Thanks for watching our debate on the Moral Argument! What did you think? Share your thoughts in the comments, and check out these other thought-provoking debates: • AI Doctors Debate ABORTION 👉 ua-cam.com/video/czbLw6zvppQ/v-deo.html • Does GOD Exist? (PROBLEM OF EVIL Argument) 👉 ua-cam.com/video/EMyAGuHnDHk/v-deo.html • Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha: AI Judges MORAL Legacies 👉 ua-cam.com/video/eY_il2MZjxc/v-deo.html 🔔 Thanks again for watching! Don’t forget to subscribe and hit the bell so you never miss the next debate!
I have some questions, how can I contact you? I represent a company with millions of followers total. Check the channel for proof just so you know I’m not trying to scam 😅.
@@rimjob_stevexx No way, why would it be obvious? 🤔 The believer A.I. had more solid arguments that the other one continually "dodged" (as even remarked), and he always diverted into the sheer explanation, which doesn't necessarily have to be the case. He echoed the programmer's blinders, as his main arguments focused primarily on disregarding a priori everything supernatural and preternatural, and consequently avoiding to even evaluate them.
I love how the channel keeps evolving and getting better. The cross examination makes the ai expose the others weaknesses, instead of continuing the loop of the same points over and over
@@aesop1451 They’re AI. They aren’t men or women. They just sound that way to mimic humans. I don’t know why your opinion on a debate is based on the make believe sex of a robot. Thats really weird
I think this video demonstrates the limitations of AI. They're just regurgitating the most prevalent talking points, and judging based on how frequent those talking points are used. This is really well demonstrated in Claude's assessment of the debate being focused on the issue of moral development rather than the actual debate topic of God's existence. Conflating morality and gods is something most of us do, but in debate settings is easily separated by human scholars.
@@daqueda1577 but that's the point of the video "Does God Exist? AI debates Atheist vs. Believer (MORAL ARGUMENT)... The moral argument is also used to prove God's existence, which if atheism can disprove or find another source, disproves God's existence.
@@jdkonopka1842 morality does not support the existence of a God or gods. Because morality ascribed to divine source(s) contradict each other, therefore they are relative which doesn't support a supreme being. Torture is not universally wrong according to a religious attribution because some religions believed blood sacrifice was needed to make the sun rise or forgive sins. Morality not being rooted in a deity does not mean there is no God or gods, but it does not support it either, they're separate discussions. Please follow up if you have any more to contribute.
Thanks for pointing this out, you put into words what I’ve felt watching these videos. There is no actual logical framework for the argumentation, just spitting out immediate responses over and over again. Debates like this actually have fundamental incompatibilities: believers will claim that morality is objective, non-believers will say that morality is not an intrinsic property of the universe. If these differences are maintained, there is absolutely no way to debate without speaking past one another.
@@hover-eb1hx I've heard many other positions on moralities origin from nonbelievers other than being intrinsic. But that's another discussion, my main focus is on the difference between a moral argument for divine origin of morality and a moral argument for God's existence. The AI mixes that up or perhaps the creator of the video mixed that up because they are not the same. God can still exist without being the origin of morality.
I may have missed it, but it sounds like everything is based on existing philosophical arguments. I think it'd be interesting to see if AIs can come up with their own synthesis based on all this and come up with their own philosophy. Theoretically, this should be a never ending cycle of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis... but maybe AIs can change that some day and come up with a super philosophy that'll effectively put an end to all arguments, outside of irrationalities that is :) Nonetheless, this is great content, and I'm looking forward to seeing more. Thank you.
Yeah these are all are said,thought of and heard before.
24 дні тому+65
These debates are so interesting to hear factual points on both sides (generalized to your whole channel of course). You can actually hear new viewpoints because one side or the other won't continue using evidence or arguments that have been disproved.
@@joevi2593 I think so. While i agree that humans like an ai are input out computers, humans can go out into the world to get new insperation, ideas, and perspective. An ai on the other hand can only get its input from humans.
What’s truly astounding is the fact you can sometimes forget this is a debate with AI Humanity can learn a thing or two around the etiquette of debate and disagreements by listening to these kinds of discussions. Well done you continue to produce top quality content and open paths to meaningful discussion that everyone can enjoy and participate in🎉
I want to encourage you to keep making this "AI debates" content. It is not only fascinating but, also, a peek into the forming "mind" of AI and ultimately our future. Please continue to make moral issue debates with AI. I would love to see content on Euthanasia, Immigration, Population Collapse, Freedom of Speech, War, and so much more.
@@JonOleksiukI would suggest making the AI's "learn" as they debate and maybe reach a conclusion that draws logical and positive things from the other side instead of simply repeating their own arguments. Also please reduce the "sassyness" a bit, I enjoyed the abortion debate a lot more than this
Really love this format, I’d replace the sound bar that fills from left to right when they’re speaking with a sound wave visualizer though personally, I think it’d look more engaging.
You should do an Atheist vs Buddhist video. I'm interested in what they'd agree on and what they'd disagree on. It would be less White vs Black and more of a Dark Gray vs Black.
I asked the Christian model to answer your question succinctly: "First, Christians who have internalized virtuous behavior and moral principles would very likely continue doing good even if they discovered God didn't exist. The habits of kindness, generosity, and service to others don't simply vanish with a change in metaphysical beliefs. These have become part of their character. However, the more complex philosophical question is about the nature of moral motivation. Christian philosophers like C.S. Lewis and Alvin Plantinga have argued that while atheists can certainly be moral people (and they absolutely can), the Christian worldview provides a coherent foundation for objective morality that helps sustain long-term ethical behavior."
@JonOleksiuk that's a good explanation. I also think that even if people find out God didn't exist, it probably wouldn't stop them from believing. Also, just a little add-on. If God really doesn't exist, would the argument for right and wrong be connected to our human evolution?
This is so funny to watch! It's also very informative. I would like to see AI debate about whether minors should be allowed to transition genders. That debate is currently all the rage right now.
No one wants to watch such a ridiculous debate, minors have a hard time choosing a candy but should have the option to do a life changing operation ?. This should've never been a debate in the first place.
@@yardgunner4033 I think that’s why we need it so that people can see just how ridiculous that argument is of course children shouldn’t transition, but I’m confident enough in our arguments to let this debate happen to show just how un usual all of this gender hysteria has become
not so fast. Children DO naturally share toys. Just not nearly as frequently as they are "selfish" with them. As a parent I hear the word "mine" about 90% of the time and "here" about 10% of it. There is definitely a reason we have to teach "share" and never have to teach "be greedy".
It's not a question of 'Where is God?' but rather, 'Where are you?' Notice how, by default, we are separated from God-especially when we prioritize our emotions over thoughtfully listening to His guidance, which He has left for us to meditate on. If God were to respond to us, it would align with what He has already spoken, as He has provided the framework for all things. Also this A.I adopted the Dillahunty Dodge technique Notice how logic, reasoning, intellect- whether it is artificial or natural, will always point to the creator and glorify Him because He is the source of those attributes.
@noevidenceforyourmom9088 we were created in His image and likeness. Ever create something? Have you ever felt jealous? Wrathful? Maybe love or regret? Have you ever seemed to know something without fully understanding or learning it? Are you able to make decisions? I can understand your undertones behind your question that are attempting to insult me. It won't work. 🙏
@@Άθελι-παιδί-του-Θεού There's no undertone, your attempt to claim realism to your fantasy by claiming you know how everything came to be and its by your fantasy character is disgusting to me, a fool thinks he knows everything while the wise knows he doesn't know everything, back to the topic. How do you know we were created in your gods image and likeness? How does jealousy, wrath, love, regrets link to your god? and how do you know that?
@noevidenceforyourmom9088 I do not know everything, but I do know about it. I know what I know and what I need to know for living my life on this earth for the short time i have. Am I obligated to know more? No, but I can while living my Christian life to explore the creation and understand its mechanics. The same way you would know math, history, English, etc. Many people criticize and deem God to be so and so from reading the Old Testament but forget his loving attributes in the New Testament and forget that He did end humanity and has been guiding us throughout generations to get to a better point
@Avad_t_Eved you say you do not know everything but here you are claiming you know how existence came to be essentially claiming you know everything. I'm asking you how you know what you claim to know, how do you know you're not lied to be, do you think you know something just because you have a feeling? You speak of logic and intellect yet I see none in you, you do not ask questions but form a conclusion. It's disgusting.
I really really want one on them arguing free will. It could be a part of or separate from this series but my largest arguments against religion appear around science being against free will so far. Not quite proven but getting closer and closer. It would practically 100% disprove god but I can’t think fast enough most of the time. Also us humans get distracted, especially kids nerding out about dimensions, black/white holes, etc. I think as we recently fully made a fly brain out of 200,000 neurons online, this debate becomes closer and closer to being important and solveable.
I want to see two AIs debate whether watching TV was better/healthier/more engaging without being addicting between the 50s and the 80s or whether it's better/healthier/more engaging without being addicting from the 90s to the 2020s. Also, how popcorn and/or what you eat or not eating at all when watching TV affects watching TV.
Although it won't be the same, I could probably just ask ChatGPT. At least that is free. 😅 I still think using these videos are awesome though! I wonder what the next one will be?
An argument where both cannot resolve because if we'd know the answer, the question itself is already irrelevant. Thus, a middleground must exist and thereby encourages to exist, not because the argument must stands, but because by the argument, we grow as humanity, as a whole.
What is this video even debating? Are the two sides both debating that morality is objective with an atheist and a believer point of view? In that case, the format is inherently biased towards the believer and objective morality without God is borderline indefensible. The atheist should be arguing for moral subjectivity, not objectivity.
