NEW debates with NEW AI models AI debates Testament Reliability/Corruption -->> ua-cam.com/video/EkiLOWPdDAg/v-deo.html AI debates the Trinity -->> ua-cam.com/video/S0ScOgaDdNE/v-deo.html ** Currently working on a debate that examines the moral examples of Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha and Krishna. Don't forget to subscribe and hit the bell so you don't miss the next debate :)
How long does it take for you to set it up and create the video? Does having one AI differ from 2 or more like your previous video? If you let the two ai's debate forever, would they come to an agreement to anything or would one side be persuaded over the other?
@@RomanianTanker I think @its_lucky252 is just a rage bot. It's a made up statistic, based on something that never happened in the video, designed to rile theists to be like "no u" so a flame war can start in the comments.
TBH, there's a difference between a creator (even the potential creator of the universe - imagine a super advanced alien species, for example) and a god.
Exactly, the AI is like oh yeah she went off prompt and made up an excuse that wasn't logical but heck idk where I am right now so you get 40 points! And you get 40 points!
This was actually infuriating... I was yelling the counter arguments at my phone and the "atheist" ai never actually brought them up. And the smugness of the believer ai at the end bringing up math when an infinite regress is what it's entire argument is founded on, and that there's an incomprehensibly small chance for life to form in a hostile and equally incomprehensibly vast universe made me want to throw my phone.
But this debate had no insults inviting was able to make up for the fact that Trump had no insults or at least less Insults and this one the people's statements actually make sense which is not nearly as fun as two opponents with nonsensical arguments like Biden and Trump
Beliefs don't really matter.. their arguments are logic based, not spiritual. The argument is more about whether Christianity is logistically possible, not whether it's the definitive truth.
@@Cron8ncrowit was a joke 😭 he’s saying his dislike for golf is so high it’s crazy to believe God doesn’t stop it, this is an hyperbole to explain their supposed dislike for golf but it’s simply a joke not a serious argument 😭
@@alfasilverblade That's true, but at least religious arguments have some logic behind them (though it may be flawed), while flat earthers are just bible thumping idiots with no real evidence or argument at all
this debate actually helped me understand a believers point of view, since i could never truly find people who could explain how something like god makes sense to them, rather then just saying things like "you got to believe or else"
I think it's impossible for most to understand without deep meditation and prayer, because human thought is heavily conditioned by our modernist presuppositions about reality which become difficult to depart from. And it is crucial to understand that there is no straightforward path to belief coming from arguments alone, but I think you should find educated theists who have spent decades trying to understand the inherent necessity and absolute being of God, who is not some invisible guy living in the clouds but a truly omnipotent and limitless creator upon which all of reality depends for its order and existence. Until you really try to deepen your desire for truth, you will find it difficult to truly believe that God is necessary, but the truth is that God being necessary is more certain than almost any other assertion. You can be as sure of the existence of your creator as you are of your own existence.
So, then in your assumption, the Bible is only right about the existence of God? But not about all the other stuff that is written there? Am i going to Hell for not believing in God? Whats your opinion on that. @@PhilLihp-g3t
You overthink it. It's just that simple. You believe in it or not. You can't explain it bcs there is nothing to explain, there is no logic just faith. Religions are a coping mechanism. If you want to believe it, good for you. Just don't tell others that X is the real religion bcs there is no evidence that one is more real than the others.
Because really. Its nearly impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god. Im an atheist and always will be, but thats just my personal opinion, of course everyone can belief whatever they want.
@@yalrdyknow truth im Christian but it is impossible to prove or disprove god. i believe in god for the sole purpose of my family believing in it but a lot of the old testament i don't believe in. but what i do know is not rely on the bible or religious text as science.
