individual and everyone around that person due to fallout damage. To me these things are in best case ancient wisdom which needs interpretation, and you lack the logic to to so or are unwilling to do so. There's apparently nothing about robots and AI in the Bible, these are not just dead things, and the consequences need to be explored by thinking about it. I don't see any problem, and we are going to find out.

Now I have a funny image in my head of the "second coming" of Christ being RoboJesus.