This is great, and unlike humans debating, listening to the AI voice the same points allows us to hear and accept opposing ideas - at least to the point that we will consider the ideas for at least a moment - rather than immediately having an emotional reaction before our interlocutor can even finish their sentence. Since there is no actual person to get emotional with, it is much easier to skip the misdirected resentment when hearing ideas that clash with our core values. When humans debate, even the audience will automatically apply their own bias when they hear ideas and right away it affects the way they receive the message. With AI responses, it is harder to say they are responding with racial bias or something like that. With all of that being said, it is much easier to see the perspective of each side when consuming a debate in this format and that makes it a great educational tool in my opinion! Keep these up if you can! Can you try making one debating the morality and efficiency of different economic systems (capitalism vs socialism vs communism - or just 2 at a time might be better)?
These are enjoyable videos but more transparency is required on the configuration of the AIs Weightings for evaluating the strength of the arguments in relation to the discussed topic and responses given. These videos are presented as completely neutral, but these AI still need to be instructed on what argumentation and reasoning is stronger.
at around 18:00 the atheist ai is making the argument for inherent truth which cannot be ignored once learned. I found that really interesting since I usually here that from the religious camp.
A quick impression of the whole heard in the middle of the night: The female believer A.I. had more solid arguments that the other one continually "dodged" (as even being remarked), and he always diverted into the "sheer explanation", which doesn't necessarily have to be the case. He kind of echoed the programmer's "blinders", as his main arguments focused primarily on disregarding a priori everything supernatural and preternatural, and consequently avoiding to even evaluate them. 🤷♀
They don't concede enough. Frankly they are both arguing an overly pure version of each, and are not updating based on what the other says. For example the expanding circle directly extrapolated implies an objective conclusion to the circle. That is a statement that we operate within a set of morals to which evolution is subordinate.
The reliability challenge begs the question. They say how will we know, since our morals are only evolved for survivability, that are morals are also evolved to identify truth immorality.? This question relies on the existence of moral truths, something which does not exist in the absence of a Divine command Theory. They are correct, we don't know that our morals were designed to identify truth, because we don't know that there is any such thing as truth in morals, we do know that our morals help us to survive, and that survival seems to be the ultimate goal of all living creatures, not reflection of Truth in reality, if any such truth in fact exists.
6:26 No! Generally toddlers/children are not kind, without parental guidance they'd be worse. There's an old saying: *You don't need to teach a child to be bad, you do need to teach a child to be good.*
6:23 - because our God gave us free will, along with true morality - so its our choice to know good, and seek after it, or know good, yet do evil, or sin
@@Max4Z no, its free will. its preven because we are the only species that can build, and create, beyond our means. a beaver ALWAYS builds a damn - they will never make a bridge, or start fires themselves - while we can make skyscrapers, apartment buildings, or Museums - we can create things good for us, or detrimental - we dont have a guide, or a specific thing we're designed to make or do with our lives - we all have our own god given gifts too. we do have ingrained morals as well - you can KNOW murder is wrong, but still do it - or say, know murder i wrong, but support abortion - which is in fact murder. Or see anti-Jews, and instead of weighing the options, just support Palestine, over the many thousand year old land of Israel - Or support the marxist running for president, despite her desire to leave taxes the same, over the guy who has flirted with the idea or... removing income tax altogether with tariffs (which yes, is possible).
@ well, that’s what I’d ask you to reflect on - there are multiple types of faith that exist - atheists get their moral view, from science - which is stupid - because science does nothing more than understand the functions of this universe - how things work, what they’re made of. Theological faith, Christianity specifically - seeks to answer the WHYS of the universe - that’s the whole point, So, science can tell you your mind works because of chemicals in the brain, and electrical signals. Science can’t explain consciousness, or why love, and other emotions can’t be explained fully - despite seeing on ekg scans what parts of the brain activate. You can also know - stealing is wrong - but justify someone who is poor doing it, or doing it yourself. Or any other sin. In faith it’s as simple as this - we have souls - that power the body, and a mind, with body - that we live in, and control - and we have the Holy Spirit, that can influence our lives, if we allow it to work.
Whether a particular snake is venomous or not is not a moral question, it is an "is" question. We can confirm in reality whether or not the snake is in fact venomous. We can therefore find out whether or not our belief in whether or not the snake is venomous is either a useful illusion or a truth. The same cannot be done with moral questions. If we have evolved to believe that murder is wrong, but in reality it isn't wrong but just useful for us to not murder each other, how will you go about demonstrating which of those is true to then make your argument that we only believed it because it was useful? You cannot. You simply have to assign a truth value to your moral claims based on your own opinions and nothing more, and that is the absolute definition of subjectivity
Our moral compass has evolved in order to facilitate our ability to coexist with one another as a species, share the limited resources and face greater threats. You are free to reject them all and in exchange get isolated from the society removing your genes together with you demonstrating how this very process of natural selection works. It is true that every individual is entitled to their own version of morality that may differ from what is generally accepted but it is also true that parts of this said morality that prevent this individual from cooperating with the rest of society will only hinder their ability to both spread their ideas and genetic material simply because this is how our society and our species have been evolving ever since the concept of cooperation has emerged all those hundreds of millions of years ago. There is no "objective" morality, instead, there are the forms of morality that help the given group of individuals outcompete other groups in this endless fight for limited resources.
Divine hiddenness has a simple solution, God has given more than enough evidence to "prove" (near) he is real. If God were to fully prove that he was real, it would take away our free will that comes from the love of God.
as "moral" is a social construction, I'm curious to hear... what would be the results in case the question is debated around an "ethics" then "virtue" approach ? and followed by a comparative critics of the arguments developed through the 3 terms mobilised. Cheers 🙂
1.Believer keeps arguing based on objective moral truth which many atheists including myself wont agree with. 2. Believer seemingly keeps arguing for the monotheistic god rather than gid in general 3. This essentially boils dow to they are using the same arguments people use on the internet
I feel the believer AI debating missed the mark on providing the analogy of saving a child or not torturing the innocent. It is true morality that compels you not to torture the GUILTY and to save the life of the drunk who has wandered into a lake because all life has value. Christian wisdom isn't just loving our friends (everyone can do that), it's being morally obligated to love our enemies.
As an atheist who views morality as Human-guided, instead of the belief of a moral standard, this was hard to watch, because an atheist who goes with the latter argument just gives fuel to the believer. I believe that the very core reason responsible for the creation of religions across the globe was to alter societal foundations with their own moralistic viewpoint, which is obvious when looking at the histories of said societies.
@@YagerKash I don't wanna start an argument or nothing but that's just idiotic, Imagine, two men in a desert, one man murders the other one to get his water. He definitely preserved himself, but morality was thrown out the window.
@@Raw-oh5lh Don't want to argue either, but what morality did he throw out the window? What if he subjectively defined morality as killing people = good?
I’m not sure that an argument based on moral subjectivity or relativism would have worked either though. With that view we cannot logically accept that some behaviors are just wrong. I’m curious about your own beliefs - do you think humans were better or worse off with the superficial religious framework? Assuming it was created for a purpose as you claim, is it no longer necessary to serve that purpose?
I'm not arguing if humanity was better off with the moralist foundations of religion, but I would say it was, at least compared to the veracity during the hunter-gatherer period, but I am arguing that those early cults that preceded and established religions, primarily wanted to push their moralistic principles under the guise of divinity and divine law, ie The Ten Commandments, Sharia, etc.
could you do something on gender theory? are genders necessary, feminism, trans rights, etc. id really like to hear AI debate what the future could look like if we were to abolish genders or if they are perhaps important to our society
Good debate, but add in Pascal’s Wager and it tilts towards belief in God to me. From the atheist perspective it’s cutting one’s losses which is rational.
I love the atheist AI so clear,direct, straight to the point my brain is stimulated every time he speaks. I only wish he was more ambitious against the more biblical claims but in all well done. 👍 👏
I’d say that if the believer brought up the act of sacrifice and love that goes beyond reason, she could’ve done better in this debate. The atheist AI kept using the argument of naturalism and logical thought to support his argument. But what about the irrational? A lot of people feel the obligation to sacrifice themselves for people and things which could not be necessary for evolutionary survival. For example, a man who could pass on many generations dies in protecting his old mother who is incapable of having more children. More examples include people risking and sacrificing their lives to save others who are disabled and can’t defend themselves or reproduce like the terminally ill, or elderly that need help 24/7. Along with this the theist could’ve brought up empathetic love towards criminals and such to try and rehabilitate them. If it is in our evolutionary nature to just stay alive and keep away from what’s dangerous then why do we often reach out to those who can kill us? Even concepts that aren’t too common like agape love actively contradicts naturalism and evolutionary principles.
Maybe cause he was smart enough to know that exceptions doest refute the major rule Another thing his theory explain how the basics of morality was formed in our premative ancestors Now we became more intelligent and complicated and the equation doesn't only count plant physical factors there is emotional factors We no longer get married cause we want to reproduce you may you marry a seriale spouse only cause he makes you laugh or makes you feel better
One problem I kept seeing with the atheist argument is that most of the progress it talks about was lead/spurred on by Christians (Also, why did he keep dodging the Christian's answer in the cross-examination? It was really weird). Ending slavery, western culture, the declaration of independence, among other things, were led by Christians. This is a point I see overlooked in this argument and I figured that I might as well bring it forward for debate.
I did that against ChatGPT, and after 5 rounds ChatGPT gave up, concluding that the atheist position is more compelling. I had to try after I saw your other video, where the theist position won. It wasn't confined to a single topic, but we too went over morality, as well as fine tuning and the beginning of the univer. It's interesting how they are always so decisively on the theist side. Btw. large scale studies found that there are only 7 universal moral laws. So that's that in terms of universal moral intuitions.
