The full text of Nick Cave's letter:

 

Dear Leon and Charlie,

 

In the story of the creation, God makes the world, and everything in it, in six days. On the seventh day he rests. The day of rest is significant because it suggests that the creation required a certain effort on God’s part, that some form of artistic struggle had taken place. This struggle is the validating impulse that gives God’s world its intrinsic meaning. The world becomes more than just an object full of other objects, rather it is imbued with the vital spirit, the pneuma, of its creator.

 

ChatGPT rejects any notions of creative struggle, that our endeavours animate and nurture our lives giving them depth and meaning. It rejects that there is a collective, essential and unconscious human spirit underpinning our existence, connecting us all through our mutual striving.

 

ChatGPT is fast-tracking the commodification of the human spirit by mechanising the imagination. It renders our participation in the act of creation as valueless and unnecessary.  That ‘songwriter ‘you were talking to, Leon, who is using ChatGPT to write ‘his’ lyrics because it is ‘faster and easier, is participating in this erosion of the world’s soul and the spirit of humanity itself and, to put it politely, should f'cking desist if he wants to continue calling himself a songwriter.

 

ChatGPT’s intent is to eliminate the process of creation  and its attendant challenges, viewing it as nothing more than a time-wasting inconvenience that stands in the way of the commodity itself. Why strive?, it contends. Why bother with the artistic process and its accompanying trials? Why shouldn’t we make it ‘faster and easier?’

 

When the God of the Bible looked upon what He had created, He did so with a sense of accomplishment and saw that ‘it was good‘. ‘It was good' because it required something of His own self, and His struggle imbued creation with a moral imperative, in short love. Charlie, even though the creative act requires considerable effort, in the end you will be contributing to the vast network of love that supports human existence. There are all sorts of temptations in this world that will eat away at your creative spirit, but none more fiendish than that boundless machine of artistic demoralisation, ChatGPT.

 

As humans, we so often feel helpless in our own smallness, yet still we find the resilience to do and make beautiful things, and this is where the meaning of life resides. Nature reminds us of this constantly. The world is often cast as a purely malignant place, but still the joy of creation exerts itself, and as the sun rises upon the struggle of the day, the Great Crested Grebe dances upon the water. It is our striving that becomes the very essence of meaning. This impulse – the creative dance – that is now being so cynically undermined, must be defended at all costs, and just as we would fight any existential evil, we should fight it tooth and nail, for we are fighting for the very soul of the world.

 

Love, Nick

 

Well, now that I see Nick's letter in a post then maybe some will still see it as long-winded.  There's more than two paragraphs. 

20 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I know you enjoy a tune now and again

never heard that one and the nick cave one. Thanks for sharing, Tippaporn.

I will never say a bad word about you either again. I promise. 

you transcribed it? jesus! 

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

never heard that one and the nick cave one. Thanks for sharing, Tippaporn.

I will never say a bad word about you either again. I promise. 

you transcribed it? jesus! 

 

No, I got it off of Cave's The Red Hand Files website that he runs.

https://www.theredhandfiles.com/chatgpt-making-things-faster-and-easier/

 

Sorry that I never promised to never say a bad word about you, Frogs.  Because my mamma always taught me:  "Never make a promise that you can't keep."    But since you made a promise I can now hold you to it and if you break it you'll never hear the end of it.  I swear to God on a Holy Bible. 

On 1/28/2024 at 8:03 AM, Tippaporn said:

 

How is it that such a simple point is so difficult to understand by some people?  You can explain it in a thousand different ways, and even explain the reasons to them of why they don't get it and what it is which blocks their understanding, and they still look at you cross-eyed. 

 

fusion58, sooner or later you'll need to learn to think outside of your box.    Of course you may well be perfectly happy living within it's narrow and limited confines.  And perfectly safe, too.  The unknown reality which exists outside of your comforting box is a very scary place.  For some people stretching their minds is painful. 

 

See what I mean?

 

I ask for evidence, and all I get is evasive maneuvering.

 

Let me know when you figure out that whole “burden of proof” thing.

On 1/27/2024 at 7:33 AM, Tippaporn said:

 

Aw, let fusion58 take his empty victory lap, Sunmaster.  He certainly deserves a passing grade for 'participation' and maybe even a Bozo the Clown trophy.

  

 

Always accuse the other of what you yourself are doing.

