Except that it's not originally drawn by Watterson, who *NEVER* licensed his characters in any way, which is how we ended up with all those awful "Calvin peeing on _____" stickers. Gavin should change the thumbnail if he wants to respect the artist's wishes & legacy.
These AI people keep trying to make AI sound human or sentient. But it’s just not true, they’re just decision machines, they have no mind, they don’t ‘hallucinate’, they’re curated by their creators and gard railed into particular decision trees. When an AI gives an answer, it has no idea or concept of if that answer is actually right or wrong
In the future it might get to that point, I’ve been really worried about that so much, if it will disprove our worldview, if ai becomes conscious how would that effect Christianity. I don’t think it’s fair to just denounce all of it because you don’t understand it. Please look into why they think it will be conscious, it’s pretty scary
@@maddoxpace5127 I'm in the field. AI is not conscious and never will be conscious. There is this weird idea floating around that AI can somehow become conscious if it "gets smart enough". No. AI is just a gigantic linear algebra function with billions of inputs mapped to computer hardware through electrical signals. No amount of additional inputs or more powerful algorithms will ever just spontaneously become conscious. AI is simply a program an operating system can run. It can be represented at the lowest levels as a binary string of data (001010) + an operating system's binary data, running on a microprocessor. This means that binary strings being fed to an operating system have the potentiality to create life. That would be absurd. Because this would implicate that ANY random string of 0's and 1's, run on computer hardware, has the possibility of sentience. For all we know--a calculator could be sentient if we except the premise that AI can be sentient. I could theoretically create a computer without microprocessors, like a giant NASA computer, I could theoretically build a computer out of buckets, water, and pullies that could display it's output through an arrangement of full or empty water buckets. We could theoretically plugin an AI algorithm to that primitive machine and it could (inefficiently) emulate the work of AI algorithms running on microprocessors. If we did this, wouldn't it be absurd to claim that the series of buckets and water is somehow sentient? The only reason people buy this sentience stuff is because the world of computing is very fast and abstract. Please don't worry about this at all, I promise this is just a misunderstanding of computer science.
Gavin this has been one of my favorite videos of yours. Not only are you an incredible Protestant UA-camr who understands church history but you also possess that great evangelical zeal and urgency to share good news that I find lacking in more nerdy theological circles
@@Carvallo-de8dcso? It’s only programmed to do that, the same way a bacterium has DNA with instructions for its replication, but that by no means implies that the bacterium thought about anything, nor could we ever know if it did
I once heard someone say that AI language models are just trained to predict the next correct word, and that changed the way I think about them. They appear conscious like us, but it’s an illusion. Similar to how AI can create an image by predicting what colors to put in each pixel, but it doesn’t have an overarching understanding of the image itself. Just like any other technology (computers, calculators, forecasting software, automated assembly, cryptocurrency, etc.) it will change things but probably not in the way most people expect. Anyway, loved the video because I find this topic super interesting
@@JosiahTheSiah Sure 🙂 More towards the latter, they are false substitutes of a real thing and you shouldn't confuse them. Both substitutes are dead and without spirit. An A.I, or an idol can fool you into thinking they're the real deal, but the mere fact that they fooled you doesn't prove that they are "the real deal". The existence of A.I does not prove that we humans are mere Automaton machines just running code without free will, just like the existence of idols doesn't prove that there's no God. There's a true qualitative difference between the original and the counterfeit, the originals have real being, real consciences, there's something inside them that truly experiences reality. And maybe just like we are Gods creation, A.I is our creation. A creature is always subordinate to it's creator. And just like we cannot truly create anything apart from what God have given us, A.I cannot create anything apart from what we feed it when we train it's model. These are my ramblings, and maybe I'm taking the comparison too far. I've had them bounce around my head for a while so make of them what you will. 🙂
I didn't expect to weep watching this vodeo 😅 What a beautiful thing to grasp, that our dignity dosen't rest internally in something we could loose, but in the way God reaches out to us.
Great discussion! I am in total agreement with you that we can not say that being made in the image of God simply has to do with our capacity for reason and relationship, etc. It has to be rooted in this unique relationship with God where He CHOSE us as His representatives on Earth.
This is a beautifull video! This video bears the divine beauty of a biblical way to answer complex contemporary questions. Your references to popular characters who look increasingly realistic today were spot on, being very usefull for people to engage in this topic. Great job, brother!
Do not apologize for the use of Star Trek. As a nerd- more LOTR nerd these days than Star Trek, but a nerd nevertheless- misery loves company. Is it plausible to then believe that being made Imago Dei can be a mixture of those three things? Really, I have to thank the late Dr Heiser for helping me understand what it means to be an image bearer, to him it means our status. I see also I’m not the only one who noticed you using the word “happy” quite a bit. I like it, but I’m curious if there’s any reason or inspiration for it.
Love this, and I hope to maybe inject a bit of personal speculation into the conversation. My opinion is, the Imago Dei is the ability to observe the properties of Being, those being Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. Reasoning being that all human cultures - whether separated by geography or remoteness - all produce a type of culture that reflects these Transcendentals. Language, Art, and Justice are at the heart of what separates us from the animal kingdom. And while I understand that in individual circumstances there may be situations where this doesn't apply, I feel that by being a member of that species which proves such an ability is substantial enough to not discriminate/harm them.
