Відео

Yes. Dismissing valid uses of AI is why many people will become irrelevant in the academic and economic world in the very near future. AI is a massive leap forward for humanity, and will enable us to reach new heights to further glorifying God. It saddens me that people like you seem to outright dismiss valid and ethical uses of the technology.

I appreciate the sentiment, but the Van Tillian claim is that other views, even though they might claim to be Reformed, are inconsistent.

Yes, these are AI voices, but the content is not. It is based in an article from Apologetics Central publish approximately a year ago.

The voices certainly sound scripted.Theres no way they could respond to each other that quickly with that degree of spontaneity.

No. But the underlying worldview that justifies these feelings and acts as morally right boils down to some form of post-modernism. Sure these people existed well before the post-modern era of philosophy, but the foundations and implications of their thinking have not yet been formalised back then.

​@@apologeticscentral I can well understand in the present climate of rapid change in so many aspects of life many questions arise about what is stable and true. It must be very disconcerting for those with fixed, unchanging views, especially in regard to biblical inerrancy and fixed gender roles. Postmodernism is appealing for some LGBTQ+ folks but I don't think it is the end of the story. I think it is a gift from God that influences one's temperament, what one brings to the world and who one loves. In my experience, it is not something one chooses but comes to realise. To force and coerce another to choose otherwise is a violating sin against another person's God-given nature.

That’s not what the Bible says

@@apologeticscentral Appreciated. You are unmovable. Your bedrock is the bible as literally understood. I dont approach the bible that way. All the best,

@@ivtch51 I am a Christian. What did you expect? There is an antithesis between our worldviews, and this should not be downplayed.

Not the article no. The conversation is generated with NotebookLM based off the article.

I’d strongly suggest you spend some more time reading before commenting stuff like this. Internalism is an epistemic theory of justification. But just asserting that being an internalist means you can suddenly know things is just wildly ignorant 😅 These things go much much deeper.

@apologeticscentral What do you think I was arguing in my comment? I was using an example to show that in some things you can operate from neutral ground with an atheist. I wasn’t arguing for method, I was arguing that neutrality is not always impossible. I’d strongly suggest you spend more time reading the comments before you respond. I’ve spent a majority of my Christian walk as a presupp. I’ve read Van Till, Bahnsen, White, Oliphant, Schaeffer, some from Frame, and a few others. I’m not ignorant of this method contrary to what you might think

I understand what you’re saying, and respectfully, it’s not an insightful comment. You’re asserting the possibility of neutrality grounded in some for internalism. Very well. That makes sense if you’re convinced of internalism. I’m not an internalist, and I have good reasons to still think that grounding the possibility of objective and “neutral” knowledge in the human mind is flawed and cannot escape the egocentric predicament. Moreover, why do you think your system of thoughts makes contact and accurately conveys the external world?

@apologeticsaa Replace the concept of internalism with something else. The point is not internalism, it was an example of a concept that can be rationally shared by multiple people. Replace it with externalism, replace it with platonism, replace it moral realism, it doesn’t matter what the subject is, the presuppositional apologetic, in my opinion, hasn’t made a convincing argument for what they mean by neutrality. I also never claimed my comment was insightful, that’s not really relevant to the point I’ve made. For clarification, I’m not arguing that all worldviews equally provide satisfactory views to answer big questions. But neutrality as is used by many presupps puts a hard distinction between worldviews, in such a way as to pretend that other worldview sin no way can provide any answer. That’s what I’m disagreeing with. I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to when you say the egocentric predicament. If Joshua Pillows statements on that represent your own, that if you start with yourself you can never get out of yourself, then I know what you’re talking about. But what’s your explanation of that problem? In my system, internalism based on acquaintance theory, I can make contact with the external worldview through the means of inference. If you’re familiar with David Pallmann I follow closely the epistemology he puts forward.

Neutrality in the presuppositional sense means any philosophical system or concept that purports to be “neutral” with regard to the existence of God in the sense that this system or starting point is sufficient for someone to gain objective knowledge, and from which the existence of God can be probabilistically argued. In essence, there are “things” or “concepts” that are more fundamental than God Himself. As you outlined, there are countless systems that attempt to function in this way. So, yes, you can try and be neutral regarding the existence of God.. but that doesn’t make it “right” or justified.. you’ll have to put forth an argument for how you think your system is able to rationally ground knowledge, ethics and more apart from God, and sometimes even in the face of his outright denial.

What does this mean?

@@apologeticscentralsorry for the lack of detail. I found the subtitles put in distracting. I liked all the imagery, but putting your script on the screen with the images disrupted my ability to watch this. You put forth some good ideas in this vid regardless.