— fusion58

My, aren’t you just the poster boy for arrogance wedded to ignorance?

 

So certain of the existence of your magic sky wizard that dialectical formalities like “burden of proof” don’t apply to you.

3 hours ago, fusion58 said:

My, aren’t you just the poster boy for arrogance wedded to ignorance?

 

So certain of the existence of your magic sky wizard that dialectical formalities like “burden of proof” don’t apply to you.

It's really not his fault that you are not capable of understanding a simple concept.
Wait, let me try.... 

This is the issue...


This is you...


This is us:


You're welcome.

 

22 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I swear to God on a Holy Bible. 

 

I don't believe in the Bible.

I don't believe in Elvis.

I just believe in me.

 

 

21 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

It's really not his fault that you are not capable of understanding a simple concept.
Wait, let me try.... 

This is the issue...


This is you...


This is us:


You're welcome.

 

^
 

Congrats - you’re a contender for the title of “poster boy for projection.” 😂

 

Wake us up when you understand the concept of “burden of proof” and have either empirical evidence or a sound argument for the existence of a supernatural being.

2 hours ago, fusion58 said:

^
 

Congrats - you’re a contender for the title of “poster boy for projection.” 😂

 

Wake us up when you understand the concept of “burden of proof” and have either empirical evidence or a sound argument for the existence of a supernatural being.

Thanks for enlightening me. 

On 1/31/2024 at 7:36 PM, fusion58 said:

^
 

Congrats - you’re a contender for the title of “poster boy for projection.” 😂

 

Wake us up when you understand the concept of “burden of proof” and have either empirical evidence or a sound argument for the existence of a supernatural being.

Why don't you come up with some proof that God doesn't exist then. Should be as easy as falling off a chair for you.

 

Speaking for myself I don't need to prove anything as I'm not the one jumping up and down about the existence of God. Actually I don't care if anyone else believes in God or not, but if they are going to tell me that God doesn't exist they better be able to prove it.

On 1/31/2024 at 1:19 PM, save the frogs said:

I don't believe in the Bible.

I don't believe in Elvis.

I just believe in me.

Sooooo, what is "me"? What exactly is there about "me " to believe in? How did "me" come to be? What was necessary for "me" to exist? Where did "me" come from? Did Harry Potter wave his wand and everything came into existence ( wouldn't that make H P God )? Need I go on?

On 1/30/2024 at 5:57 PM, fusion58 said:

See what I mean?

 

I ask for evidence, and all I get is evasive maneuvering.

 

Let me know when you figure out that whole “burden of proof” thing.

Sooooo, just what would be sufficient "evidence", for you? God speaking from a burning bush perhaps?

Science is too primitive to cure cancer so how could it even begin to prove the existence or non existence of the creator of the universe?

Let me know when a scientist can explain how all the matter in the universe came into existence from nothing.

On 2/2/2024 at 6:44 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Sooooo, just what would be sufficient "evidence", for you? God speaking from a burning bush perhaps?

Science is too primitive to cure cancer so how could it even begin to prove the existence or non existence of the creator of the universe?

Let me know when a scientist can explain how all the matter in the universe came into existence from nothing.

 

 

The burden to prove the existence of God isn't on science - it's on the believer.

 

Amazing how such a simple concept is completely lost on theists and other magical thinking types.

On 2/2/2024 at 6:32 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Why don't you come up with some proof that God doesn't exist then. Should be as easy as falling off a chair for you.

 

Speaking for myself I don't need to prove anything as I'm not the one jumping up and down about the existence of God. Actually I don't care if anyone else believes in God or not, but if they are going to tell me that God doesn't exist they better be able to prove it.

 

Either you're simply incapable off understanding who has the burden of proof in this instance, or you're just being disingenuous.

 

Either way, not a good look for you.

19 hours ago, fusion58 said:

 

 

The burden to prove the existence of God isn't on science - it's on the believer.

 

Amazing how such a simple concept is completely lost on theists and other magical thinking types.