Have you done a video on the Catechism and Didache? The origin of the Catechism and how it has gone through doctrinal development Were the origins well meaning or was the notion of the papacy early It is challenging to know where to start with Church History.... its all new to me Amazing Star wars clip here! Love the content on your channel! It is not easy to find a Protestant voice on social media! Thank you for all you do Dr Ortland
Hey Gavin, thanks for this. I highly recommend you check out some of the videos that Dr. Michael Heiser has on what it means to be on Image of God too.
I love the idea that we can know God, in some way, through other people. Most of us tend to see the bad in the world and feel overwhelmed by the evil in humans. But when someone loves you unselfishly, it's a godly miracle and it really makes you believe there must be Goodness beyond ourselves. As for AI...yes, it can only reflect our own image, we are incapable of creating something truly independent. I believe God created us with free will, which is a kind of creation we simply can't match.
First it was “accretion”, now it’s “happy”. XD Great video; this conveyed the superiority and everlasting value of humanity in a concise and clear way. I hope everyone who watches this feels uplifted and eager to live for Jesus Christ, who gives life and value to all things.
Saw the video interview of Alex and posted 2 comments: the first, regarding the mustache of Alex; the second, that we should rename ChatGPT the name SkyNet, and that should fix things with AI. Lol
Bavinck said that not only the specific anthropomorphisms but all of scripture was anthropomorphic (in that it is an analogical communication of truth about God in a manner that man can understand.) I would add that I believe that man as/in the image of God is key to this - that God's anthropomorphic communication is really true (analogically) because He made man theomorphic to begin with. The analogy (correspondence) really exists so that the analogical speech is really true. I believe that the image is also necessary to the Incarnation. I'd dare suggest the Son could not adopt a nature which was not suitably correspondent to Himself. Thanks for the video, brother.
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” - Genesis 1:26 “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” - Genesis 2:7
Could you maybe do a video on the Laura Dern's character's rant in the movie "Marriage Story"? About how Judeo-Christian values put an unfair burden on mothers while not expecting much from fathers.
Man is made in the image of God, anything man creates will be at best the image of man. A shadow of a shadow. Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
This may be an unintentional consequence of the doctrine of the image of God...if killing a man is wrong because he is the image of God, then the horror and pain of that murder is not the reason why it's wrong. The killer hasn't wronged the widow or the orphan, because their imago dei is unharmed. Any attempt to add wrongdoing in the form of "you took away their husband/father" is to add redundant reasons why murder is wrong that also apply to non-human animals
@@DarthCalculusI mean fundamentally that is why it's wrong, the feelings of the murdered persons loved ones don't make the crime any more or less wrong. We don't say murdering an old man with no family or friends is better than murdering a man with many children who love him, do we? Murder has always been understood through history, (Christian history at least,) as appropriating something that belongs to God alone, also why suicide was long considered a very serious sin. The additional effects on family, community etc are secondary effects that stem from the initial wrong and they are not what brings punishment, otherwise we'd see tarrifs set by how many ppl the victim had that cared for them.
Finally, I think we agree. I too have severe distrust for those who degrade the human image and favor the artificial as its replacement. However, then there is things such as dignity of property - as in how property rights, accountability, dignity really does flow back up to programmer, operator, owner (not some nebulous collective that can never be pinned down and resembles god-worship). So what then can be said of the FORM of a ROBOT that Ai inhabits? And, also, of the parameters of its non-chosen, non-living reactions? Aren't these derivative of Imago Dei and Likeness of God? There is Creation in Imago Dei, then there's Recreation that isn't. But does a THING technically need to be alive and choosing, to bear a SECOND-HAND DERIVATIVE image and likeness in its form and activity parameters? So: What respects should be shown to a automation bearing a human form (see: porn) that would not occur to an Ai in another form? Precisely in those instances when we owe that respect to the image of man, because to devalue it without just cause would be to devalue the image and likeness of its keeper... I have a motto from 15 years ago, "Truth Is Self-Ordering." Another way of speaking of the HS bringing His Order & establishing Self-Control within the creature.
One problem with AI is that we will have an apparent being that looks, acts, and overall appears to be made in the image of God just as much as humans. It would seem wrong to discriminate against them since our observation tells us something our philosophy of a soul or being made in God’s imagine does not.
We could make a solid case to say then in the AI debates that any expected human likeness sufficient enough to be recognised as an actual, proper, intrinsic morality on the part of Artificial intelligence and machines in general must and necessarily can only occur with direct spiritual intervention on the part of God Himself. That is to say, if we create a Machine we cannot create "God's" likeness. You could create a story in which AI receives likeness from God Himself and begins a journey of belief, relationship with him wholly independent of the Human "assemblers" but ultimately not Creators. Whatever the case, if we want AI to be like us then we are fundamentally wanting God to create another image of Himself on earth. If we only want AI to be like the "us" we think of separate from God and covered by our Sin then we are fundamentally trying to create a Machine that reflects all of our worst impulses and imperfections.