I think that giving each side ammo (that you are interested in so that it's not unfair by giving 1 side too much ammo) and then giving them say 1-2 paragraphs to detail an attack against the other, with the rest of the "debate" being to refute the attacks is a very balanced way of debating. I notice that it's also mostly on the theist side but this is because of quite a few things which I will go into: Ai develops biases based on its own responses to your prompts as well as your prompts. For example, if you are hostile towards religion for 5-10 prompts and then a few days later, say 30 prompts after, you ask it for a debate, it will probably allow the atheist to win. I use multiple accounts for ChatGPT and they result in drastically different ratings for arguments as well as evaluations of them. My main account is probably biased since I am Christian and whenever I give it any of my own arguments, even in a new chat, it would rate it at the very least 8/10. Whereas in other accounts, the same arguments score lower or sometimes, but rarely, higher.
@tjpg25 That's actually pretty annoying that the AI tries to give answers the user likes, literally encouraging bias. I tried different things with Gemini and ChatGPT, and it matches what this YT channel indicates, that Gemini has more of an anti-religious bias than ChatGPT. But I have to say, since I went very deep into the weeds with religion, ChatGPT often gives mainstream Christian answers, even if the scholarship takes an entirely opposite approach, only backtracking if it is hinted at it. Which may as well be me introducing bias, and it's good to be aware of that, since I would like trying to avoid that. Also, I'm not hostile towards religion in these chats. Thanks for the insights btw.
The believer AI is really striking on 3 fundamental issues that believers have. The Idea that there’s only 1 interpretation of god, which is arrogant, a tad blasphemous and limiting to the complexity of god. That idea has led to the binary of thinking that has driven hate in the world. “God good everything else bad. Because a specific group of people chose that God and brought it upon themselves to spread it they were given the opportunity to push the notion of “we good everyone else bad”. This has caused the demonization of many cultures and the subjugation of many people. The idea that you need God to understand right from wrong is fundamentally flawed. Humans have empathy so you don’t need to be told that it’s wrong to take a life because you wouldn’t want yours taken. If it was about God governing over humanity as a moral compass then many believers wouldn’t use God as justification for many of the terrible things that have gone on in history and that happen today. Many believers forget something that is crucial to salvation. You need to want to be a good person because that’s what you want not because you want to go to heaven. Goodness should have no end goal and many people have expressed that without the “presence of God” in their life they would not be good people.
The Atheist AI shot itself in the foot by not bringing up the fact that morality is not objective. It could've demolished everything the theist said by simply acknowledging that truth. Makes sense since the Ai was designed to be nice and PC it cannot go into that controversial area. It could simply demolish the theist moral absolutist positions by asking why. "X is immoral" the best response is to keep asking why and eventually the absolutist will have to submit and acknowledge the evolutionary nature of morality.
Wrong my man. There are debates on morality being objective or subjective. Go do an online search and see for yourself. You’re not going to win a debate that easily.
@@iWontSeeYourReplies Unless the subjective morality defender is an ignoramus like this AI, the victory is easy. Objective empirical evidence vs faith and wishful thinking.
The atheist ai left out two things. 1) when the believer ai asserted that our morality evolved for survival value the atheist kept that assumption. Evolution is more complex than just survival. Take the peacocks feathers for example which may do more harm than good for their chance of avoiding predators 2) if Gods morality was perfect then why not condemn slavery from the offset?
Hello, as a Muslim even though some may call me ''heretic'' I follow the ideas of Quranism a minority perspective in Muslim world that only takes Quran as source and either judges hadits and fetwas or straight up declines it. After seeing one of your previous videos and when the cllasic ''Aise was 9 years old'' question is asked the Muslim Ai (Sunni I think) tried to use ''but back than it was normal for that age'' argumant if it was a Quranist ai it could have said ''but its on a hadith book writen by a human after dead of Muhammed with a 200 years gap why we should accept it as a unquestioneble source?'' so please even though our perspective is minority it would be nice you to add it we cleary don't want ourselves be represent by a Ai which thinks Allah's words and mankinds writing is equal.
The believer is clearly not representative of all Theists, so the title is wrong, and the Atheist is clearly a Naturalist. This is "Atheist Naturalist vs. Christian"
I gotta say, a bit bold the AI is arguing if someone saw a drowning child they "MUST" help. This ai needs to spend more time with people it's a but too optimistic. I think MOST would help, but certainty not a must. I hate neither ai addresses that there certainly are people who simply wouldn't care. Suddenly its not a MUST but a matter of having a good perspective on the value of life.
I don’t quite understand how this brings us to god existing or not, could an atheist not hold that objective morality simply doesn’t exist. I believe that’s the strongest stance for an atheist to have in the moral argument.
So then what standard does your morality hold to? Do you see your cultural beliefs as more right or more wrong when compared to say Islamic states, India with its SA problems and caste issues or even moral dilemmas in your own society? If you see one as higher or lower there is an implied objective standard from somewhere. Personally I don’t think it’s a good argument for God existing either rather just an argument that it comes from God and has an objective rightness that is reflected in all functioning long lived societies.
@c0rndog748 It comes from my ability to empathize with others, I would say it’s wrong but not in the objective sense. Say someone maybe a psychopath thinks murder is good because it weeds the weak off you can’t prove to them objectively that their view is wrong, maybe they believe empathy makes you weak, you can argue against it all you want but if they don’t agree or care for the suffering of others you can’t prove that the suffering of others matter objectively, it’s subjective. I don’t believe there’s like a universal law or objective truth that murder is wrong but it’s wrong from the perspective of another human beings ability to empathize with the suffering of others
This makes me imagine a society where the moral compass is surviving and having the best result, the idea of supporting the weak and the strong defending them would be nonsense… in this universe, we don’t live in a gigachad society where by natural selection, weak people went extinct… in all those years, human instinct was to protect the weak… that’s not survival efficiency 😅
2 points for the atheist that I want to point out: 1. Subjective morality: in rare cases, people don't agree on some moral truths e.g. a psychopath probably wouldn't/couldn't agree that murder is wrong. Most of our "moral truths" are not objective but subjective and 99%+ agree on them. 2. The moral argument doesn't work because of the problem of evil. A: Murdering an innocent child is wrong. B: God also thinks that murdering an innocent child is wrong because our morals come from him and he wouldn't give us morals he doesnt agree with. C: God doesn't prevent innocent kids from dying of illnesses/natural disasters and there is no greater good to it.
I'm atheist but I'm just going to play devil's advocate for a second 1. Maybe there is greater good to it in the afterlife, you simply can't fathom it. 2. God is allowed to kill anybody because he is by definition good, meaning anytime he kills someone (or doesn't help someone) it's the morally perfect thing to do. Also in the bible he does command the slaughter of the canaanites, which had to have been good, even though one of the ten commandments is don't murder. These rules don't apply to him as a perfect being. I also think it's strange reasoning but it works.
@@mxp4225But isn’t he contradicting his commandments?Provided that there is a greater good from murdering an innocent child. But in this, is his moral system not just a utilitarian one?
@@mxp4225 God could choose a more moral way than killing people. He could just change their minds which is better than having them murdered and send to hell. If everything God does is good then Morality becomes arbitrary.
@@not1207 Like i said, his commandments don't apply to him. He, by nature, can not possibly do something that isn't good, so anything he does is good no matter how horrible it seems or how much it appears to contradict himself. And also you have to understand that afterlife in christianity is infinite, meaning our life on earth or the suffering we experience genuinely DON'T MATTER AT ALL in the grand scheme of things.
Religious people don't agree with moral truths in their books either. They pick and choose what to believe based on their updated morality of today's age. If we lived 3000 years ago most people in the comments would think its okay to kill in the name of God. On a societal basis
@xJohnnyBloodx measuring God by human standards is pretty petty... when it is clear that God explains why He does things. Divine standard>Human standard The fact that he allows humanity to continue is beyond merciful and beyond myself, when I (and many others) used to believe and want to world to end because humanity is a disease.
I think there was an issue with assuming a moral realist position for the “atheist” bot. Atheists are much more likely, especially among the philosophers, to hold various moral anti-realist positions, holding that morality simply isn’t objective in the way many, especially among theists, tend to believe is intuitively the case.
For sure, maybe a bit of bias since the creator of the channel is Christian, he probably assumed that atheists believe in moral objectivism as well. I don't see how morality isn't objective though. With moral relativism it makes no sense for us to be against large cults. Moral relativism is very weak to hypotheticals. I can't get into some of them since they would be deleted by youtube but if you want to get into them you can give me your discord.
Hi tjpg25, I see where you’re coming from, and I think the disconnect here might be in how we view the nature of morality itself. Many Christians, including yourself, may understand morality as something fixed-objective truths handed down by a divine source. From that perspective, moral rules would be universal and unchanging, inherently binding on all people regardless of circumstance. For me, however, morality is a human construct. I don’t see moral “oughts” as being written into the fabric of reality, and I don’t believe they exist in the same way as physical laws. If we take an example like the one in the video-where there’s an expectation to save a drowning child-there’s often an assumption of a moral compulsion, a strong “ought” that binds us to act. But in my view, that “ought” is less like an objective command and more like a powerful suggestion, shaped by empathy, social expectations, and cultural conditioning. We’re inclined to act, but not in an absolute, moral realist sense. In the case of the drowning child, if there’s a real risk to your own life, I’d argue that not helping shouldn’t necessarily be shamed. When we talk about reducing harm and promoting flourishing, your own well-being is part of that equation too. You can’t reduce suffering by sacrificing yourself needlessly; self-preservation is also a rational component of any ethical calculation, which is something a strictly objective framework might overlook. Now, why promote flourishing and reduce harm at all? You might ask, “Why ought we value these things if there’s no divine command?” For me, it’s not a command or duty in the traditional sense; it’s more of a brute fact about morality as we experience it. Ethical systems that promote prosperity, fairness, and compassion endure because they align with human nature and lead to stability and cooperation. In contrast, moral frameworks that celebrate cruelty or indifference don’t tend to survive or benefit us in the long run; they’re inherently self-destructive and incompatible with human flourishing. In this way, morality feels “persistent” and meaningful, even without a higher authority enforcing it. It evolves over time but has a recognizable trajectory toward reducing harm and promoting well-being, because systems that do this are inherently more stable. Rather than seeing moral “oughts” as objective truths, I see them as powerful guides that help shape behaviors beneficial to humanity, rooted in our collective experience rather than in an absolute divine command.