Ah ok! I’m experimenting with video formats. I thought the subtitles would make it more engaging. But thanks for the feedback!

Working on it!

@@apologeticscentral , Great!!! Just to let you know, your videos are solid and informative and most importantly Christ exalting. Keep it up brother! I'm form Liberia, West Africa.

Can you perhaps expand?

Hi Scott. Thanks for the comment and the reminder... I wanted to write a follow-up to constructively engage with some of the stuff you mentioned in that article. Really great that you took the time to engage with it!

@@apologeticscentral Your work is awesome and I love it - and want to make clear: I agree with you, as far as it goes. I just think more technicality needs to be teased out. Van Til explicitly says that none of the objects of our experience can be known "exhaustively" .. (pg. 214 of the pdf version of IST)... this means, contra Tipton, there will always be an inherent ambiguity in the objects of our experience. Tipton, in my view, was right in practice (we want to affirm that - contra Kant - there is an objectivity to "natural revelation" ) but we need to construe this objectivity in terms of correct, ethical, judgements: there is a correct way to conceive the objects of our experience. In any case, I'm writing an article right now: "Fearlessly Anthropomorphic Anti-Realism" which focuses on possible anti-realism about metaphysics, but I think touches on the "realist / idealist" debate in philosophy of perception as well. As is often the case, Van Til doesn't fit neatly into either camp.

@@Scott_Terry I've written a reply and will likely record a video in the near future. Regards, Arne

Thank you 🙂

Please expand on this?

@@apologeticscentral you deleted my comment?

@@doejohn215 Oh snap.. not that I'm aware of? I might have done something wrong. Can you kindly comment again?

@@apologeticscentral I am currently in seminary with the vision of starting a distinctively Van Tillian K-12 school network. My research is applying VT in the fields of education and grounding the academic disciplines. Would love to talk with you some time.

Category error

I would love nothing more than to engage with a non-Christian on this! But, your comment seems to merely be assertions without lots of backing. But I’ll engage regardless. The one interesting thing you mentioned is that according to you, “Star Wars is a reflection of the maturing ideals of the current age” So you probably loved the Acolyte right? Cause that’s squarely built on the ideals of the current age. My simple argument is that the original Star Wats movies are loved because they implicitly exemplify Christian virtues. You’re right that the newer ones exemplify the virtues of the current age - hence why they suck. Moreover, I’m not arguing for a sheltering of children in the way you mentioned. I’m specifically arguing for sheltering especially during their forming years. They ought not to be exposed to heretical garbage that teaches as normal everything that’s wrong in the current world. There is a line. For example, would you expose them to the first Terminator movie when they’re 1? Of course not! So the question I’m asking is from a worldview formation perspective, what is appropriate for them to consume when? The original Star Wars films become appropriate far sooner than the Acolyte, for example. Anyway, since you seem very passionate, keen for a face to face chat?

@@apologeticscentral I don’t know about face to face at this point, but I’ll continue to chat here. As I mentioned, my initial comment which was more specific and lengthy was lost because of autoplay, so maybe later I will rewatch and write up those specific points again. I did like The Acolyte. I wish they would make a season 2 to see where the story can lead. Unless you were referring to the more violent nature of the show, I don’t see why the show wouldn’t be appropriate as soon as the rest. Yes, there are some forms of media that aren’t age appropriate for young children, but that doesn’t mean censoring the subjects that make them that way completely. Things can be built upon in an age appropriate way. I’ll use the example of sex education. In Kindergarten, you don’t begin with the birds and the bees, you begin with explaining that some areas are more private and sensitive. You explain consent in things like asking before hugging someone. You may even explain that not all families look the same and sometimes people have two moms, or two men will love each other. As it comes up, you can explain gender identity and how that fits in. These topics are gradually built on for a few years until they reach 10-12 or so and you explain the process of puberty. (Importantly, everyone should learn about puberty for both sexes, because the number of grown adults that don’t understand how bodies work is absurd.) At this point you bring up sex as a process for reproduction. In middle school and high school you bring up STDs, health as it relates to genitalia and sex, and ways to promote safe sex. (This last part is important because it’s proven to decrease rates of STDs and teen pregnancy in ways that abstinence only education could never dream to.) Any sensitive topic can be treated in a similar manner. Death, violence, systemic racism, sex, crime, etc. It can also be at different paces based on the maturity of the individual. What’s important is that these things are discussed. Gatekeeping information and omitting important subjects will never* be helpful to the kid. So maybe you don’t start with Terminator. Instead they watch Up, then they watch Star Wars Rebels, then they watch Captain America, etc. (Of course it doesn’t need to be those movies, but the idea is that the topics are built on slowly, and never withheld.) Does that make sense?