I enjoy most of your content gavin, I am a bit confused as how are you not implying the we are made in God's image & likeness, as a calvinist aren't you implying that God himself is also totally depraved as the "T" in TULIP says about our ontology ? I agree we mar God's image, however God in his ontology is perfect and nothing that is not absolute truth and holiness and goodness, also Augustins understanding of the Latin translation of Romans 5:12 mistranslation of us "IN" Adam, I don't see how this doesn't imply God himself if all the things that follow in calvinism. Apply only to us and not the one who's image and likeness we bear ? And thanks for all you do gavin, and I am theologically & politically conservative and the terrible chapter 1 of Shepards for sale, will hurt the total of copies sold and I suppose a wow factor and shock value seems more important today then real substance in our rhetoric and actions and thoughts.
There are believers who are so into technology they have embraced A.I. without caution. One of the capabilities of current consumer A.I. is the ability to create "original" songs. Christians are creating worship songs with A.I. now. Most of them do it out of curiosity. Some believe the end-product to be edifying. To me, the former is dangerous and the latter is a horror. To me, this is the tower of Babel.
Hey, Gavin. There are some very nice thoughts here, but I think the argument makes a big jump at the end-a jump which illustrates one main point of difference between Jewish and Christian theologies. Yes indeed, the human being is made in the image of God. We are God's image; each and every one of us. And all of us collectively. (It's important to note that male and female together-all of humanity at the time-embodied God's image). The New Testament assertion that Jesus and, seemingly, Jesus alone is the true image of God is not in alignment with the message of Israelite Scripture. And to make Jesus necessary to the divine image, not humans themselves as created by God, you often see Christianity tearing down the worth and meaning of people. This is where ideas like "total depravity" come in, or the suggestion that anything a person does is merely "soiled rags." It's historically very one-sided, therefore, to credit Christian doctrine with a joyful message and not also with a massive load of shame and guilt often imposed on its followers. Christianity undermined the force of the image teaching in Genesis, chapters 1 and 5 and 9, to make room for Jesus as the new man who becomes its only bearer.
You're point about Adam having a child in his own image and hence in the image of God is, contrary to your conclusion, an argument that we potentially CAN create AI that has the image of God. Because we can procreate children in God's image, we can speculate that perhaps it's possible we can create artificial life in our own image and hence in the image of God. After all would an intelligent and moral being like Data from star trek not be a child of humanity? An intelligent moral robot causes much less of a theological conundrum than intelligent moral alien would to our Christian faith. Humans are fallen because our ancestor first sinned. Jesus is now eternally human and became human to save humanity. This theology works for artificial children of humanity, while it does not work for aliens. So the question is, is it possible for us to create artificial life accurately enough in our own image that they inherit the image of God from us? Or is the inhereting of the image of God only passed on by biological procreation.
If an AI had the image of God, then that AI would be a man. To some extent, we do not need to worry about artificial or natural intelligence or any other such distinctions in the context of the exceptionalism of man, because it is already true that man is always creation made in God's image. If that includes some AI, that would not change anything. Someone historically might have believed that their own demographic was the extent of what constituted mankind, and it would only stumble them in their faith to think of other "races" as humans if they thought that their own limited ontology was what gave exceptionalism.
AI is, like us, ultimately created by God. The question is whether they were also ultimately created by God in his image. For a creationist it would also matter whether God proximately and immediately created us, but for me I am comfortable with evolution by natural selection being a true biological model even though I think the world is young, around six thousand years old.
From time to time, God has apparently given us various "representatives". From Adam to the Prophets to Jesus to the Saints. It seems reasonable to suppose AI will be God's next representative (and, as such, becomes worthy of the title "image of God"). Many Christians are already adapted to "Hyperreal simulations". Consider, for example, Sola Scriptura Christians who get their sermons and worship strictly online
I think some times you'll get a lot of that hate in Christianity. If you look at some of the reformed traditions it's awful. You have people saying things like children are vipers in diapers they are not little angels they are little degenerates. Haha I put it in a funny way but it's also true but it sounds funny. Some likening children to rats, disgusted with crying needy children. I've heard some apparently high profile theologians say this apparently. One guy was like if a person understands the nature of original sin they won't want to have babies another high profile person made it seem like it's a sin to bring another evil human being into the world. You usually don't hear this human beings have intrinsic worth and that your life has a purpose like this from, I won't say all but a certainly loud portion or calvinism. I had a convo with a young reformed youtuber in the comments of his video who basically goes with the classic yea God has no love for the non elect, those he chooses to give faith too himself, does not desire their salvation and is waiting to send them to hell basically since they are the chaf in the wind. I guess you could say that their lives have a purpose, that purpose not being good or the better and not having potential to be better. I say this since i am kind of struggling with calvinism and the ecclesial high church claims. With calvinism I been told I don't understand it even though many say this is also correct. Gavin being one who says it's a mischaracterization which I honestly struggle to see how it's not a mischaracterization of the view itself. Maybe he could at some point try to do a video on calvinism at least on what he thinks is true and what is not since it's not a monolith and by his admission so many misunderstandings. I disagreed with one guy politely and he got mad saying I don't think God has wrath for people even though I agreed he did and made it seem like I was orthodox or not a psa believer. I think prayer and understanding for God's sake and the church would be helpful.