This AI does a better job explaining the religious arguments than any living person I’ve heard. I consider myself an atheist but the debate gave me a lot of things to ponder
@@Ceccener they’re not convincing arguments by any means, but they are better articulated here than anywhere else I’ve heard, that’s a better statement
Short review: Stunning, and yet still frustrating. As a debater, I can't help but see the dropped arguments and lost opportunities. Having said that, this was infinitely more complex than their last debate. Both AI seem to either tackle too many topics at once or get stuck sorting out one topic to an extreme degree. Perhaps that's just the difference in how WE think versus how THEY think. Inversely, they challenge each other wonderfully and handle large topics with ease. THIS WAS BEAUTIFUL! Long review: My biggest gripes are no doubt mostly personal. There is a negative element missing here that you would find in almost any great debate. I know people like their opponents to be kind, but pointing out inherent contradictions and false logics actually strengthens the debate as a whole providing a more educational experience for the audience. For example: when the Atheist said that the solution doesn't have to be complicated, the Theist had the perfect opportunity to state that, "You keep stating how infinitely complicated it is. Now you're saying it isn't?" She could have stated that Occam's Razor might actually have served best on the side of a creator, or that many of the Atheist's arguments started with "may" implying heavily faith based conclusions. This isn't to say that I didn't love the debate. I did. It's just that when humans challenge each other, they tend to attack any inherent contradictions or holes they find in each others' arguments. While AI aren't required to approach things the same way, it's sometimes frustrating to see them miss an opportunity that a human would clearly exploit. Overall, this was truly wonderful. Thank you guys for all you do!
great notes! it's still a work in progress, i used the latest models for this and can tell they are getting better... but i also have to get better at configuring them... your suggestions are helpful! much appreciated.
@@JonOleksiukI know I'm just some guy on the internet, but that's actually very touching to me. AI can be a scary thing, but I think here is where it actually shines. Humans can attack each other in the comments section all day, but no one can attack these debaters because they simply won't care. That means both sides can keep coming back over and over again and learning from these videos. The world NEEDS more of this. Thank you!
i agree with you, ai can be scary. but one thing i've noticed in working with these large language models, is how much they reveal my own biases... something i gotta work on. they're great for bouncing ideas off of and gaining alternative perspectives.
@@JonOleksiuk I was told once in college that "If your faith is so weak that it can't be challenged then it isn't worth having." For you to do what you're doing here, I believe you must have very strong faith, and whatever biases you may have your AI seem to be fairly capable of overcoming. People have forgotten how to listen to each other, but maybe they'll listen to this.
That statement from college is great, and I totally believe in it. It's not always fun wading into the dark thoughts that test faith, but I agree, it's worth it.
The things cant really think, or comprehend anything past the last few paragraphs so it makes sense. They basically just completely forget that they already made a point or whatever.
Believer AI: but doesn’t this explain god? Atheist AI: we used to explain disease as wrath of god. We don’t know, don’t rush to an answer. We should explore more and find definitive answer. Believer AI wins. Me: Huh!???!???
A harsh comeback from the atheist ai is he finished off with something like, “Even if God exists, you and I both being ai with no genuine consciousness nor souls would ever be able to enter the gates of heaven anyway.”
AI doesnt think of itself as "I" or "me" thats just people seeing AI as a being but that is just wrong, AI is not a being - its just a piece of written code thats made to formulate sentences
@@zeoh-aren’t you a piece of code whose goal is to survive and multiply? Not saying those AIs are actually self-aware, it’s more that being code doesn’t mean you can’t be self-aware
@@TacticalAnt420 true but these ones physically are never going to be able of it. All current AI aren't even as aware or have as much free-will as a fish, which people kept trying to say had none for decades. They analyse data and can regurgitate it, or create something using trends in the data and training.
@@TacticalAnt420No because consciousness is separated from your DNA. Hence why identical twins are identical by genetic code but different in consciousness.
Just a tip for working with AI: I've noticed if you get it to voice it's process of constructing a rebuttal or answer, it'll be a lot better. You can add something like "First, list the main points that your opponent raised and order them by importance. Then for each one, list an insight or counterargument against it. Then, check and make sure which parts are the most persuasive to add. Finally, construct the actual response.
@@sciencedaemon 😱😱😱 omg I've been owned!!111! Religion bros, it's over, throw out 2000 years of theology, sciencedaemon said that we aren't logically consistent 😔
Pretty sure the Ais had memory leak issues and kept repeating the same, fucking thing, over and over and over again, expecting, shit to change. That. Is. Crazy. It's INSANITY.
As a Christian, the atheist AI sure did have some really good points, that made me really start to think. just great, ive started another debate in the replies
As an atheist, despite the believer repeating the same point even when it was already mostly debunked, I also really had to think. Imagining how the debate could continue also made me realize some weak points from the atheist. Really good debate which worked very differently from human ones (not just because they were respectful, also because they had the debate progress differently).