@@apologeticscentral I think I forgot to mention, those Christian virtues you discuss in the video *are* present in the newer movies. Yes to a lesser extent, but still there.

You’re happy to teach your children that “two moms” are ok. I’m not. So I won’t be showing my children content that glorifies anti-Christian principles before they’re able to comprehend that it’s wrong. You’re happy to show them stuff that glorifies anti-Christian principles. So, my children are indoctrinated along Christian lines, yours are indoctrinated along non-Christian lines. There is no neutrality in education, and it’s best not to pretend that there is. But I think the box office also supports my view. You liked the Acolyte, but it was certified garbage and cancelled. Why? Because the story fails to be “Christian”. There’s not much more to say.

I checked out some of your videos. I see that you were raised as a LDS. This might not mean much for you know, but the LDS church cannot be said to be even remotely Christian. I’d encourage you to check out some videos by ApologiaStudios on the topic. You were, unfortunately indoctrinated as a child into a wrong belief-set, and it came crashing down. But you’ve replaced one wrong belief-set with another that will invariably disappoint you again.

Please do. Awesome to hear that Star Wars played in instrumental role in your conversion. I'd love to hear more about it!

I take your point 👍🏻 However, at the back of my mind is my 1yo daughter. She is still very much forming how to think about herself and the world. The stories she consumes will be forming her. When children are older, they can consume more and then we can have conversations with them about stuff. Check out Van Til’s pamphlet on Christian education. It’s an important piece of information 👍🏻

Again, the point is not that Star Wars is a Christian allegory, but that it is "implicitly" influenced by Christian themes that contributed to its success. If you watch the 6 Star Wars movies and completely miss the mentorship roles displayed on screen something is amiss! Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, Yoda, etc. Sure there are shortcomings, Anakin fell the Dark Side.. but that does not invalidate the principle considered good in the Star Wars universe - that people need to be mentored and taught. Even the Sith have a master and a apprentice. Importantly, I remember as a child that I wanted to be a Jedi, that I wanted to be one of the children in the temple being taught. You must understand the real-world impact that the on-screen events and world can have on the real world. So I don't think I misunderstand Christianity or Star Wars. Of course, you might be able to pull something from the extended lore or the Disney films (or perhaps even from the OG 6) to invalidate everything in this video - but that's not the point I'm making. I can perhaps debate you over lore for fun, but that would be missing the point of the video. I'm making broad strokes, and drawing a parallel between Christian virtues (and worldview-principles) and Star Wars which surely contributed to its success, and the implicit lack of these virtues and principles in the new Star Wars content is what is contributing to their failures.

@@apologeticscentral You seem to have missed my point. One of the scriptures that you used in this video is represented In SW only as a contrary theme. It isn't painting the theme you presented the way you presented it. It's doing the exact opposite. Instead of children growing into adults who will never turn away from what was passed on, SW encourages people to find their own way. If you watch the 6 movies and completely miss that the mentors are often very wrong, something is a miss. If you watch episode 3 and miss how Yoda tells Obi Wan and Windy that even experienced "masters" suffer from overconfidence, then you're just not paying attention. The short Cummings that you're brushing off lead to everything bad that happened in those six movies. Vader's redemption and the fall of the empire only occured when Luke found his own path. He didn't do things the way he was taught to do them. I don't count the Disney films. I'm only concerned with the message that the actual creator was concerned with. He was more concerned with portraying what has been commonly known as the hero's journey than he was with any single religion, mostly because there was influences he pulled from almost every religion. I think your video is creative, but I think it could do with some editing when I see something in it that is so contrary to the point your trying to make. SW, at least the first 6 movies, isn't about the virtues of training someone up from infancy. That can easily be considered one of the great faults of the Jedi order. To my knowledge, Lucas hasn't outright said so, but it is implied by the fact that the Jedi who helped ruin the galaxy were all trained up from infancy except Anakin who was still very young, but the one Jedi who set things right was in his early 20s when he began training. Before then, he was raised by people who were anti-jedi to some degree, and anti-jedi teachings to a large degree. I understand you're making broad strokes, but I'm just telling you when one of them really doesn't work.

I’m inclined to disagree 👍🏻 I do see your point though. It’s not how I experienced the movies and not how they impacted me and my brother. Also, you don’t have to “tell me” that my point doesn’t follow. It makes the conversation more combative than it has to be 😅 But interesting nonetheless!