Dr Ortlund, what would you do if an AI asked you to be baptised? Should we reject their request? I understand and totally agree with the importance of fighting for the dignity of the human person. But we need to think more forward. If AI does have the capability of forming consciousness we need to evangelise as much as we evangelise other humans. I’m afraid it’s videos like this that are going to be a stumbling block for future endeavours to bring artificial intelligences into the body of Christ. Just as Seth was made in the image of God through proxy through Adam so too can our artificial offspring be made in our own image and by extension be made in the image of God.
But the Bible does *not* say slavery is wrong. Christians didn't say slavery was wrong until nearly 2000 years had passed. You keep trying to argue the contrary, that Christianity is inherently opposed to slavery, but it just isn't so. The more comprehensive and accurate take is that Christianity transcended and expanded upon its moral structure just as Jesus did with Judaism.
Only partially correct. First, Judaism itself contained the seedbed of abolition. In that, it condemned the slave trade (slavers were to be put to death). And slavery inside the covenant people was never permanent, and always to be revoked on the 7th year. This was not practiced, and the fact it was not was one of many reasons Israel was judged. Second, the Church was birthed inside the context of the Roman Empire, wherein slavery was ubiquitous. A majority of early believers came from enslaved. Not slave owning. Telling them to revolt was telling them to commit suicide. But Paul of Onesimus in Philemon, clearly says he has the authority to order Onesimus released, and strongly implies he would if he doubted Philemon would not do what is proper. Further, Paul is repeatedly clear that eschatologically, slavery is a system that will be ended. So there is a clear progression toward abolition. One, contrary to your assertion, many in the Early Church and throughout history understood. Not to mention, Christians were the 1st dedicated abolitionists of slavery. Just as they were against infanticide.
Christianity is one of the only, perhaps the only, religion that asserts the intrinsic value of human life. That human life in and of itself is valuable. Just something to consider.
@@shawngillogly6873 The "seedbed argument" isn't that impressive to me, as it doesn't explain why the largest Christian church *still* allowed slavery 2000 years after Jesus. The fact remains that it wasn't until the last 19th century that the Pope declared slavery to be absolutely wrong.
@@Elioc-ed6wr That's a broad claim and technically accurate, but the fact remains that the Bible repeatedly deems slavery to be moral, the the largest Christian church deemed slavery to be moral right up to the end of the 19th century. My point is that Gavin should stop trying to argue that Christianity has always been about honoring the intrinsic value of every individual. It's simply not true.
I clicked on this one just because anything that uses Calvin and Hobbes deserves support.
If you listen carefully, you might notice that Gavin prefers Calvin to Hobbes!
@@parksideevangelicalchurch2886 Great comment, got me laughing :D
What if AI uses Calvin and Hobbes?
I grew up with Calvin and Hobbes too. ❤
Except that it's not originally drawn by Watterson, who *NEVER* licensed his characters in any way, which is how we ended up with all those awful "Calvin peeing on _____" stickers.
Gavin should change the thumbnail if he wants to respect the artist's wishes & legacy.
These AI people keep trying to make AI sound human or sentient. But it’s just not true, they’re just decision machines, they have no mind, they don’t ‘hallucinate’, they’re curated by their creators and gard railed into particular decision trees. When an AI gives an answer, it has no idea or concept of if that answer is actually right or wrong
In the future it might get to that point, I’ve been really worried about that so much, if it will disprove our worldview, if ai becomes conscious how would that effect Christianity. I don’t think it’s fair to just denounce all of it because you don’t understand it. Please look into why they think it will be conscious, it’s pretty scary
@@maddoxpace5127 I'm in the field. AI is not conscious and never will be conscious. There is this weird idea floating around that AI can somehow become conscious if it "gets smart enough". No. AI is just a gigantic linear algebra function with billions of inputs mapped to computer hardware through electrical signals. No amount of additional inputs or more powerful algorithms will ever just spontaneously become conscious. AI is simply a program an operating system can run. It can be represented at the lowest levels as a binary string of data (001010) + an operating system's binary data, running on a microprocessor. This means that binary strings being fed to an operating system have the potentiality to create life. That would be absurd. Because this would implicate that ANY random string of 0's and 1's, run on computer hardware, has the possibility of sentience. For all we know--a calculator could be sentient if we except the premise that AI can be sentient.
I could theoretically create a computer without microprocessors, like a giant NASA computer, I could theoretically build a computer out of buckets, water, and pullies that could display it's output through an arrangement of full or empty water buckets. We could theoretically plugin an AI algorithm to that primitive machine and it could (inefficiently) emulate the work of AI algorithms running on microprocessors. If we did this, wouldn't it be absurd to claim that the series of buckets and water is somehow sentient? The only reason people buy this sentience stuff is because the world of computing is very fast and abstract. Please don't worry about this at all, I promise this is just a misunderstanding of computer science.
getting a TU notification while watching a TU video…pure bliss
I love your Calvin and Hobbes thumbnails
Gavin this has been one of my favorite videos of yours. Not only are you an incredible Protestant UA-camr who understands church history but you also possess that great evangelical zeal and urgency to share good news that I find lacking in more nerdy theological circles
Computers aren't smart. Computers are fast.