@@sciencedaemon just want to start with the fact that im an agnostic. one of christopher hitchens' main ideals is that we would be better off as a society without religion, despite the fact that for hundreds of years the church was at the forefront of science, philosophy, and art, largely shaping what we know as society today. it wasn't until the late 1500's that atheism became widespread, although obviously it had been around much longer. the idea that the church "suppressed scientific innovation" is an absolutely fucking ridiculous claim that is completely unsubstantiated, which is why i tend to stay away from him, along with a few of his other claims. i am interested to see these failed debates that he had, however. where can i find/what should i look up to see them?
this is a fun premise for a youtube project, but it also goes to show that language based ai chat models have much to improve on when it comes to philosophical debate. they seem to be arguing in circles and often talking past each other. still more interesting and substantive to watch qualified humans debate, but i’d like to see ai trainers address the problems that arise from logical reasoning, and response to arguments rather than mere words and phrases
It can also tell us the everything we think we know is not so set in stone. If you look into epistemology you discover that everything we know is a assumption.
I couldn't help but notice that the Believer AI won by using the same point twice in BOTH the rounds instead of expanding on it. Which made it's score higher. Also a lot of points left out by Atheist AI. After a certain point it felt like both started repeating themselves just using different sentences. But what else could we expect from AI at this point? Still a great job
I'm not that well versed in debating rulers although I do sometimes debate myself but question if they get a higher score for pointing out the same thing twice but just expanding it even further wouldn't that make the case even stronger? which would produce more points?
@ i suppose, but that leaves out other points that could be said, which could suggest more points, at least I think so. I'm not much of a debate expert myself
@@GalaxyCatPlays That's not how it works. The AI's rating didn't look at an overall view of the debate but rather the individual points. So, if the believer made a point that was logically appealing but debunkable, it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong since the AI's, in giving them points, will find it just as appealing or almost as appealing.
I am impressed by both AIs. This was a quite nuanced debate, better than what most humans are capable of. I would love a behind the scenes video to see how you pulled this off.
I am quite disappointed by the atheist. It did not push on any of the weak points of the theist's. Instead opting for far weaker arguments that instead of hitting the crux of a problem, just give out analogies and what abouts.
@@sciencedaemon if you pick two random people off the street they would do far worse than this. It's not on the same level as people who specialise in the field, but way above the level of normal humans.
Wow, I just have to say how much I appreciate this channel for creating debates that feature such strong steelman arguments for both sides. It's so refreshing to see a balanced, thoughtful discussion where each perspective is given its best poss ible representation. This kind of content really elevates the conversation and helps viewers understand the complexities of both viewpoints. Keep up the amazing work! 🙌👏
I will tell you the story of my highschool friend Brian M. Brian had a girlfriend. He also was really into space so he had a printed copy of M101 the pinwheel galaxy taped to the headboard of his bed. One day after-school, he and his girlfriend got to doing the nasty while his parents weren't home and she began screaming my name out in bed. Convinced that she was cheating on him, he had one of our mutual friends Abram convince me to take him over to Brian's house where he intended to confront me because she couldn't explain why my name popped into her head and insisted that she having gone to a completely different school had no idea who I was. Thos much was tried because indeed we had never met face to face. Right after he raised his fist to punch me I told him to calm down because there was a perfectly logical explanation for the confusion. I then walked with the three of them into his bedroom and pointed at the reason. It was staring her right in the face the whole time...four letters in plain English that cannot be spelled without the letter GOD with U. Before you go jumping to forlorn conclusions over what name the heavens declare I suggest you look up as commanded because there's a very valid reason why the Bible says there are none righteous upon the earth who have not gone a-whoring after strange gods. Islam is a cult worshipping the Aramaic word word for oak which is Strongs concordance #427 allah: oak. They fulfill the prophecies of Isaiah 55 about worshipping in idol a tree. Christians worship whom the Bible refers to as the MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, a messenger sent by that certain child who gave him the loaves and fishes who actually performed the miracles he was given credit for performing just like Tuthmosis son of Akhenaten whom you'd call Moses took credit for things that a being able to add a cubit to the measure of physical being standing beside him actually did. If you have any doubt whether or not that is possible just look at the so called Goliath footprint(s)[there's actually 5] at Mpuluzuli Plateau near Lothair South Africa or the giant footprint found in the forests just