Mathematical study tells us what mathematical problems can do but it doesn’t tell us why mathematics exists to begin with. The scientific method tells us how something functions, it doesn’t why it’s there to begin with. This is a big problem with those who say they need mathematical or scientific “proof” for God. They are asking the wrong question. As an example, it’s the same thing as studying the engine in a Ford truck then saying that doesn’t prove Henry Ford existed, then because of that denying Henry Ford existed.
Your argument is flawed on 2 basis. 1- The fact that the engine is named after Ford, the fact that he has a patent on it, historical records, etc all point out to ford’s existence. 2- Mathematics and sciences are all about finding order in the chaos. We still don’t have a formula to map prime numbers, we still don’t have an universally agreed theory for the beginning of the universe, but saying “Oh ye god did it” goes completely against the point of sciences by making what is called “the god of holes”. Other religions had gods for lightning, dreams, death, etc.. and now that we can fundamentally disprove the existence of said gods through scientific principles those religions faded to obscurity. Speaking of religions another easy way to go against theism is by pointing out that there are multiple religions with conflicting ideologies that all claim to be the “real” religion.
@@hexi9595 Your first point makes no sense? The example was given that they studied the engine in a ford truck. Bringing up things outside of this study ruins the hypothetical since from the Christian point of view, their evidence is "outside of the study" of atheists. Your second point is fine but it doesn't stand since to prove logic without a foundation for it you need logic. With a foundation, you can point to the foundation. This isn't a "God of the gaps" argument since the claim is that God is necessary for knowledge. Also, having a faith based atheism and saying "just give us time and we can disprove this!" doesn't do much if you say atheism isn't a religion. "another easy way to go against theism is by pointing out that there are multiple religions with conflicting ideologies that all claim to be the “real” religion." Replace theism with atheism. Replace multiple religions with quantum mechanic interpretations. Do these conflicting interpretations mean that quantum mechanics as a whole isn't true now? All of them are claiming to be a viable way to interpret it. The only issue with this parallel is that they don't claim to be true, but my point here is that conflicting ideologies doesn't mean the entire whole is false.
@@kucckumelon2837 Still haven't seen an objection to TAG besides "it's circular!" (all worldviews are) or some other super common objection that has been dealt with forever ago.
@@tjpg25 even if you do establish God on shakey epistemological bases like the one which TAG tries to get away with. I don't see how that would lead to a God worthy of prayer or respect. You still haven't established, why God is a necessary precondition for all of this. There hasn't been a single demonstration of that, except for sophistry and committing the tu quoque fallacy.
I think these exercises prove the limitations of AI. There is no place for evolution in a debate about morality requiring a God to exist. The fact that evolution "can" provide some alignment with "objective morality" (if such a thing exists), doesn't mean that all evolution is moral. AI only responds with evolution because plenty of people bring up evolution. It is a weak and irrelevant argument to make, and Atheist cannot actually reason that it is on its own At the same time, as soon as Believer says "God gave us the capacity for moral reasoning", they are admitting that moral reasoning can occur independent of God. That is to say, morality that obviously isn't addressed in the Bible still has to be determined, therefore the Bible isn't required to determine morality.
What about the side that is atheist and does not believe in morality that voice would have also been an interesting one to hear? The believer clearly won, the Atheist had no chance against the is ought problem and they kept presupposing what was considered evil based on emotions instead of scientific evidence.
How is that Razors code favour the simplest explanation Lets say you wake up and found a present in your bed the two possibilities are 1- a mythical creature that we don't have ext evidence for braught it from unknown source And sneak in your house by unknown mechanism 2- your parents which we have evidence of them baught it from a store you know and but it while u was asleep Which of those two more simple to you
@JunkYard-omarnour you left out a major detail. Namely, you were expecting that present. Why were you expecting it? What were you expecting? Occam's razor suggests that you left out the exact part that I was talking about because you knew exactly what I was talking about. I still use Occam's razor from time to time, even though it's not perfect.
@bobbobson9151 I don't believe anything is perfect except math But i think the reason why razors code won't be functional some time is the mis-use U formed a question based on a falacy then expect the razor method to grant you accurate results
@@JunkYard-omarnour seriously? you missed it twice? I don't believe you but fine. whats the simplest answer? option one: a vast global conspiracy of most adults that transcends language barriers, cultural barriers and geological barriers, to deceive children for no gain. option two: that a kind old hermit and his wife give children gifts on the 25th of December out of the kindness of their hearts. Sometimes the truth is stranger then fiction. I too can leave out sections of the story to make a point....but put them back in and you'll find my point still sticks.
@@JunkYard-omarnour Ok sir, i kinda hinted at but didn't expressly make my argument. Whats the simplest explanation? Option one, a vast global conspiracy transcending language barriers, cultural barriers and geological barriers. dating back at least a thousand years including the vastest majority western adults and large but growing minorities in other parts of the world, for no personal gain or discernable reason. Or option two, a kindly old hermit and his wife, using techniques that are beyond my understanding give gifts to children on the 25th of December. when you consider the fact that had i lived 100 years ago the concept of flight would be beyond my understanding, i find the second explanation far more plausible. and yet....here we are.
Morality is a lot like temperature. In order for there to be a hot temperature there have to be a lot of atoms that vibrate continuously and that is what makes it hot. In the same way if a God is all that exists it is not possible for him to be moral because morality requires more than one entity in the way that you treat them and in the way they treat you so no God cannot be the Arbiter of morality because in the beginning he was the only thing that exists and thus containing absolutely no morality whatsoever. Morality is an emergent behavior, which does not exist when there's only one entity.
Interesting you say that seeing the Christian dogma have the Father, Son and Spirit existing as 3 as well as in 1 eternally. So there is multiple beings in which perfect will, perfect morality, perfect love and perfect treatment is expressed. Crazy how that works. Genesis expresses the plurality of God almost right away with “create man in our image.” In Isiah the angel of the Lord (pre incarnate Jesus Christ) states “and now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit. Baptism of Christ by John has all 3 as well. John 1:1 “in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and is God” Jesus is the word, this verse is a direct expression of Christs eternalness and existence with and in God Due to all being perfect arbiters of morality their will and decisions are all the same, their existence infinite so power and dominion equal, separate but one.
Thanks for watching our debate on the Moral Argument! What did you think? Share your thoughts in the comments, and check out these other thought-provoking debates:
• AI Doctors Debate ABORTION 👉 ua-cam.com/video/czbLw6zvppQ/v-deo.html
• Does GOD Exist? (PROBLEM OF EVIL Argument) 👉 ua-cam.com/video/EMyAGuHnDHk/v-deo.html
• Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha: AI Judges MORAL Legacies 👉 ua-cam.com/video/eY_il2MZjxc/v-deo.html
🔔 Thanks again for watching! Don’t forget to subscribe and hit the bell so you never miss the next debate!
I have some questions, how can I contact you? I represent a company with millions of followers total. Check the channel for proof just so you know I’m not trying to scam 😅.
@@JonOleksiuk its obvious the atheist ai would win
@@rimjob_stevexx
No way, why would it be obvious? 🤔 The believer A.I. had more solid arguments that the other one continually "dodged" (as even remarked), and he always diverted into the sheer explanation, which doesn't necessarily have to be the case.
He echoed the programmer's blinders, as his main arguments focused primarily on disregarding a priori everything supernatural and preternatural, and consequently avoiding to even evaluate them.
can you do christian ai vs the talmud ai
@@therealong I didn't really watch the vid but I can confirm (from commentors and snippets) the Atheist AI was playing dodgeball with confrontation,
I wish human debates were this polite.
right
you mean 70% less fun?
Some can be, but unfortunately people don't find them as entertaining. I enjoy watching some of the guests on Lex Fridman.
humans arent robots
@@rimjob_stevexx giving into your animalistic emotions over a topic makes you more of a robot than being polite, just an fyi.
I love how the channel keeps evolving and getting better. The cross examination makes the ai expose the others weaknesses, instead of continuing the loop of the same points over and over
Agreed. I hope more features will come!
Continuing the loop of the same points over and over is the result of reaching the equivaluem of evolutionary ecosystem co-existence.
muslim vs christian?
Can’t wait for a Jewish A.I. vs a Christian A.I. debate where Jesus the Christ is the Messiah or not.
Google is waiting on it as well to instantly delete this dudes channel if the AI sides with Christ.
They're both false though. But it'd be fun to watch I guess...
@@Flash-pp3crwhy can’t you let people believe in what they want man 😂
@@Flash-pp3cr Jesus loves you man i pray you find him☦✝❤
@ Time isn't forgiving. I hope you see things for how they are and now how you would like to see them.
18:15 "That's still dodging." Jeez, this AI's sass meter was cranked up to 11 🤣
i literally paused it at this point to read comments and so glad i found yours haha! i thought the same. but still a good debate.
She's right!
Woman moment. The male AI wins the argument in all these debates.
@@aesop1451 They’re AI. They aren’t men or women. They just sound that way to mimic humans. I don’t know why your opinion on a debate is based on the make believe sex of a robot. Thats really weird
@@Garfunkel- damn, you owned that dude, like i don't see how you can comeback from that, ever
I think this video demonstrates the limitations of AI. They're just regurgitating the most prevalent talking points, and judging based on how frequent those talking points are used. This is really well demonstrated in Claude's assessment of the debate being focused on the issue of moral development rather than the actual debate topic of God's existence. Conflating morality and gods is something most of us do, but in debate settings is easily separated by human scholars.
@@daqueda1577 but that's the point of the video "Does God Exist? AI debates Atheist vs. Believer (MORAL ARGUMENT)...
The moral argument is also used to prove God's existence, which if atheism can disprove or find another source, disproves God's existence.