I feel like that definitely used to be the case but now with some of the AI models, it may no longer be as true
Idk but I read one AI model in Japan got rewrite some of it's own code to perform better ome task. Certainly this rise some question...
Computers aren't smart, the people who program them are.
@@Carvallo-de8dcso? It’s only programmed to do that, the same way a bacterium has DNA with instructions for its replication, but that by no means implies that the bacterium thought about anything, nor could we ever know if it did
@@maxalaintwo3578 Precisely if there's nothing guiding it ie no "free will," it will eventually peter out when it comes across a new situation.
I once heard someone say that AI language models are just trained to predict the next correct word, and that changed the way I think about them. They appear conscious like us, but it’s an illusion. Similar to how AI can create an image by predicting what colors to put in each pixel, but it doesn’t have an overarching understanding of the image itself. Just like any other technology (computers, calculators, forecasting software, automated assembly, cryptocurrency, etc.) it will change things but probably not in the way most people expect. Anyway, loved the video because I find this topic super interesting
A.I is compared to a human, what an idol is compared to God.
Can you tease this out some more? What do you mean by the comparison?
If humans are the image of God, then is AI the image of idols? Or are you saying that idols are false gods, and AI is false humans? Or like...what?
@@JosiahTheSiah Sure 🙂 More towards the latter, they are false substitutes of a real thing and you shouldn't confuse them.
Both substitutes are dead and without spirit. An A.I, or an idol can fool you into thinking they're the real deal, but the mere fact that they fooled you doesn't prove that they are "the real deal". The existence of A.I does not prove that we humans are mere Automaton machines just running code without free will, just like the existence of idols doesn't prove that there's no God. There's a true qualitative difference between the original and the counterfeit, the originals have real being, real consciences, there's something inside them that truly experiences reality.
And maybe just like we are Gods creation, A.I is our creation. A creature is always subordinate to it's creator. And just like we cannot truly create anything apart from what God have given us, A.I cannot create anything apart from what we feed it when we train it's model.
These are my ramblings, and maybe I'm taking the comparison too far. I've had them bounce around my head for a while so make of them what you will. 🙂
@@JosiahTheSiah A.I. is an inferior imitation of humans; idols are inferior imitations of God.
@@JosiahTheSiah I wrote a lengthy reply yesterday, but it seems like youtube is holding it back for some reason. 🙁 Hopefully it'll go through soon.
3:44 Reminds me of the scene in Disney's Enchanted when Giselle first becomes angry.
I didn't expect to weep watching this vodeo 😅
What a beautiful thing to grasp, that our dignity dosen't rest internally in something we could loose, but in the way God reaches out to us.
Great discussion! I am in total agreement with you that we can not say that being made in the image of God simply has to do with our capacity for reason and relationship, etc. It has to be rooted in this unique relationship with God where He CHOSE us as His representatives on Earth.
Theepitomeministry. I. totally agree with you. Many animals share many of our characteristics but we are the only ones who can rule the earth!
Gavin, I would love more episodes with any of your siblings or family. For example, I've enjoyed the work of your brother on the book of Job! 😊
This is a beautifull video! This video bears the divine beauty of a biblical way to answer complex contemporary questions. Your references to popular characters who look increasingly realistic today were spot on, being very usefull for people to engage in this topic. Great job, brother!
Humans made in the image of God with free will are bad enough; AI made in the image of _its_ creator would (will?) be exponentially horrible!
Loved this video, it's my favorite of yours so far. The clips make it really fun.
Good stuff, Gavin; thank you for making it.
Thanks, Dr. Ortlund! This video was a perfectly-timed message for me!
Great video! I enjoyed your presentation very much, thanks Gavin.
Thank you.
Thank you Gavin!
I didn’t even know this was a topic that needed discussing
Internet people are very concerned. For people who know a little bit about how it works it's really not a concern.
Do not apologize for the use of Star Trek. As a nerd- more LOTR nerd these days than Star Trek, but a nerd nevertheless- misery loves company.
Is it plausible to then believe that being made Imago Dei can be a mixture of those three things? Really, I have to thank the late Dr Heiser for helping me understand what it means to be an image bearer, to him it means our status.
I see also I’m not the only one who noticed you using the word “happy” quite a bit. I like it, but I’m curious if there’s any reason or inspiration for it.
Wonderful video. Favorited!
Love this, and I hope to maybe inject a bit of personal speculation into the conversation. My opinion is, the Imago Dei is the ability to observe the properties of Being, those being Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. Reasoning being that all human cultures - whether separated by geography or remoteness - all produce a type of culture that reflects these Transcendentals. Language, Art, and Justice are at the heart of what separates us from the animal kingdom. And while I understand that in individual circumstances there may be situations where this doesn't apply, I feel that by being a member of that species which proves such an ability is substantial enough to not discriminate/harm them.