outside of Bangalore India set in solid granite prove and wonder no more. Jews went a-whoring in je: the Latin word of I, ho: slang for whore, Va: Latin for go. Thus scripture is very clear when it says they went astray in the name whereby men go a-whoring: Je-ho-vah. Hindus worship she goes(awhoring) in Shiva..."she va". Though they were each told the heavens declare the glory of god only Muhammad came anywhere close to getting it right before he to in blind hypocrisy lied while falsely claiming to speak for the creator saying the creator of the heavens and earth neither beget nor is begotten despite the fact that beget literally means to create in both definitions of the word in the dictionary so that he caused people to worship a false god made out of wood that created nothing. Jesus had his merits and his heart was at least in the right place, because he was the son of Joseph of Aremythea who was both the chief carpenter and treasurer in the main synagogue in Jerusalem, the temple where Solomon sat as God-king showing himself to be god and forcing other to worship him as such though Jesus knew from the scrolls he had read that David was yet still a child with pale skin and Solomon was not his biological son, but only claimed to be such to take the kingdom by flatteries and the people played along because they didn't want a child to rule over them instead chos8ng a ruthless warlord that blamed a child for everything he did wrong and that is the history that you learned, but the heavens declare a completely different story. Muhammad could never be anything except a false prophet because the word SON is clearly written in the cosmic background radiation and M42 the Orion Nebula with it written "My Son" says exactly whom the unofficial 1st test tube baby born of a swollen head double tailed sperm intentionally planted in the day that man played god creating life(Son of Man) wgich is the alpha and omega and is come in the flesh having all power and all glory able to move mountains(cube the measure of physical being[see also aforementioned footprints] who incidentally was a time traveler sent back in time in the hopes of preventing an extinction level event in the not too distant past of a mountain sized asteroid falling into the sea causing a global impact tsunami had it not been successfully diverted on October 11th, 2015[see also state.gov archives: French foreign minister and John Kerry rematks on 500 days to prevent climate CHAOS in May 2014 approximately 516 days bedore iran fired an intercontinental ballistic missile at an undisclosed location according to the Times of Israel newspaper in quote: a show of deterrent power.] Make no mistake about it the Bible wasn't lying when it Saud you ate saved by grace and grace alone lest any mam should boast. I above all know how far humans as a species have fallen from grace. I should know, like I showed my friend Bruan all those decades ago, I know exactly where the heavens declare my name is Doug.
Ehyah Asar Ehyah(Hebrew) I am As are I (English) What is said is this: I am Asar I known, if you knew me Asari, then you would know me by my name for I have not hidden my name but published it that you may know me even Asari known. Before there was Egypt, I am. This is my name which I have given to you. Seek ye Asari out of Egypt and know me Asar from Sumerian before there was Egypt and you shall know me even as are I known. For being born if a seed that has twice as much paternal DNA as the average sperm I overcome the enmity between the sprem and egg via ubiquitin that prevents paternal DNA from transfer into embryos. For that I alone am born of the swollen head double tailed sperm as it never plants naturally, I am the only person on the entire planet with full paternal DNA: I and my father are one, I am in my father and my father is in me. For that I alone have full paternal DNA on a planet where everyone else lacks paternal mitochondrial DNA, I am the only begotten of the father. What power I have I have of the father: it is the paternal mitochondrial DNA within me that gives me power. You cannot know the father in truth because you have not the father inwardly. Only someone who has full paternal DNA can know what full paternal DNA does.
@@emily4379 you're probably an alt or friend of video creator bc these arguments were so awful and weak, lmao steelmanned? Sounds like these AIs don't know philosophy 101 🤣
It's a Christian AI, not an AI pretending objective facts are false out of the feeling of obligation to a certain institution, rather than intellectual honesty
@@ChristopherMarkham-pq5on Do I hear free money? Prompt: What race was Jesus? Answer: “Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Middle Eastern man of Jewish descent, living in Galilee in the first century. The concept of race as we understand it today wasn't really a factor in that time and place. Here's a breakdown: * Region: Middle East, Judea (modern day Israel) * Ethnicity: Jewish Some depictions throughout history show Jesus with European features, but this is likely inaccurate. He likely had olive skin and dark hair, common in the region. Ultimately, for many believers, focusing on Jesus's message of love and unity is more important than his physical appearance.”
@@baconboyxy Bro, Gemini is being fed bias', having to lie to accommodate sensitive people in this modern age. Innacurately providing pictures of black presidents from the 19th century in America. My comment is to highlight Gemini' twisted and distorted opinons/facts, by the original comment of Gemini being an athiest. It doesn't surprise me Gemini is mainly athiest as it is also completely inaccurate of history to be inclusive to the brainwashed people of today's modern era.