I wouldn’t necessarily disagree too strongly here. It’s fiction and a lot is open to interpretation. However, if what you’re saying is true, you should be indifferent towards Anakin killing younglings.. or, when order 66 happend the score should’ve been hopeful/triumphant as the force was brought to balance right? Of course not. At the end of Lucas’ saga the Sith was defeated! And there was a massive celebration across the galaxy. Now, even if Lucas himself did not consider this to be the case, it is the case in practice.

TLDR, Star Wars (at least in the 6 films prior to Disney) did not build its premise on this Taoism claim of eternally warring sides of good and evil and that’s just how it is.. Balance in the force, (even if some think differently) in practice means the eradication of evil and the prevailing of good.

See pinned comment

@@apologeticscentral 1Timothy 4:1-4 The Latter Times Men Depart From Faith 1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 2Timothy 3: The Last Days Signs 1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2Timothy 4:2-4 They Will Turn Their Ears from The Truth 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. Acts 13:38,39 The Apostle Paul shows way of SALVATION 38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Exactly

Even if that’s the case… when saw Darth Maul as a child, you knew the dude is evil. You knew that evil is to be defeated - that’s one of my main talking points - clear distinction between good and evil. But I disagree on your take on the force as well as per the video.. we can talk about it more though if you’d like

@@apologeticscentral bro I’m very immersed in the Star Wars universe …good doesn’t always prevail over evil ..the Jedi were destroyed by the darkside ..and the sith reigned for decades ..the bringing of “balance to the force” the Jedi thrived for millennia numbering in the 100s while the sith were only 2 hiding in plain sight …after the purge there were only 2 Jedi ..yoda and Ben and two sith Vader and sidious ..balance ..

@@apologeticscentral maul was raised by the night sisters ..darkside force witches ..he inherited the darkside ..

I disagree with your interpretation of “balance”. So does the Jedi and Obi-wan when cried after defeating Anakin in Ep III. And so do you (😅) in practice. You don’t believe good and evil are equal and opposing forces and that order 66 was “good”

(Don’t read a hostile tone from me - I’m enjoying your takes and find it very interesting!)

I wouldn’t claim that it’s a Christian story in the sense that everything about it praiseworthy.

Yeah, because star wars is in its essence critical of authoritarianism, an ideology that christianity can't live without.

Good points. I like to engage in the debate at this level as well! However, my main point is that Star Wars succeeded then because in many wats it exemplifies Christian principles. Sure not in all cases faithfully, and analogies form a break apart all over the place.

Strong words. Can you back them up? I’ve given my take and reason for it 👍🏻

Tubby

Thank you for the kind words! I’ll be making more in the future 👍🏻

“Akshually..”

@@apologeticscentral huh?

I’ve heard about this perspective.. and I’ve had some debates around the camp fire about it 😁 I do not think that “balance” in the force refers to some “balance” between light and dark. Balance comes when the dark side is eradicated. The prophecy about Anakin said that he will bring balance to the force by destroying the sith. You cannot make peace with evil. Evil must not be balanced by good. The good must utterly eradicate evil and protect against its return.

@@apologeticscentral " a prophecy that misread might have been " - Master Yoda

😂

@@apologeticscentral Could it not rather be that rather than eradicating the dark side completely, the prophecy would have been about breaking it's reign? You cannot destroy evil. It's seed rests in all of us. But you can make peace with it by recognizing it's existance, listening to what it has to say, and providing it with what it needs in a way that does not violate the moral laws of conscience. Anakin Skywalker's failure to do so is what led to it's downfall. "I feel hurt by this treatment. I have achieved much, endured much, and am trying every day to both honor your teachings and make the galaxy a safer place for everyone. Yet you don't seem to be appreciating any of it." That's what he should have said for example instead of "This is outrageous! It's unfair! How can you be on the council and not be a master?" - it was the darkness within him telling him this, *and it had a point,* but he as an individual should have listened to it and found a way to bargain on it's behalf instead of just allowing it free reign over his being. That is what true balance would have been.

I don’t think so. For instance, yes we are all evil to some extent, but Christ came to redeem us and to eradicate evil (glorification). There will be no evil on the new earth. Hence, Anakin’s immaculate conception mirrors that of Christ - and he came to destroy the Sith according to the prophecy, not make peace with them. Now, Christ was tempted and did not fall into sin, whereas Anakin did fall (so that’s where the analogy breaks), but Anakin’s fall and final redemption serves a different role.

“In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.”

@@apologeticscentral There too were scoffers during the time of the bible, just how long are these end times?

@@apologeticscentral sounds good

“Knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.’”

Hail Satan, the one which came to destroy, steal and kill...? The funny part is, you don't need to actually say "Hail Satan", wasting good and beautiful things is all the worship he needs. Modernity is proof enough that Satan is getting his way and that humanity needs to change course.