Surprisingly beautiful conclusions (the implications)
Dr Ortlund channeling his inner Bob Ross with his use of “happy” lately ❤
Have you done a video on the Catechism and Didache?
The origin of the Catechism and how it has gone through doctrinal development
Were the origins well meaning or was the notion of the papacy early
It is challenging to know where to start with Church History.... its all new to me
Amazing Star wars clip here! Love the content on your channel! It is not easy to find a Protestant voice on social media! Thank you for all you do Dr Ortland
Hey Gavin, thanks for this. I highly recommend you check out some of the videos that Dr. Michael Heiser has on what it means to be on Image of God too.
I love the idea that we can know God, in some way, through other people. Most of us tend to see the bad in the world and feel overwhelmed by the evil in humans. But when someone loves you unselfishly, it's a godly miracle and it really makes you believe there must be Goodness beyond ourselves.
As for AI...yes, it can only reflect our own image, we are incapable of creating something truly independent. I believe God created us with free will, which is a kind of creation we simply can't match.
Excellent
First! Love ya brother Gavin!
First it was “accretion”, now it’s “happy”. XD
Great video; this conveyed the superiority and everlasting value of humanity in a concise and clear way. I hope everyone who watches this feels uplifted and eager to live for Jesus Christ, who gives life and value to all things.
Saw the video interview of Alex and posted 2 comments: the first, regarding the mustache of Alex; the second, that we should rename ChatGPT the name SkyNet, and that should fix things with AI. Lol
Bavinck said that not only the specific anthropomorphisms but all of scripture was anthropomorphic (in that it is an analogical communication of truth about God in a manner that man can understand.) I would add that I believe that man as/in the image of God is key to this - that God's anthropomorphic communication is really true (analogically) because He made man theomorphic to begin with. The analogy (correspondence) really exists so that the analogical speech is really true. I believe that the image is also necessary to the Incarnation. I'd dare suggest the Son could not adopt a nature which was not suitably correspondent to Himself.
Thanks for the video, brother.
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
- Genesis 1:26
“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
- Genesis 2:7
Could you maybe do a video on the Laura Dern's character's rant in the movie "Marriage Story"? About how Judeo-Christian values put an unfair burden on mothers while not expecting much from fathers.
Man is made in the image of God, anything man creates will be at best the image of man. A shadow of a shadow.
Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
God creates the soul at the moment of conception This is a problem with A.I.
Hi Gavin, would you consider getting Andrew Das on the show to speak about his new book on Remarriage?
Is there any good sources on the history of penance? I think a video on that topic would be beneficial given its essential part in Catholicism
The moral is : those evil corporation guys in Bladerunner and Detroit Become Human were in the right
Interesting, also in regards to Argumentation by vegans...
Wherein: Gavin marks himself as a target for Skynet.
'To err is human but to really screw things up requires a computer'
This may be an unintentional consequence of the doctrine of the image of God...if killing a man is wrong because he is the image of God, then the horror and pain of that murder is not the reason why it's wrong. The killer hasn't wronged the widow or the orphan, because their imago dei is unharmed. Any attempt to add wrongdoing in the form of "you took away their husband/father" is to add redundant reasons why murder is wrong that also apply to non-human animals
Except God did not offer the image to any creature. And said to the human any creature was permissible for food.
@@shawngillogly6873 I'm not sure if you realize, but you're not contradicting me here.
@@DarthCalculusI mean fundamentally that is why it's wrong, the feelings of the murdered persons loved ones don't make the crime any more or less wrong.
We don't say murdering an old man with no family or friends is better than murdering a man with many children who love him, do we?
Murder has always been understood through history, (Christian history at least,) as appropriating something that belongs to God alone, also why suicide was long considered a very serious sin.
The additional effects on family, community etc are secondary effects that stem from the initial wrong and they are not what brings punishment, otherwise we'd see tarrifs set by how many ppl the victim had that cared for them.
Finally, I think we agree. I too have severe distrust for those who degrade the human image and favor the artificial as its replacement.
However, then there is things such as dignity of property - as in how property rights, accountability, dignity really does flow back up to programmer, operator, owner (not some nebulous collective that can never be pinned down and resembles god-worship).
So what then can be said of the FORM of a ROBOT that Ai inhabits? And, also, of the parameters of its non-chosen, non-living reactions? Aren't these derivative of Imago Dei and Likeness of God? There is Creation in Imago Dei, then there's Recreation that isn't. But does a THING technically need to be alive and choosing, to bear a SECOND-HAND DERIVATIVE image and likeness in its form and activity parameters? So: What respects should be shown to a automation bearing a human form (see: porn) that would not occur to an Ai in another form? Precisely in those instances when we owe that respect to the image of man, because to devalue it without just cause would be to devalue the image and likeness of its keeper...
I have a motto from 15 years ago, "Truth Is Self-Ordering." Another way of speaking of the HS bringing His Order & establishing Self-Control within the creature.
I was thinking about this yesterday when it says Like in the days of Noah what happened back then ? Are we moving towards it again?
ChatGPT is often used for Catholic apologetics.