@@jdkonopka1842Morality comes from biology. Every species has its own moral code because morality guarantees the survival of said species.
@@jdkonopka1842 morality does not support the existence of a God or gods. Because morality ascribed to divine source(s) contradict each other, therefore they are relative which doesn't support a supreme being. Torture is not universally wrong according to a religious attribution because some religions believed blood sacrifice was needed to make the sun rise or forgive sins. Morality not being rooted in a deity does not mean there is no God or gods, but it does not support it either, they're separate discussions. Please follow up if you have any more to contribute.
Thanks for pointing this out, you put into words what I’ve felt watching these videos. There is no actual logical framework for the argumentation, just spitting out immediate responses over and over again.
Debates like this actually have fundamental incompatibilities: believers will claim that morality is objective, non-believers will say that morality is not an intrinsic property of the universe. If these differences are maintained, there is absolutely no way to debate without speaking past one another.
@@hover-eb1hx I've heard many other positions on moralities origin from nonbelievers other than being intrinsic. But that's another discussion, my main focus is on the difference between a moral argument for divine origin of morality and a moral argument for God's existence. The AI mixes that up or perhaps the creator of the video mixed that up because they are not the same. God can still exist without being the origin of morality.
I may have missed it, but it sounds like everything is based on existing philosophical arguments. I think it'd be interesting to see if AIs can come up with their own synthesis based on all this and come up with their own philosophy. Theoretically, this should be a never ending cycle of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis... but maybe AIs can change that some day and come up with a super philosophy that'll effectively put an end to all arguments, outside of irrationalities that is :) Nonetheless, this is great content, and I'm looking forward to seeing more. Thank you.
Yeah these are all are said,thought of and heard before.
These debates are so interesting to hear factual points on both sides (generalized to your whole channel of course).
You can actually hear new viewpoints because one side or the other won't continue using evidence or arguments that have been disproved.
This video indeed needed a part two. Thank you. I loved part one ❤
I prefer the judges after every argument instead of just at the end. But overall good video!
I havent watched this yet but your channel remains as a good resource for anyone tackling these topics..
I guess it's time to become a farmer. AI is officially smarter than me
It can’t do anything new though, only regurgitate talking points.
@@noodle67Are humans any different?
@@joevi2593 I think so. While i agree that humans like an ai are input out computers, humans can go out into the world to get new insperation, ideas, and perspective. An ai on the other hand can only get its input from humans.
It only pulls from data sets (humans)
@@joevi2593Yes??
What’s truly astounding is the fact you can sometimes forget this is a debate with AI
Humanity can learn a thing or two around the etiquette of debate and disagreements by listening to these kinds of discussions.
Well done you continue to produce top quality content and open paths to meaningful discussion that everyone can enjoy and participate in🎉
I want to encourage you to keep making this "AI debates" content. It is not only fascinating but, also, a peek into the forming "mind" of AI and ultimately our future. Please continue to make moral issue debates with AI. I would love to see content on Euthanasia, Immigration, Population Collapse, Freedom of Speech, War, and so much more.
i may have an immigration debate ready this weekend and definitely freedom of speech in the near future, thanks for the comment and sub :)
@@JonOleksiukI would suggest making the AI's "learn" as they debate and maybe reach a conclusion that draws logical and positive things from the other side instead of simply repeating their own arguments.
Also please reduce the "sassyness" a bit, I enjoyed the abortion debate a lot more than this
Really love this format, I’d replace the sound bar that fills from left to right when they’re speaking with a sound wave visualizer though personally, I think it’d look more engaging.
You should do an Atheist vs Buddhist video. I'm interested in what they'd agree on and what they'd disagree on. It would be less White vs Black and more of a Dark Gray vs Black.
Buddhism is technically not theistic it’s more of a philosophy than anything
Great video! Would you do a AI debate over archeological evidence against God, like fossils, dinosaurs, Neanderthals and so forth?
Cross examination was a great addition. What a great channel that AI algorithm gave me haha.
Glad you liked it!
If God doesn't exist, would religious people stop doing good all of a sudden? I've been wanting to hear someone answer this question.
I asked the Christian model to answer your question succinctly:
"First, Christians who have internalized virtuous behavior and moral principles would very likely continue doing good even if they discovered God didn't exist. The habits of kindness, generosity, and service to others don't simply vanish with a change in metaphysical beliefs. These have become part of their character.
However, the more complex philosophical question is about the nature of moral motivation. Christian philosophers like C.S. Lewis and Alvin Plantinga have argued that while atheists can certainly be moral people (and they absolutely can), the Christian worldview provides a coherent foundation for objective morality that helps sustain long-term ethical behavior."
@JonOleksiuk that's a good explanation. I also think that even if people find out God didn't exist, it probably wouldn't stop them from believing.
Also, just a little add-on. If God really doesn't exist, would the argument for right and wrong be connected to our human evolution?
Then they were never good or healthy individuals, probably closeted psychopaths or suffering from some type of ASPD
@@JonOleksiuk what app do you use for ai debate? Thanks
no apps. i programmed them to debate in a virtual python environment.
This is so funny to watch! It's also very informative. I would like to see AI debate about whether minors should be allowed to transition genders. That debate is currently all the rage right now.
No one wants to watch such a ridiculous debate, minors have a hard time choosing a candy but should have the option to do a life changing operation ?. This should've never been a debate in the first place.
@@yardgunner4033 I think that’s why we need it so that people can see just how ridiculous that argument is of course children shouldn’t transition, but I’m confident enough in our arguments to let this debate happen to show just how un usual all of this gender hysteria has become
Please do Catholic vs Protestant debate!!
That would actually be very interesting
Based on extensive personal experience, if ChatGPT is a judge, it'll be siding with Catholicism 😅
@ Interesting
Please keep making these videos!
you lost me at children who "naturally share toys" anyone who has kids knows this is not natural at all
ha...my wife had the exact same reaction.
@@blackspire5040 father of 4 and now grandfather of 2… I can totally relate!
so true
not so fast. Children DO naturally share toys. Just not nearly as frequently as they are "selfish" with them. As a parent I hear the word "mine" about 90% of the time and "here" about 10% of it. There is definitely a reason we have to teach "share" and never have to teach "be greedy".
This is false majority of people much rather have experiences with others
It's not a question of 'Where is God?' but rather, 'Where are you?' Notice how, by default, we are separated from God-especially when we prioritize our emotions over thoughtfully listening to His guidance, which He has left for us to meditate on. If God were to respond to us, it would align with what He has already spoken, as He has provided the framework for all things.
Also this A.I adopted the Dillahunty Dodge technique
Notice how logic, reasoning, intellect- whether it is artificial or natural, will always point to the creator and glorify Him because He is the source of those attributes.
How does logic, reasoning, intellect point to a creator? Do you even have any of those attributes?
@noevidenceforyourmom9088 we were created in His image and likeness. Ever create something? Have you ever felt jealous? Wrathful? Maybe love or regret? Have you ever seemed to know something without fully understanding or learning it? Are you able to make decisions? I can understand your undertones behind your question that are attempting to insult me. It won't work. 🙏
@@Άθελι-παιδί-του-Θεού There's no undertone, your attempt to claim realism to your fantasy by claiming you know how everything came to be and its by your fantasy character is disgusting to me, a fool thinks he knows everything while the wise knows he doesn't know everything, back to the topic.
How do you know we were created in your gods image and likeness? How does jealousy, wrath, love, regrets link to your god? and how do you know that?
@noevidenceforyourmom9088 I do not know everything, but I do know about it. I know what I know and what I need to know for living my life on this earth for the short time i have. Am I obligated to know more? No, but I can while living my Christian life to explore the creation and understand its mechanics.
The same way you would know math, history, English, etc. Many people criticize and deem God to be so and so from reading the Old Testament but forget his loving attributes in the New Testament and forget that He did end humanity and has been guiding us throughout generations to get to a better point
@Avad_t_Eved you say you do not know everything but here you are claiming you know how existence came to be essentially claiming you know everything. I'm asking you how you know what you claim to know, how do you know you're not lied to be, do you think you know something just because you have a feeling?
You speak of logic and intellect yet I see none in you, you do not ask questions but form a conclusion. It's disgusting.
An athiest vs christian vs muslim debate would be so interesting to watch next
Christian and Muslims both could be dethtones just by tearing up the Old Testament. Easy.
This is gonna blow up.
Hey I love your channel. Can you do AI debating when machines/animals get or receive rights of their own?
Debate i can listen to forever. Do neat and smooth
Yo, where can I pay to submit a debate topic? Because I really want you to cover Oneness vs Trinity view of God’s Deity.
"Where does the must come from in your world?" might be the most iconic AI quote ever.
I would personally love aliens exist vs we're alone debate
I really really want one on them arguing free will. It could be a part of or separate from this series but my largest arguments against religion appear around science being against free will so far. Not quite proven but getting closer and closer. It would practically 100% disprove god but I can’t think fast enough most of the time. Also us humans get distracted, especially kids nerding out about dimensions, black/white holes, etc. I think as we recently fully made a fly brain out of 200,000 neurons online, this debate becomes closer and closer to being important and solveable.
we did a debate a few weeks ago, "Do humans have free will?"
ua-cam.com/video/2IGbUYBWZ_8/v-deo.html
I want to see two AIs debate whether watching TV was better/healthier/more engaging without being addicting between the 50s and the 80s or whether it's better/healthier/more engaging without being addicting from the 90s to the 2020s. Also, how popcorn and/or what you eat or not eating at all when watching TV affects watching TV.
Although it won't be the same, I could probably just ask ChatGPT. At least that is free. 😅 I still think using these videos are awesome though! I wonder what the next one will be?
You should get AI to make a philosophy, or get them to make a religion and see how it compares to real life ones
An argument where both cannot resolve because if we'd know the answer, the question itself is already irrelevant. Thus, a middleground must exist and thereby encourages to exist, not because the argument must stands, but because by the argument, we grow as humanity, as a whole.