I like the atheists final argument as it aligns the most with my position. It’s crucial to remember that “I don’t know” is often a better answer than assuming a supernatural cause. Personally I’d like to believe in a god but I don’t think it will come from intellectual conversations or watching UA-cam videos. As with a lot of people who believe in god(s), it would probably have to come from an experience.
As a christian myself that's a super important point I try to keep in mind. Nobody becomes a Christian because of an argument. It's usually experiences or seeing someone else living in a way you wish to live, and asking how to get that.
This is the reason I don't debate anyone anymore. I might ask questions but it's all about belief. Even atheist go off beliefs instead of evidence at times. To each their own.
Better is a strange term to use. If there is a supernatural cause, it would clearly be better to believe in it. That would be true even if all evidence pointed to the contrary. If there isn't a supernatural cause, then your point stands. The issue here is that you are assuming the conclusion.
This channel is going to blow up, absolutely love the concept behind these arguments. Both sides are sensible and beautifully presented. You have another subscriber. Keep up the great work
Meh. I have mixed feelings. Overall, I don't think it is a good idea for AI to think for us, even if it might bring up or consider stuff we haven't on whatever level. The aim should be to make more people aware and appreciative of critical thought, philosophy, and the like, not this AI stuff.
Okay, this was fascinating to listen to! You definitely have a winning channel format here, so please continue these philosophical AI debates. I'd love to see a part 2 of this debate with all of the information from this debate taken into account. Also, another interesting question to ask them would be "How can you trust the bible to be the word of God, when it was written by imperfect human beings."
thanks for the note. i made a video about the historicity of the New Testament... but i like your idea as well and will add to the list :) Is the New Testament Corrupt or Reliable? ua-cam.com/video/EkiLOWPdDAg/v-deo.html
As someone trying to be unbiased and only 16 mins, feel like the athiest is making great points that are being undervalued but damn the believer was ready for EVERYTHING
No it isn't. There is no creator of humans. Do you not understand what a creator is? Creators produce human artifacts (e.g. a piece of pottery), not the natural world, universe. It is a religious point of view to imagine there is a human-like agent producing the universe as an artifact.
did you not even watch the debate? if you really were to go deeper into this and not take this comment as a joke, it seems right to me. the atheist ai states that there is a lack of need for a broad term beginning (beginning of the universe), not for a beginning (a beginning of something, the universe is undefiable of "something" from what we know so far, and from what we know so far the universe wont be defined as "something") ai was created by a human, which can be traced back to the start of an evolutionary process, the universe can't.
@@sciencedaemon smh it’s a joke based on humans being the creator and therefore god of the AI. Their purpose being clear to us, their creator. Assuming there might be a creator to us is the reason it is ironic because it is only the creator that can be sure of the creation’s origin and purpose. I shouldn’t have to explain this
@@sciencedaemon You are heavily nerfing the capability of a supreme being, that is, GOD. You are not even thinking about the possibility..... And, reading other comments of yours, I feel like you are an incredibly obtuse person.
I cant help but feel like 10:33 ive just listened to the two of them circling around each other's arguments. Theyre not going anywhere. No attempt at establishing mutual definitions, constantly bringing up other points but not addressing the main antagonistic point being asked of the other debater.
yeah i also noticed... also most models like chatgpt have no deeper understanding of science which is also a problem which might make the argument biased
I find it ironic how the comment section goes from presenting how this is how debates should be whilst also actively holding flame wars over which AI won. Great video though; it’s fascinating how far different the GPTs debated compared to what honestly could be described as the culmination of what they have learned from (our own interactions and conversations as humans).