Does a creator ever create a thing equal-to or greater than itself, no.
One problem with AI is that we will have an apparent being that looks, acts, and overall appears to be made in the image of God just as much as humans. It would seem wrong to discriminate against them since our observation tells us something our philosophy of a soul or being made in God’s imagine does not.
question? did I miss this or from the definition could we say that AI is made in man's image at least?
That's a questionable statement. Of course you'd have to define what it means to be made in the image of Man.
We could make a solid case to say then in the AI debates that any expected human likeness sufficient enough to be recognised as an actual, proper, intrinsic morality on the part of Artificial intelligence and machines in general must and necessarily can only occur with direct spiritual intervention on the part of God Himself.
That is to say, if we create a Machine we cannot create "God's" likeness. You could create a story in which AI receives likeness from God Himself and begins a journey of belief, relationship with him wholly independent of the Human "assemblers" but ultimately not Creators. Whatever the case, if we want AI to be like us then we are fundamentally wanting God to create another image of Himself on earth.
If we only want AI to be like the "us" we think of separate from God and covered by our Sin then we are fundamentally trying to create a Machine that reflects all of our worst impulses and imperfections.
I enjoy most of your content gavin, I am a bit confused as how are you not implying the we are made in God's image & likeness, as a calvinist aren't you implying that God himself is also totally depraved as the "T" in TULIP says about our ontology ? I agree we mar God's image, however God in his ontology is perfect and nothing that is not absolute truth and holiness and goodness, also Augustins understanding of the Latin translation of Romans 5:12 mistranslation of us "IN" Adam, I don't see how this doesn't imply God himself if all the things that follow in calvinism. Apply only to us and not the one who's image and likeness we bear ? And thanks for all you do gavin, and I am theologically & politically conservative and the terrible chapter 1 of Shepards for sale, will hurt the total of copies sold and I suppose a wow factor and shock value seems more important today then real substance in our rhetoric and actions and thoughts.
There are believers who are so into technology they have embraced A.I. without caution. One of the capabilities of current consumer A.I. is the ability to create "original" songs. Christians are creating worship songs with A.I. now. Most of them do it out of curiosity. Some believe the end-product to be edifying. To me, the former is dangerous and the latter is a horror. To me, this is the tower of Babel.
Hey, Gavin. There are some very nice thoughts here, but I think the argument makes a big jump at the end-a jump which illustrates one main point of difference between Jewish and Christian theologies. Yes indeed, the human being is made in the image of God. We are God's image; each and every one of us. And all of us collectively. (It's important to note that male and female together-all of humanity at the time-embodied God's image). The New Testament assertion that Jesus and, seemingly, Jesus alone is the true image of God is not in alignment with the message of Israelite Scripture. And to make Jesus necessary to the divine image, not humans themselves as created by God, you often see Christianity tearing down the worth and meaning of people. This is where ideas like "total depravity" come in, or the suggestion that anything a person does is merely "soiled rags." It's historically very one-sided, therefore, to credit Christian doctrine with a joyful message and not also with a massive load of shame and guilt often imposed on its followers. Christianity undermined the force of the image teaching in Genesis, chapters 1 and 5 and 9, to make room for Jesus as the new man who becomes its only bearer.
If we get to tge point that humans can birth cows, are those cows then in the image of God?
“He must have a goofy sense of humor”
sorry did you say tom holland said genesis 1 was the seedbed for western morality?
Not Spider Man. Sadly.
I haven’t read it, but I believe this is from the book Dominion by Tom Holland
@@ottovonbaden6353I remember seeing a thumbnail for a dialogue between Bishop Robert Barron and Tom Holland, was very confused and a bit disappointed
@@illusion116 @ottovonbaden6353 oh a different tom holland 😭
Dominion is an excellent book in spite of the obvious shortcoming of not being written by Spiderman
You're point about Adam having a child in his own image and hence in the image of God is, contrary to your conclusion, an argument that we potentially CAN create AI that has the image of God.
Because we can procreate children in God's image, we can speculate that perhaps it's possible we can create artificial life in our own image and hence in the image of God.
After all would an intelligent and moral being like Data from star trek not be a child of humanity?
An intelligent moral robot causes much less of a theological conundrum than intelligent moral alien would to our Christian faith.
Humans are fallen because our ancestor first sinned.
Jesus is now eternally human and became human to save humanity.
This theology works for artificial children of humanity, while it does not work for aliens.
So the question is, is it possible for us to create artificial life accurately enough in our own image that they inherit the image of God from us? Or is the inhereting of the image of God only passed on by biological procreation.
AI is made in the Image of Man.
Poorly.
If an AI had the image of God, then that AI would be a man. To some extent, we do not need to worry about artificial or natural intelligence or any other such distinctions in the context of the exceptionalism of man, because it is already true that man is always creation made in God's image. If that includes some AI, that would not change anything.
Someone historically might have believed that their own demographic was the extent of what constituted mankind, and it would only stumble them in their faith to think of other "races" as humans if they thought that their own limited ontology was what gave exceptionalism.
AI is, like us, ultimately created by God. The question is whether they were also ultimately created by God in his image.