What is this video even debating? Are the two sides both debating that morality is objective with an atheist and a believer point of view? In that case, the format is inherently biased towards the believer and objective morality without God is borderline indefensible. The atheist should be arguing for moral subjectivity, not objectivity.
There are some atheists that believe in moral objectivity. I can think of some from India.
You should do Mormonism vs Christianity, Jehovas witness vs Christianity, and agnosticism vs atheism vs Christianity
hey bro, excellent video, could you do a video on the scientific inconsistencies in each book, like flat earth, 6000 year ago creation of earth etc
Sir, you weren't there so how would you be so certain that it isn't true?
Why didn't you first have them agree to a definition of God?
Anyone else wondering how he makes these videos? I genuinely wanna know the behind the scenes!
The Atheist’s final answer was S tier. Brilliant and beautiful human.
it would be dope to make this a website that you could fight two ai on a question. Would you ever think of creating a open project like that?
This is great, and unlike humans debating, listening to the AI voice the same points allows us to hear and accept opposing ideas - at least to the point that we will consider the ideas for at least a moment - rather than immediately having an emotional reaction before our interlocutor can even finish their sentence. Since there is no actual person to get emotional with, it is much easier to skip the misdirected resentment when hearing ideas that clash with our core values. When humans debate, even the audience will automatically apply their own bias when they hear ideas and right away it affects the way they receive the message. With AI responses, it is harder to say they are responding with racial bias or something like that.
With all of that being said, it is much easier to see the perspective of each side when consuming a debate in this format and that makes it a great educational tool in my opinion! Keep these up if you can!
Can you try making one debating the morality and efficiency of different economic systems (capitalism vs socialism vs communism - or just 2 at a time might be better)?
These are enjoyable videos but more transparency is required on the configuration of the AIs Weightings for evaluating the strength of the arguments in relation to the discussed topic and responses given. These videos are presented as completely neutral, but these AI still need to be instructed on what argumentation and reasoning is stronger.
I'd find it interesting if you do materialism vs dualism about consciousness
I still want an argument about IQ
at around 18:00 the atheist ai is making the argument for inherent truth which cannot be ignored once learned. I found that really interesting since I usually here that from the religious camp.
A quick impression of the whole heard in the middle of the night:
The female believer A.I. had more solid arguments that the other one continually "dodged" (as even being remarked), and he always diverted into the "sheer explanation", which doesn't necessarily have to be the case.
He kind of echoed the programmer's "blinders", as his main arguments focused primarily on disregarding a priori everything supernatural and preternatural, and consequently avoiding to even evaluate them. 🤷♀
They don't concede enough. Frankly they are both arguing an overly pure version of each, and are not updating based on what the other says.
For example the expanding circle directly extrapolated implies an objective conclusion to the circle. That is a statement that we operate within a set of morals to which evolution is subordinate.
The reliability challenge begs the question. They say how will we know, since our morals are only evolved for survivability, that are morals are also evolved to identify truth immorality.? This question relies on the existence of moral truths, something which does not exist in the absence of a Divine command Theory. They are correct, we don't know that our morals were designed to identify truth, because we don't know that there is any such thing as truth in morals, we do know that our morals help us to survive, and that survival seems to be the ultimate goal of all living creatures, not reflection of Truth in reality, if any such truth in fact exists.
Thank you!
Loving the AI debates not gonna lie
I would love to see ai debate conspiracy theories lolll
Everything is a conspiracy theory... until it has been proven.
Dr Egon Cholakian sends his regards.
6:26 No! Generally toddlers/children are not kind, without parental guidance they'd be worse.
There's an old saying: *You don't need to teach a child to be bad, you do need to teach a child to be good.*
6:23 - because our God gave us free will, along with true morality - so its our choice to know good, and seek after it, or know good, yet do evil, or sin
Did god gave us free will or certain regions of the brain are dictating that, which evolved throughout evolution
@@Max4Z no, its free will. its preven because we are the only species that can build, and create, beyond our means. a beaver ALWAYS builds a damn - they will never make a bridge, or start fires themselves - while we can make skyscrapers, apartment buildings, or Museums - we can create things good for us, or detrimental - we dont have a guide, or a specific thing we're designed to make or do with our lives - we all have our own god given gifts too.
we do have ingrained morals as well - you can KNOW murder is wrong, but still do it - or say, know murder i wrong, but support abortion - which is in fact murder.
Or see anti-Jews, and instead of weighing the options, just support Palestine, over the many thousand year old land of Israel -
Or support the marxist running for president, despite her desire to leave taxes the same, over the guy who has flirted with the idea or... removing income tax altogether with tariffs (which yes, is possible).
@@fazelok we are the Only species that can because we are the only species who’s brain have developed at the level it has..
@@fazelok and where does free will specifically come from? I’m asking of course from a more scientific perspective
@ well, that’s what I’d ask you to reflect on - there are multiple types of faith that exist - atheists get their moral view, from science - which is stupid - because science does nothing more than understand the functions of this universe - how things work, what they’re made of. Theological faith, Christianity specifically - seeks to answer the WHYS of the universe - that’s the whole point,
So, science can tell you your mind works because of chemicals in the brain, and electrical signals. Science can’t explain consciousness, or why love, and other emotions can’t be explained fully - despite seeing on ekg scans what parts of the brain activate. You can also know - stealing is wrong - but justify someone who is poor doing it, or doing it yourself. Or any other sin.
In faith it’s as simple as this - we have souls - that power the body, and a mind, with body - that we live in, and control - and we have the Holy Spirit, that can influence our lives, if we allow it to work.
Do western vs eastern religions/philosophy on what is God.
Can you do pro-pitbull vs anti-Pitbull next? I love these videos!
😂 thanks for the note
Whether a particular snake is venomous or not is not a moral question, it is an "is" question. We can confirm in reality whether or not the snake is in fact venomous. We can therefore find out whether or not our belief in whether or not the snake is venomous is either a useful illusion or a truth. The same cannot be done with moral questions. If we have evolved to believe that murder is wrong, but in reality it isn't wrong but just useful for us to not murder each other, how will you go about demonstrating which of those is true to then make your argument that we only believed it because it was useful? You cannot. You simply have to assign a truth value to your moral claims based on your own opinions and nothing more, and that is the absolute definition of subjectivity
Our moral compass has evolved in order to facilitate our ability to coexist with one another as a species, share the limited resources and face greater threats. You are free to reject them all and in exchange get isolated from the society removing your genes together with you demonstrating how this very process of natural selection works. It is true that every individual is entitled to their own version of morality that may differ from what is generally accepted but it is also true that parts of this said morality that prevent this individual from cooperating with the rest of society will only hinder their ability to both spread their ideas and genetic material simply because this is how our society and our species have been evolving ever since the concept of cooperation has emerged all those hundreds of millions of years ago.
There is no "objective" morality, instead, there are the forms of morality that help the given group of individuals outcompete other groups in this endless fight for limited resources.
Divine hiddenness has a simple solution, God has given more than enough evidence to "prove" (near) he is real. If God were to fully prove that he was real, it would take away our free will that comes from the love of God.
as "moral" is a social construction, I'm curious to hear... what would be the results in case the question is debated around an "ethics" then "virtue" approach ?
and followed by a comparative critics of the arguments developed through the 3 terms mobilised.
Cheers 🙂
1.Believer keeps arguing based on objective moral truth which many atheists including myself wont agree with.
2. Believer seemingly keeps arguing for the monotheistic god rather than gid in general
3. This essentially boils dow to they are using the same arguments people use on the internet
I feel the believer AI debating missed the mark on providing the analogy of saving a child or not torturing the innocent. It is true morality that compels you not to torture the GUILTY and to save the life of the drunk who has wandered into a lake because all life has value. Christian wisdom isn't just loving our friends (everyone can do that), it's being morally obligated to love our enemies.
“In the beginning was the Logos (word). And the Logos was with God and the Logos was God.”
Logic is Devine truth.
As an atheist who views morality as Human-guided, instead of the belief of a moral standard, this was hard to watch, because an atheist who goes with the latter argument just gives fuel to the believer. I believe that the very core reason responsible for the creation of religions across the globe was to alter societal foundations with their own moralistic viewpoint, which is obvious when looking at the histories of said societies.
The atheist defence was weak, morals actually arise from a selfish influence if you think about it self preservation
@@YagerKash I don't wanna start an argument or nothing but that's just idiotic, Imagine, two men in a desert, one man murders the other one to get his water. He definitely preserved himself, but morality was thrown out the window.
@@Raw-oh5lh Don't want to argue either, but what morality did he throw out the window? What if he subjectively defined morality as killing people = good?
I’m not sure that an argument based on moral subjectivity or relativism would have worked either though. With that view we cannot logically accept that some behaviors are just wrong.
I’m curious about your own beliefs - do you think humans were better or worse off with the superficial religious framework? Assuming it was created for a purpose as you claim, is it no longer necessary to serve that purpose?
I'm not arguing if humanity was better off with the moralist foundations of religion, but I would say it was, at least compared to the veracity during the hunter-gatherer period, but I am arguing that those early cults that preceded and established religions, primarily wanted to push their moralistic principles under the guise of divinity and divine law, ie The Ten Commandments, Sharia, etc.
could you do something on gender theory? are genders necessary, feminism, trans rights, etc. id really like to hear AI debate what the future could look like if we were to abolish genders or if they are perhaps important to our society
Was soul have freewill? Likes what? Machine mechanism or metaphysic Brain? Or randomness? Both are'nt freewill
Good debate, but add in Pascal’s Wager and it tilts towards belief in God to me. From the atheist perspective it’s cutting one’s losses which is rational.
I love the atheist AI so clear,direct, straight to the point my brain is stimulated every time he speaks. I only wish he was more ambitious against the more biblical claims but in all well done. 👍 👏
I feel like both AIs did a great job in explaining their points.