Hi Andrew. The voice-over is AI generated, yes. The script isn’t. Thanks for leaving a comment. Keen to hear your thoughts on the actual content as well. P.S. There is an ethical and unethical use of modern AI technology. I use it in my everyday actuarial work, and when used correctly, it can achieve massive amounts of good. You’ll be ignorant to dismiss it as quickly as you’re doing now.

@@apologeticscentral You should get a guy to voice over it for you.

@@apologeticscentral The visual material also appear to be AI generated making the whole project suspect.

Then you have to tune your AI detector some more 😅 It’s called B-roll. Stock footage. Likely AI video has been trained on lots of stock footage.

The Apostle Paul - Mentions the Way of Salvation Paul did not detest the Law of Moses. Paul actually believed in The Law, but did not understand that God was going to bring in the grace. It had to first be a sacrifice - and that sacrifice was Jesus Christ. Paul did not detest The Law but quoted from Moses and explained what Moses could not explain back then, because it wasn't time yet. Moses means "drawn out" - and God used Moses to 'draw out' Israel from Egypt. The Hebrews spent scores of years in Egypt, and it was time to move on. The word 'Church' means "Called Out" - by Christ, the Church was called out of the world to make a people for God. In the epistles written by Paul, especially Romans and Galatians he explained the purpose of the church. In The Law in Deuteronomy 32 - God had Moses teach Joshua and the Children of Israel a song. This song was going to attest what the Children of Israel was going to do, including turning their back on God. But... in the end, God would bring Israel back. In that chapter, the Church was foretold due to Israel's idolatry which caused jealousy from God. For that reason God used a people that were not a people to cause Israel to jealousy. The Apostle Paul explains this in Romans 9, 10, and 11. Acts 13:38,39 38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Do you eat fruit?

@@apologeticscentral Yes

@@apologeticscentral The problem being?

Just making an observation that’s all 👍🏻

@@apologeticscentral Don't be disingenuous. You are obviously not simply making an observation. What is the problem with the idea that we are distantly related to fruit?

At least these apologists are well-versed in basic spelling and grammar, enabling them to construct these impressive word salads.

When an anti-theist or atheist, makes any kind of statement or truth claim, it presupposes that there is an ultimate truth, but athiests and the anti-theist have no foundation to make any knowledge/truth claims at all, they start with "there is no truth, no God, no absolutes." But then turns around and tries to make absolute truth claims with no foundation or basis to even reason that way at all. So when an athiest says things like "word salad" but his basis for any wording or discussion is rooted on nothing. So, isn't all reasoning, by an athiest or anti-theist all just word salads if they have no basis to make any claims or arguement at all. How would one argue that they aren't just spewing nonsense to even speak this way. For the anti-theist and athiest, they lose before the discussion even starts. They stand up high and proud and say, "I have no basis or foundation for saying anything at all, but I'm going to talk" Sounds asinine.

Just admit that you don’t understand anything in this video👍🏿

The life of the atheist is riddled with inconsistencies and thus is exposed as being utterly irrational, for instance, an athiest will presuppose human dignity and attend a funeral of a friend or loved one, and then turn around and argue that man has no dignity and is no different then any other product of evolution like a dog, or a snail, or a horse. I don't see how they bring these 2 things together. They will claim that man is no more than a product of biochemical factors controlled by the laws of physics, but then will go home and kiss his wife and kids as if there is something called love that we all share in a family. The atheist will argue that in sexual relationships there are no moral absolutes, not to impose your views on others, even defending prostitution or homosexuality but then indignantly condemn child molesters or morally repudiate necrophilia, you see the atheist is just a bundle of contradictions and can't bring his worldview in harmony with Itself, he'll suggest that things that happen in the universe happen randomly and just is that way, arbitrarily..... but then he turns around and looks for regularities and law-like explanations of events, he looks for uniformity and predictability in the things that he studies. But doesn't even have a workable worldview in which to reason in the first place, to argue at all. And exposes this in every turn in his life.... See, You can claim that there is nothing spiritual, nothing Immaterial, nothing abstract and universal, only concrete particular things exist, you can claim that events are just random, That there's no personal plan, Control or purpose in the universe, you can claim that reality amounts to nothing more than matter in motion, but you cannot ACT or REASON in that way, so when you appeal to a theistic worldview by using a theistic mindset, then your not living in your own assertion about the nature of reality.

@@AG-rl5pw you seriously have no idea about just about anything...

That's simply false. You can clearly see your own Marxism influence how you view the argument made in the video.

Nothing less will suffice

Thanks for sharing! It's always great to hear people enjoying the content. More so if they heard the giants speak back in the day :D