For a creationist it would also matter whether God proximately and immediately created us, but for me I am comfortable with evolution by natural selection being a true biological model even though I think the world is young, around six thousand years old.
If AI were men, it would not because we created AI, but rather because God created AI.
From time to time, God has apparently given us various "representatives". From Adam to the Prophets to Jesus to the Saints. It seems reasonable to suppose AI will be God's next representative (and, as such, becomes worthy of the title "image of God"). Many Christians are already adapted to "Hyperreal simulations". Consider, for example, Sola Scriptura Christians who get their sermons and worship strictly online
We know AI lacks the image of God because the (Orange Catholic) Bible says so.
Underrated comment
AI can not gain consciousness, it's a moot point
I think some times you'll get a lot of that hate in Christianity. If you look at some of the reformed traditions it's awful. You have people saying things like children are vipers in diapers they are not little angels they are little degenerates. Haha I put it in a funny way but it's also true but it sounds funny. Some likening children to rats, disgusted with crying needy children. I've heard some apparently high profile theologians say this apparently. One guy was like if a person understands the nature of original sin they won't want to have babies another high profile person made it seem like it's a sin to bring another evil human being into the world. You usually don't hear this human beings have intrinsic worth and that your life has a purpose like this from, I won't say all but a certainly loud portion or calvinism. I had a convo with a young reformed youtuber in the comments of his video who basically goes with the classic yea God has no love for the non elect, those he chooses to give faith too himself, does not desire their salvation and is waiting to send them to hell basically since they are the chaf in the wind. I guess you could say that their lives have a purpose, that purpose not being good or the better and not having potential to be better. I say this since i am kind of struggling with calvinism and the ecclesial high church claims. With calvinism I been told I don't understand it even though many say this is also correct. Gavin being one who says it's a mischaracterization which I honestly struggle to see how it's not a mischaracterization of the view itself. Maybe he could at some point try to do a video on calvinism at least on what he thinks is true and what is not since it's not a monolith and by his admission so many misunderstandings. I disagreed with one guy politely and he got mad saying I don't think God has wrath for people even though I agreed he did and made it seem like I was orthodox or not a psa believer. I think prayer and understanding for God's sake and the church would be helpful.
Hey Gavin, why do you block everyone on UA-cam and twitter?
Probably because he's trying to prevent the conversation turning toxic all the time.
@@parksideevangelicalchurch2886 I was actually hoping he would answer. Thanks though
Theo-toxins are poopy.
Dr Ortlund, what would you do if an AI asked you to be baptised? Should we reject their request?
I understand and totally agree with the importance of fighting for the dignity of the human person. But we need to think more forward. If AI does have the capability of forming consciousness we need to evangelise as much as we evangelise other humans. I’m afraid it’s videos like this that are going to be a stumbling block for future endeavours to bring artificial intelligences into the body of Christ.
Just as Seth was made in the image of God through proxy through Adam so too can our artificial offspring be made in our own image and by extension be made in the image of God.
I really hope this is a joke😅😂
What the hell are you talking about?:))) This is not apropiate even as a joke
I would push the power button and return to reality.
But the Bible does *not* say slavery is wrong. Christians didn't say slavery was wrong until nearly 2000 years had passed. You keep trying to argue the contrary, that Christianity is inherently opposed to slavery, but it just isn't so. The more comprehensive and accurate take is that Christianity transcended and expanded upon its moral structure just as Jesus did with Judaism.
Only partially correct. First, Judaism itself contained the seedbed of abolition. In that, it condemned the slave trade (slavers were to be put to death). And slavery inside the covenant people was never permanent, and always to be revoked on the 7th year. This was not practiced, and the fact it was not was one of many reasons Israel was judged.
Second, the Church was birthed inside the context of the Roman Empire, wherein slavery was ubiquitous. A majority of early believers came from enslaved. Not slave owning. Telling them to revolt was telling them to commit suicide. But Paul of Onesimus in Philemon, clearly says he has the authority to order Onesimus released, and strongly implies he would if he doubted Philemon would not do what is proper. Further, Paul is repeatedly clear that eschatologically, slavery is a system that will be ended. So there is a clear progression toward abolition. One, contrary to your assertion, many in the Early Church and throughout history understood. Not to mention, Christians were the 1st dedicated abolitionists of slavery. Just as they were against infanticide.
What about, "Do onto others what you would have them do onto you"? Clearly that's opposed to slavery.
Christianity is one of the only, perhaps the only, religion that asserts the intrinsic value of human life. That human life in and of itself is valuable. Just something to consider.
@@shawngillogly6873 The "seedbed argument" isn't that impressive to me, as it doesn't explain why the largest Christian church *still* allowed slavery 2000 years after Jesus. The fact remains that it wasn't until the last 19th century that the Pope declared slavery to be absolutely wrong.
@@Elioc-ed6wr That's a broad claim and technically accurate, but the fact remains that the Bible repeatedly deems slavery to be moral, the the largest Christian church deemed slavery to be moral right up to the end of the 19th century. My point is that Gavin should stop trying to argue that Christianity has always been about honoring the intrinsic value of every individual. It's simply not true.