Another simple concept that atheist and materialists seem to completely ignore, is the fact that science can only successfully explore the material/objective world. That's why everything that is part of the subjective world (ie mystical experiences) is reduced to mere biological phenomena. No real explanation has ever come out following this path. If you're happy to believe that, up to you, but it's a BELIEF, not a fact. 
Science has no clue whatsoever about what consciousness is nor how it is produced. They look at the brain and stipulate that it must come from there, but correlation is not evidence of causation.
So, we have a non-explanation given by science and all would-be scientists on this forum BELIEVE it to be true.
On the other hand, we have a different explanation rooted in direct and verifiable experience, that doesn't rely on believing anything. Yet, this explanation is not being taken seriously because the findings are not verifiable by science. 
To exclude millennia of knowledge and wisdom on the grounds that it doesn't fit in the restrictive and incomplete scientific paradigm, is not just completely irrational and illogic, but quite frankly utterly stupid.

No doubt you will read this and all you will come up with will still be "But where is the proof!?" 🤣

On 1/7/2024 at 11:47 AM, CharlieH said:

Surely, to insert anything would be an acceptance of the presence or existence of such an entity.

 

TBH, no.

Asking a question about why god does or doesn't do this or that is not acceptance of such a thing. It is simply to get some honest and believable answer form a believer - but most times, when a question is asked, the questioner is branded as a idiot ! It is just that blind faith is necessary to get along with god & its followers.

 

Why don't god stop the Israeli–Palestinian conflict? Or for that matter, why ever start it? All were 'created' by god...

44 minutes ago, ravip said:

the questioner is branded as a idiot !

 

No, the questioner is branded an idiot, not for asking the question, but for asking the same question again and again even though he was already given an answer.

4 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

 

No, the questioner is branded an idiot, not for asking the question, but for asking the same question again and again even though he was already given an answer.

Unfortunately, certain explanations are not comprehensible. Hence, asking over and over again is alright, I feel. Having said that, I feel sad that idiots cannot understand god - so how can he believe in him?

10 hours ago, ravip said:

Unfortunately, certain explanations are not comprehensible. Hence, asking over and over again is alright, I feel. Having said that, I feel sad that idiots cannot understand god - so how can he believe in him?

 

Any idiot is capable of believing something, be it God, the Big Bang, the Flat Earth and so on. 
The wise man however, is not satisfied with believing alone and wants to find out by himself. 

Asking questions is good of course, but if after getting the same answer 10 times, the answer is still incomprehensible, maybe the problem is not the answer, but the ability to understand it.

 

Don't just settle for believing in something, but get to know it personally and intimately. Then you won't have to ask questions to anyone.

On 2/28/2024 at 4:17 PM, Sunmaster said:

Another simple concept that atheist and materialists seem to completely ignore, is the fact that science can only successfully explore the material/objective world.

 

This assumes, a priori, that there is some other world, e.g., a supernatural realm which is ontologically distinct from the natural world.

 

Again, the burden to prove the existence of such a world is on the believer.

 

Failing that, the only honest thing for you to do is to admit that your assumption is a matter of faith as opposed to a matter of fact.

3 hours ago, fusion58 said:

 

This assumes, a priori, that there is some other world, e.g., a supernatural realm which is ontologically distinct from the natural world.

 

Again, the burden to prove the existence of such a world is on the believer.

 

Failing that, the only honest thing for you to do is to admit that your assumption is a matter of faith as opposed to a matter of fact.

Your assumption is that this "other world" is separated somehow from the "natural" world. It's not. They are one and the same. 

Let's make an analogy. You are from a planet where people are able to see in colors and end up in a world where everyone else is color blind. They see the same objects you see, yet they are unable to perceive the different wavelengths that we call colors. Now, how do you explain colors to these people? They will much sooner call you a liar and crazy person than listen to you. Will you doubt yourself or know without doubt that you CAN see colors? And if those people are not interested in your "ability", will you spend your time trying to convince them, or just move on and enjoy your life? 
Plainly, I don't care whether you perceive reality as I do, so that means no need to convince anyone, no need to prove anything. 

Have a good life.
 

On 1/30/2024 at 9:30 AM, Tippaporn said:

 

No, I got it off of Cave's The Red Hand Files website that he runs.

https://www.theredhandfiles.com/chatgpt-making-things-faster-and-easier/

 

Sorry that I never promised to never say a bad word about you, Frogs.  Because my mamma always taught me:  "Never make a promise that you can't keep."    But since you made a promise I can now hold you to it and if you break it you'll never hear the end of it.  I swear to God on a Holy Bible. 

What does the red hand refer to.?