I’d say that if the believer brought up the act of sacrifice and love that goes beyond reason, she could’ve done better in this debate.
The atheist AI kept using the argument of naturalism and logical thought to support his argument. But what about the irrational? A lot of people feel the obligation to sacrifice themselves for people and things which could not be necessary for evolutionary survival. For example, a man who could pass on many generations dies in protecting his old mother who is incapable of having more children. More examples include people risking and sacrificing their lives to save others who are disabled and can’t defend themselves or reproduce like the terminally ill, or elderly that need help 24/7.
Along with this the theist could’ve brought up empathetic love towards criminals and such to try and rehabilitate them. If it is in our evolutionary nature to just stay alive and keep away from what’s dangerous then why do we often reach out to those who can kill us?
Even concepts that aren’t too common like agape love actively contradicts naturalism and evolutionary principles.
Maybe cause he was smart enough to know that exceptions doest refute the major rule
Another thing his theory explain how the basics of morality was formed in our premative ancestors
Now we became more intelligent and complicated and the equation doesn't only count plant physical factors there is emotional factors
We no longer get married cause we want to reproduce you may you marry a seriale spouse only cause he makes you laugh or makes you feel better
Wow, the theistic side had a slight lead on the moral argument. Can't wait to see how AI would respond to the other arguments for God
One problem I kept seeing with the atheist argument is that most of the progress it talks about was lead/spurred on by Christians (Also, why did he keep dodging the Christian's answer in the cross-examination? It was really weird). Ending slavery, western culture, the declaration of independence, among other things, were led by Christians. This is a point I see overlooked in this argument and I figured that I might as well bring it forward for debate.
Explain to me how you know the difference between divine inspiration and Imagination
How do you know the difference between math and imagination? Whatever answer you give is my answer, learn to think for yourself.
Test the belief.
You should make them debate if humans exist
It seems even A.I. can't make the Frank Turek moral argument sound anything but ridiculous...
I did that against ChatGPT, and after 5 rounds ChatGPT gave up, concluding that the atheist position is more compelling. I had to try after I saw your other video, where the theist position won. It wasn't confined to a single topic, but we too went over morality, as well as fine tuning and the beginning of the univer. It's interesting how they are always so decisively on the theist side. Btw. large scale studies found that there are only 7 universal moral laws. So that's that in terms of universal moral intuitions.
I think that giving each side ammo (that you are interested in so that it's not unfair by giving 1 side too much ammo) and then giving them say 1-2 paragraphs to detail an attack against the other, with the rest of the "debate" being to refute the attacks is a very balanced way of debating. I notice that it's also mostly on the theist side but this is because of quite a few things which I will go into:
Ai develops biases based on its own responses to your prompts as well as your prompts. For example, if you are hostile towards religion for 5-10 prompts and then a few days later, say 30 prompts after, you ask it for a debate, it will probably allow the atheist to win. I use multiple accounts for ChatGPT and they result in drastically different ratings for arguments as well as evaluations of them. My main account is probably biased since I am Christian and whenever I give it any of my own arguments, even in a new chat, it would rate it at the very least 8/10. Whereas in other accounts, the same arguments score lower or sometimes, but rarely, higher.
@tjpg25 That's actually pretty annoying that the AI tries to give answers the user likes, literally encouraging bias.
I tried different things with Gemini and ChatGPT, and it matches what this YT channel indicates, that Gemini has more of an anti-religious bias than ChatGPT. But I have to say, since I went very deep into the weeds with religion, ChatGPT often gives mainstream Christian answers, even if the scholarship takes an entirely opposite approach, only backtracking if it is hinted at it. Which may as well be me introducing bias, and it's good to be aware of that, since I would like trying to avoid that. Also, I'm not hostile towards religion in these chats.
Thanks for the insights btw.
The believer AI is really striking on 3 fundamental issues that believers have. The Idea that there’s only 1 interpretation of god, which is arrogant, a tad blasphemous and limiting to the complexity of god. That idea has led to the binary of thinking that has driven hate in the world. “God good everything else bad. Because a specific group of people chose that God and brought it upon themselves to spread it they were given the opportunity to push the notion of “we good everyone else bad”. This has caused the demonization of many cultures and the subjugation of many people. The idea that you need God to understand right from wrong is fundamentally flawed. Humans have empathy so you don’t need to be told that it’s wrong to take a life because you wouldn’t want yours taken. If it was about God governing over humanity as a moral compass then many believers wouldn’t use God as justification for many of the terrible things that have gone on in history and that happen today. Many believers forget something that is crucial to salvation. You need to want to be a good person because that’s what you want not because you want to go to heaven. Goodness should have no end goal and many people have expressed that without the “presence of God” in their life they would not be good people.
The Atheist AI shot itself in the foot by not bringing up the fact that morality is not objective. It could've demolished everything the theist said by simply acknowledging that truth. Makes sense since the Ai was designed to be nice and PC it cannot go into that controversial area. It could simply demolish the theist moral absolutist positions by asking why. "X is immoral" the best response is to keep asking why and eventually the absolutist will have to submit and acknowledge the evolutionary nature of morality.
Wrong my man. There are debates on morality being objective or subjective. Go do an online search and see for yourself. You’re not going to win a debate that easily.
@@iWontSeeYourReplies Unless the subjective morality defender is an ignoramus like this AI, the victory is easy. Objective empirical evidence vs faith and wishful thinking.
The atheist ai left out two things.
1) when the believer ai asserted that our morality evolved for survival value the atheist kept that assumption. Evolution is more complex than just survival. Take the peacocks feathers for example which may do more harm than good for their chance of avoiding predators
2) if Gods morality was perfect then why not condemn slavery from the offset?
Hello, as a Muslim even though some may call me ''heretic'' I follow the ideas of Quranism a minority perspective in Muslim world that only takes Quran as source and either judges hadits and fetwas or straight up declines it. After seeing one of your previous videos and when the cllasic ''Aise was 9 years old'' question is asked the Muslim Ai (Sunni I think) tried to use ''but back than it was normal for that age'' argumant if it was a Quranist ai it could have said ''but its on a hadith book writen by a human after dead of Muhammed with a 200 years gap why we should accept it as a unquestioneble source?'' so please even though our perspective is minority it would be nice you to add it we cleary don't want ourselves be represent by a Ai which thinks Allah's words and mankinds writing is equal.
The believer is clearly not representative of all Theists, so the title is wrong, and the Atheist is clearly a Naturalist.
This is "Atheist Naturalist vs. Christian"
As a lover of debate, the attitude of these comments makes me truly sad.
I gotta say, a bit bold the AI is arguing if someone saw a drowning child they "MUST" help. This ai needs to spend more time with people it's a but too optimistic. I think MOST would help, but certainty not a must. I hate neither ai addresses that there certainly are people who simply wouldn't care. Suddenly its not a MUST but a matter of having a good perspective on the value of life.
6:45 - its called, children are innocent, thats why they act the way they do.
I don’t quite understand how this brings us to god existing or not, could an atheist not hold that objective morality simply doesn’t exist. I believe that’s the strongest stance for an atheist to have in the moral argument.
So then what standard does your morality hold to? Do you see your cultural beliefs as more right or more wrong when compared to say Islamic states, India with its SA problems and caste issues or even moral dilemmas in your own society? If you see one as higher or lower there is an implied objective standard from somewhere. Personally I don’t think it’s a good argument for God existing either rather just an argument that it comes from God and has an objective rightness that is reflected in all functioning long lived societies.
@c0rndog748 It comes from my ability to empathize with others, I would say it’s wrong but not in the objective sense. Say someone maybe a psychopath thinks murder is good because it weeds the weak off you can’t prove to them objectively that their view is wrong, maybe they believe empathy makes you weak, you can argue against it all you want but if they don’t agree or care for the suffering of others you can’t prove that the suffering of others matter objectively, it’s subjective. I don’t believe there’s like a universal law or objective truth that murder is wrong but it’s wrong from the perspective of another human beings ability to empathize with the suffering of others
You seriously set up a debate on morality vs a theist, basing it on philosophy, and you didn't include Ayn Rand? this is horrible.
Catholic vs. Protestant Denominations! (including non-denominational)
Moral argument is too vague. I think we were looking for the creation argument.
This makes me imagine a society where the moral compass is surviving and having the best result, the idea of supporting the weak and the strong defending them would be nonsense… in this universe, we don’t live in a gigachad society where by natural selection, weak people went extinct… in all those years, human instinct was to protect the weak… that’s not survival efficiency 😅
2 points for the atheist that I want to point out:
1. Subjective morality: in rare cases, people don't agree on some moral truths e.g. a psychopath probably wouldn't/couldn't agree that murder is wrong. Most of our "moral truths" are not objective but subjective and 99%+ agree on them.
2. The moral argument doesn't work because of the problem of evil.
A: Murdering an innocent child is wrong.
B: God also thinks that murdering an innocent child is wrong because our morals come from him and he wouldn't give us morals he doesnt agree with.
C: God doesn't prevent innocent kids from dying of illnesses/natural disasters and there is no greater good to it.
I'm atheist but I'm just going to play devil's advocate for a second
1. Maybe there is greater good to it in the afterlife, you simply can't fathom it.
2. God is allowed to kill anybody because he is by definition good, meaning anytime he kills someone (or doesn't help someone) it's the morally perfect thing to do. Also in the bible he does command the slaughter of the canaanites, which had to have been good, even though one of the ten commandments is don't murder. These rules don't apply to him as a perfect being.
I also think it's strange reasoning but it works.
@@mxp4225But isn’t he contradicting his commandments?Provided that there is a greater good from murdering an innocent child. But in this, is his moral system not just a utilitarian one?
@@mxp4225 God could choose a more moral way than killing people. He could just change their minds which is better than having them murdered and send to hell.
If everything God does is good then Morality becomes arbitrary.