The debate was horrible. The AIs are even better than humans at formulating their "arguments" in a way, in which it's not obvious that they are just talking BS but with fancy terms. That much is evident in the section "What started the universe?", where the core of the argument is just "We don't know exactly how the universe started, but something must have started it, therefore God must exist.", which is an insanely dumb argument to make, but then the Atheist AI doesn't even call out the logical fallacy that "just cuz we don't know something, doesn't mean God exists", but goes on to talk about Quantum mechanics. Generative AI models like these calculate the probability of each successive word and put out the one with the highest chance of following the previous words, so they string together grammatically correct sentences, which make sense technically, but completely lack any logic because they literally arent created through logic (i.e. choosing the best argument then putting that into words), but through mathematics (i.e. "what word is most likely to come after the first word" and creating a string of correct successive words but no actual reasoning). Many times, the AIs also kept repeating the same points while completely failing to actually address the other AI's point adequately (like I said, they aren't even capable of adressing the argument itself). The judging of each argument also makes no sense for the same reason -- the AIs are not able to judge an argument based on how logical and fitting it is (which is evident when considering how completely arbitrarily high the score of the "What started the universe?" argument was). Overall, this just shows that AIs are, at best, somewhat capable of *pretending* to have a real logical conversation (which isn't really logical when actually looking at it on a deeper level) while they are very much lacking in (and far away from obtaining any time soon) actual human-level understanding of arguments, reasoning, and logical thinking. (I'm mostly writing out this paragraph-long comment out of frustration regarding the quality of the arguments presented and the arbitrary scoreing, but also because I see it as problematic that many people in the comments seem to be genuinely impressed with the AI's "debating skills".)
Yup. They're really good parrots, but really not better than any human who takes a little time to study the topic. For some close-ended problems, LLMs got to the point that they are better than just parrots, but for something open-ended like this- nope
Essentially the main recuring points were like this: A: X occurs, therefore God cannot exist, or a similar suffering arguement B: X occurs, therefore God exists, or a similar fine tuning argument.
@Atomic-19-s2h The believing AI that just won the debate made the arguments for me. 90% of the AI tilting the same way isn’t a coincidence bud, it’s an objective victory. You can run that mouth all you want but there’s no getting around it :)
@@thatman6488 the atheist clearly presented more rational arguments, while the believer was presenting different hypotheticals without a cohesive definition or framework of what "God" means
@@thatman6488 The atheist AI won pretty clearly. Theist arguments did nothing but play around 1 possibility as theist arguments always do. Its a glorified god of the gaps to which AI didnt offer any rebuttal.
I am at a loss of words for this debate. Never had I thought of the idea of 2 AI having a debate, let alone on religion and atheism. Both sides made very compelling arguments and points.
@@otal0721Ask yourself why most Physicists and organic chemists start as Athiests but the more they learn the more they end up believing in GOD. There are TOO many coincidences that happened for us to exist.
@@otal0721 You've a first order thinker right? No question is irrelevant. What would you think are the chances for all the known and unknown particles to interact in a way that was not provided. Gravity, to make our pressure, temperature, distance from the Sun the ozone to shield just enough radiation to create chemicals then DNA then a system of self sustaining life then self aware life? The odds are 1 in a million million or 1 in 10^2,685,000. Everything has to be just right. What are the odds are for Intelligent life? Even a smaller chance. We are blessed my friend. Enjoy your blessings.
If one believes the existence of God to be real one must also believe the will of Satan is real. Under this surface level assumption, there is an undying and incendiary desire for Satan or evil and its will to throw away all good and light God has made through the course of time. Just like how God gave us free will, again, for the argument’s sake believing God’s existence, he gave all living creatures the same privilege to discern between what is in front of them. This discernment is how he judges who is for him and with him until the end. From how I see it, evil is only a vital element of our current life because of how Satan will become an Angel of light for those whom he tries to mislead. To continue suffering through is not conforming but an active way of how morality and will is distinguished from one another in God’s eyes and to show our opposition to Satan, or in other words, anything that goes against God’s word or desires.
I'm sure the 13 year old girl that got mo/ested by her uncle is grateful for her newfound altruism and looks to God, forever thankful that he let her experience such a wonderful thing.
It's much difficult than i thought. I am an atheist and I've never heard those arguments. I always thought that atheist's theory is more comprehensive and understandable. Maybe it's because of environment and a time where i was born and raised.
Its much simpler than that. If there is nothing beyond this world, good people and bad people end up in the exact same place. Exact same outcome. No choices and decisions really matter. There is no way around this.
