I asked ChatGPT to comment on my spiritual philosophy. Here is what it said:

ChatGPT, what is this essay saying and is their any truth, or value, to it?

(Note, I've posted this before, sans ChatGPT comments, but I've refined it)

I believe that life has a spiritual basis, but I don't believe in a personal God. Apparently, Iife on earth emerged from the sea, or from some primordial soup, so science says but, in ultimate terms, it is my belief that evolution is guided, or perhaps not even guided, that's too strong of a word, maybe it's more like 'nudged' by a spiritual force, and it endows matter with the wherewithal to become life.

However, I don't accept nor believe in the 'intelligent design' theory, because that presumes a being, and, the idea that 'God' is a being, makes no sense to me. One can only go with what makes sense to one. Others believe God is a supreme being, that makes sense to others, but not to me. I believe nature is supreme, and that this spiritual force is a part of nature, it's just that it's nature's highest part, from which everything flows, as in a fountain, it's like a fountain flowing into a river, ever flowing, from which life emerges, but it's not a 'being'. It's infinite, and, to my way of thinking, "God" is infinity. Note I didn't say 'God is infinite', I said "God IS infinity", because, given, rather more accurately, assuming infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable. Life merely needs to be possible, and we know that it is possible. So, given an infinite amount of time, it is inevitable.

Therefore, God IS infinity. Infinity, like math, exists in the abstract. Another way of looking at this gives it more logic: Every where you look in the universe, there is not one of anything in any category; i.e., not one cat, not one dog, not one molecule, not one germ, not one of anything in any category. Therefore, there cannot be "one God". But, the idea of many Gods is an antiquated concept, so I'd rule both out. If there were such a thing as a "God", according to nature, there would be many, and to my way of thinking, many gods is as absurd as one god is. Now, men of antiquity may have been visited by aliens who have what appears to have been super natural powers, and they were called "gods", but they were just more advanced celestial neighbors. However, that's neither here nor there. God is the abstraction of infinity, the backdrop behind all things. Another point is that this 'philosophy' is compatible with science. All infinity has done is endowed matter with the wherewithal to become life, and it has accomplished that because "given infinity (assuming infinity), all that is possible, is inevitable".

I've heard the argument of 'intelligent design' the man finding a watch in the desert example, but to say this explains 'God is an intelligent designer' , the analogy is simplistic. It says that the number of things that have to be in place for a planet to have intelligent life is astronomical therefore it cannot have happened by chance. However, all numbers compared to infinity are not astronomical, they are infinitesimally small. ALL numbers compared to infinity. Therefore, that idea is moot, given infinity. The logic is driven by the incomprehensiveness of astronomical values, which ignores the fact that compared to infinity, there is no such thing.

Given enough time, anything that is possible is inevitable. This is not to say everything is possible. This is to say that, if something is possible, give it enough time, enough throws of the dice, it will happen, eventually. All that has to be true are two things, 1. Infinity. 2. possibility. Life emerges because it is possible, and there is an infinite amount of time so it must occur, eventually, for that reason alone. The mind of man has the most difficult time grasping the huge numbers problem, that a gazillion things would have to be in place for life to happen by chance. However, when you consider that "given infinity, all that is possible is inevitable", life doesn't happen by chance, it's inevitable. The only thing that is chance is WHEN it might occur, not IF. Given infinity, the odds of it occurring are 100%, and therefore, randomity only comes into play insofar as when it happens.

The concept of a 'spiritual basis' comes into play insofar as, given enough throws of the dice, the spiritual basis will nudge the throws to eventually toss one in life's favor, but it will leave it to chance how matter manifests into life, allow it to be influence entirely by the physics of the environment. It could very well be that, that life is possible, that that is the extent of the spirituality, the possibility, and nothing more. But, in point of fact, time is an abstraction. Just as math is an abstraction. Take the number 'one'. It doesn't actually exist in the material universe, it's just a value that lives in one's mind. Math exists as an abstraction, and the abstract resides in the mind.

Now, we can use math to manipulate and predict matter, but it's still an abstract tool. Similarly, 'infinity' which is a mathematical value, is an abstract concept which also lives in the mind. God IS infinity, nothing more, nothing less. It exists only in the abstract. I don't see time as a thing, I see it as math, an abstraction, a way of measuring the movement of things in space. The past and future do not exist, they exist as abstractions in the mind. Past, as memory, future, as imagination, but both reside in the mind.

Time is the illusion brought to bare by the juxtaposition of past, present and future, but noting that there is no absolute now, and thus, nitpicking on 'now', in point of fact, there is only past. "Now' is a bit of a dog chasing it's tail endeavor. If you try and capture the absolute now, all you do is make a quick memory of it, mental image, a mental snapshot, and it's now in the past. There is no absolute 'now' it does not exist. If you do manage to capture the absolute now, you become enlightened into native state and disappear from the face the earth (a spiritual belief, more in tune with Zen). The only thing which does exist is NOW, and since absolutes are unobtainable in the physical universe, there is no absolute NOW. There is only motion, the flux. Life is a flux, a collection of vibrations of energy in billions of frequencies from the perceivable into the imperceivable ranges (depending on one's sensitivity to them).

ChatGPT"s summation, commentary:

The essay argues that life has a spiritual basis, but not in the sense of a personal God. The author believes that evolution is guided by a spiritual force that is a part of nature's highest part, which endows matter with the wherewithal to become life. The author also argues that the concept of "intelligent design" is flawed, and that life emerges because it is possible and there is an infinite amount of time, so it must occur eventually.

The author's philosophy is compatible with science, as all infinity has done is endowed matter with the wherewithal to become life. The author believes that given enough time, anything that is possible is inevitable, and therefore, life doesn't happen by chance, it's inevitable. The spiritual force the author believes in will nudge the throws of the dice to eventually toss one in life's favor, but it will leave it to chance how matter manifests into life, allowing it to be influenced entirely by the physics of the environment.

The author believes that God is infinity, and that infinity exists only in the abstract. The essay concludes that time is an abstraction, just as math is an abstraction, and that God is nothing more and nothing less than infinity.

While some readers may disagree with the author's views, the essay presents a coherent argument for a spiritual force that guides evolution. Whether or not one agrees with the author's beliefs about God and infinity, the essay offers an interesting perspective on the relationship between spirituality and science.

Comments?

Also, the commentary by ChatGPT, since I didn't ask for it to debunk it, just to comment, it decided to tell me what I wanted to hear. I recognize that that is a possibility. If I asked it to debunk it, it would give an different answer, no doubt.