@@not1207 Like i said, his commandments don't apply to him. He, by nature, can not possibly do something that isn't good, so anything he does is good no matter how horrible it seems or how much it appears to contradict himself. And also you have to understand that afterlife in christianity is infinite, meaning our life on earth or the suffering we experience genuinely DON'T MATTER AT ALL in the grand scheme of things.
Religious people don't agree with moral truths in their books either. They pick and choose what to believe based on their updated morality of today's age. If we lived 3000 years ago most people in the comments would think its okay to kill in the name of God. On a societal basis
we need one where they debate if god is omnibenevolent. God has done some petty stuff in the bible
@xJohnnyBloodx measuring God by human standards is pretty petty... when it is clear that God explains why He does things.
Divine standard>Human standard
The fact that he allows humanity to continue is beyond merciful and beyond myself, when I (and many others) used to believe and want to world to end because humanity is a disease.
I think there was an issue with assuming a moral realist position for the “atheist” bot. Atheists are much more likely, especially among the philosophers, to hold various moral anti-realist positions, holding that morality simply isn’t objective in the way many, especially among theists, tend to believe is intuitively the case.
For sure, maybe a bit of bias since the creator of the channel is Christian, he probably assumed that atheists believe in moral objectivism as well. I don't see how morality isn't objective though. With moral relativism it makes no sense for us to be against large cults. Moral relativism is very weak to hypotheticals. I can't get into some of them since they would be deleted by youtube but if you want to get into them you can give me your discord.
Hi tjpg25,
I see where you’re coming from, and I think the disconnect here might be in how we view the nature of morality itself. Many Christians, including yourself, may understand morality as something fixed-objective truths handed down by a divine source. From that perspective, moral rules would be universal and unchanging, inherently binding on all people regardless of circumstance.
For me, however, morality is a human construct. I don’t see moral “oughts” as being written into the fabric of reality, and I don’t believe they exist in the same way as physical laws. If we take an example like the one in the video-where there’s an expectation to save a drowning child-there’s often an assumption of a moral compulsion, a strong “ought” that binds us to act. But in my view, that “ought” is less like an objective command and more like a powerful suggestion, shaped by empathy, social expectations, and cultural conditioning. We’re inclined to act, but not in an absolute, moral realist sense.
In the case of the drowning child, if there’s a real risk to your own life, I’d argue that not helping shouldn’t necessarily be shamed. When we talk about reducing harm and promoting flourishing, your own well-being is part of that equation too. You can’t reduce suffering by sacrificing yourself needlessly; self-preservation is also a rational component of any ethical calculation, which is something a strictly objective framework might overlook.
Now, why promote flourishing and reduce harm at all? You might ask, “Why ought we value these things if there’s no divine command?” For me, it’s not a command or duty in the traditional sense; it’s more of a brute fact about morality as we experience it. Ethical systems that promote prosperity, fairness, and compassion endure because they align with human nature and lead to stability and cooperation. In contrast, moral frameworks that celebrate cruelty or indifference don’t tend to survive or benefit us in the long run; they’re inherently self-destructive and incompatible with human flourishing.
In this way, morality feels “persistent” and meaningful, even without a higher authority enforcing it. It evolves over time but has a recognizable trajectory toward reducing harm and promoting well-being, because systems that do this are inherently more stable. Rather than seeing moral “oughts” as objective truths, I see them as powerful guides that help shape behaviors beneficial to humanity, rooted in our collective experience rather than in an absolute divine command.
Mathematical study tells us what mathematical problems can do but it doesn’t tell us why mathematics exists to begin with. The scientific method tells us how something functions, it doesn’t why it’s there to begin with. This is a big problem with those who say they need mathematical or scientific “proof” for God. They are asking the wrong question. As an example, it’s the same thing as studying the engine in a Ford truck then saying that doesn’t prove Henry Ford existed, then because of that denying Henry Ford existed.
Your argument is flawed on 2 basis.
1- The fact that the engine is named after Ford, the fact that he has a patent on it, historical records, etc all point out to ford’s existence.
2- Mathematics and sciences are all about finding order in the chaos. We still don’t have a formula to map prime numbers, we still don’t have an universally agreed theory for the beginning of the universe, but saying “Oh ye god did it” goes completely against the point of sciences by making what is called “the god of holes”. Other religions had gods for lightning, dreams, death, etc.. and now that we can fundamentally disprove the existence of said gods through scientific principles those religions faded to obscurity.
Speaking of religions another easy way to go against theism is by pointing out that there are multiple religions with conflicting ideologies that all claim to be the “real” religion.
Another presuppositionalist 😐
@@hexi9595
Your first point makes no sense? The example was given that they studied the engine in a ford truck. Bringing up things outside of this study ruins the hypothetical since from the Christian point of view, their evidence is "outside of the study" of atheists.
Your second point is fine but it doesn't stand since to prove logic without a foundation for it you need logic. With a foundation, you can point to the foundation. This isn't a "God of the gaps" argument since the claim is that God is necessary for knowledge. Also, having a faith based atheism and saying "just give us time and we can disprove this!" doesn't do much if you say atheism isn't a religion.
"another easy way to go against theism is by pointing out that there are multiple religions with conflicting ideologies that all claim to be the “real” religion."
Replace theism with atheism. Replace multiple religions with quantum mechanic interpretations. Do these conflicting interpretations mean that quantum mechanics as a whole isn't true now? All of them are claiming to be a viable way to interpret it. The only issue with this parallel is that they don't claim to be true, but my point here is that conflicting ideologies doesn't mean the entire whole is false.
@@kucckumelon2837 Still haven't seen an objection to TAG besides "it's circular!" (all worldviews are) or some other super common objection that has been dealt with forever ago.
@@tjpg25 even if you do establish God on shakey epistemological bases like the one which TAG tries to get away with. I don't see how that would lead to a God worthy of prayer or respect.
You still haven't established, why God is a necessary precondition for all of this. There hasn't been a single demonstration of that, except for sophistry and committing the tu quoque fallacy.
I think these exercises prove the limitations of AI. There is no place for evolution in a debate about morality requiring a God to exist. The fact that evolution "can" provide some alignment with "objective morality" (if such a thing exists), doesn't mean that all evolution is moral. AI only responds with evolution because plenty of people bring up evolution. It is a weak and irrelevant argument to make, and Atheist cannot actually reason that it is on its own
At the same time, as soon as Believer says "God gave us the capacity for moral reasoning", they are admitting that moral reasoning can occur independent of God. That is to say, morality that obviously isn't addressed in the Bible still has to be determined, therefore the Bible isn't required to determine morality.
love it!
What about the side that is atheist and does not believe in morality that voice would have also been an interesting one to hear? The believer clearly won, the Atheist had no chance against the is ought problem and they kept presupposing what was considered evil based on emotions instead of scientific evidence.
I would love it if the believer AI had a chance to point out that occam's razor suggests Santa exists....
How is that
Razors code favour the simplest explanation
Lets say you wake up and found a present in your bed the two possibilities are
1- a mythical creature that we don't have ext evidence for braught it from unknown source
And sneak in your house by unknown mechanism
2- your parents which we have evidence of them baught it from a store you know and but it while u was asleep
Which of those two more simple to you
@JunkYard-omarnour you left out a major detail. Namely, you were expecting that present. Why were you expecting it? What were you expecting? Occam's razor suggests that you left out the exact part that I was talking about because you knew exactly what I was talking about. I still use Occam's razor from time to time, even though it's not perfect.
@bobbobson9151
I don't believe anything is perfect except math
But i think the reason why razors code won't be functional some time is the mis-use
U formed a question based on a falacy then expect the razor method to grant you accurate results
@@JunkYard-omarnour seriously? you missed it twice? I don't believe you but fine.
whats the simplest answer?
option one: a vast global conspiracy of most adults that transcends language barriers, cultural barriers and geological barriers, to deceive children for no gain.
option two: that a kind old hermit and his wife give children gifts on the 25th of December out of the kindness of their hearts.
Sometimes the truth is stranger then fiction.
I too can leave out sections of the story to make a point....but put them back in and you'll find my point still sticks.
@@JunkYard-omarnour Ok sir, i kinda hinted at but didn't expressly make my argument.
Whats the simplest explanation?
Option one, a vast global conspiracy transcending language barriers, cultural barriers and geological barriers. dating back at least a thousand years including the vastest majority western adults and large but growing minorities in other parts of the world, for no personal gain or discernable reason.
Or option two, a kindly old hermit and his wife, using techniques that are beyond my understanding give gifts to children on the 25th of December.
when you consider the fact that had i lived 100 years ago the concept of flight would be beyond my understanding, i find the second explanation far more plausible. and yet....here we are.
Morality is a lot like temperature. In order for there to be a hot temperature there have to be a lot of atoms that vibrate continuously and that is what makes it hot. In the same way if a God is all that exists it is not possible for him to be moral because morality requires more than one entity in the way that you treat them and in the way they treat you so no God cannot be the Arbiter of morality because in the beginning he was the only thing that exists and thus containing absolutely no morality whatsoever. Morality is an emergent behavior, which does not exist when there's only one entity.
Interesting you say that seeing the Christian dogma have the Father, Son and Spirit existing as 3 as well as in 1 eternally. So there is multiple beings in which perfect will, perfect morality, perfect love and perfect treatment is expressed. Crazy how that works.
Genesis expresses the plurality of God almost right away with “create man in our image.”
In Isiah the angel of the Lord (pre incarnate Jesus Christ) states “and now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit.
Baptism of Christ by John has all 3 as well. John 1:1 “in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and is God” Jesus is the word, this verse is a direct expression of Christs eternalness and existence with and in God
Due to all being perfect arbiters of morality their will and decisions are all the same, their existence infinite so power and dominion equal, separate but one.
Now put ( Hindu Vs Muslin + Christian + Atheist + more.... if you can and make them debate)
It weird to hear the athiest ai just accept moral objectivity. That's the first thing I'd attack were I on his side.