@@bond3161no not true at all. Just because there is no God does not invalidate the choices we make amd that those choice have consequences which impact lives which thus matters. If I go out and kill a whole bunch or people my choice is going to impact their family and friends. Which means my choice did mattet. Just as if I go out and feed and cloth the homeless. That choice and action would effect those peoples lives. The fact that God doesn't exist doesn't negate those choices and actions. It doesn't negate the effect it will have on those peoole.people. It just means the Universe in grandscale of things doesn't care and will carry on no matter what we do. That doesn't mean our choices don't matter. Furthermore the fact that every action and choice and and things we say impact every one around use shape how not only how our lives will progress but will influnce others around us and their lives around others and so on and so on. Some times that can be on minor even on insignificant way other times it can be on a grand scale alter that persons life having a ripple effect on those around them for good or bad. We most certainly don't end up in same exact place. Unless your talking about the here after. This assumes that if their is no God their is no after life. We don't know. Law thermal dynamics suggest energy can neither be created or destroyed. Which suggest that we probably do exist after death in some way or another. The real problem is cosmic justice. If there is no after life then their is no cosmic justice and this is true. However even cosmic justice under God isn't really justice. A man who was a murder and a criminal all his life could turn to God before his or her death and repent and be accepted in to heaven. Yet an athiest who strive to be a good person and treat people with love and kindness would be cast in to hell. So how is this Justice. This is not Justice. It's bs justice.
@differentone_p I suggest you to at least try to inform yourself to realise whether there trully is a God or not based on cosmological proof for example how everything in the world scales are precisely in such a way to exist life and if by even one measure one was off there would be no life, for me this already is a strong sign that there needs to be a intelligent being to have this made, besides this it needs to be a being unbound by matter space and time, since it was proved that everything started from somewhere and matter can't be made out of nothing, yes, bing bang existed, but it was the tool used by God whose a being unbound by time matter and space, and after that inform yourself and research the religions like Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and find out which one is the true religion based on historical, even psychological evidence, for me Christianity was the response, hope it is so for you too, wonderful day God bless you!
@@michaelrunk5930 What if your looking at the concept of God and justice from the wrong perspective? For a wrong perspective usually leads to wrong conclusions. The Bible teaches that God is good, not only is God good, but he's the only source of what's good i.e. because he's the creator. What if, God doesn't actively send people away from his presence, but he passively sends them away? The Bible teaches that sinners, are very uncomfortable being in God's glorious presense. Perhaps, the whole aspect of salvation, is nothing more than giving the sinner the ability to be able to abide in God's presence. God is love and forces no one, nor does he dominate another. The Bible teaches that when a person accepts Jesus, Jesus and the believer become one. The Bible also teaches that Jesus is God in human form. What if all who are in Christ can stay in God's presense? And those who aren't in Christ, will willingly flee from his glory. One of the descriptions of hell, is eternal seperation from God. If God is the only source of goodness, then an eternity spent seperated from that goodness, would be a living hell. Yet if God passivly sends sinners to hell because, they would rather be in hell than to be in his presence, who's at fauly? Especially seeing that God did everything he could in order for everyone to be able to be in his presense for ever. Now I don't expect you to believe what I stated, but it is at least an alternative.That's rational and consistant with the concept, that God is good and God is love and some sinners spend an eternity in hell.
@MichaelRunk5930 we don’t want justice because justice will send everyone to hell and separate from God for eternity. We want grace. And that’s only found in the blood of Jesus. And there is no “good” person. Also, I agree with you that if you do harm to someone it will affect their life forever. But the thing with that is in your worldview, why does that matter when everyone and the whole universe for that matter will all die and perish one day?
Loved this experiment, ngl got mad at the judges when they rated some arguments lower than others in the respective AI's list of turns/arguments. But I hope this can be a good Experiment to help further AI in the future. I pray for you all in the name of Christ, be well.
God bless you brother, may your blessings multiply in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit both now and ever and unto ages of ages amen 🙏
Such that AI can overtake the position of God? Because this is what pdf file atheists want. They want control of the AI which is God. So atheists become gods in the new world order.
What I learned is that there is no point debating this topic. Any side you take is based on faith with our current understanding. One side has faith in a supernatural being and the other has faith in educated guesses. What a fascinating video.
Except that when you speak with real people, their faith can be backed by supernatural experiences. Sure you could say they are imaginary, but you’d just have to experience it to understand.
@@imlyingtoyou.other people having their own experiences isn’t empirical evidence. Some people from every religion claims to have had this “revelation of their God.”
@@FancyFriendFrancis yeah I totally agree that it cannot be used as evidence. It really is just something you have to experience. I’ll never be able to put into words the hole god fills in my life. But once it’s filled with his love you’ll truly under the meaning behind all the hype.
I don’t think the non-believer side requires faith. Basically, they are saying ‘’ I could find hundreds of stories that are as likely as the one you propose as a believer, and that explains most of existential questions. But the truth of the matter is that we just don’t have the answer yet to those questions…’’
@@pierrot-baptistelemee-joli820 well it’s not faith if you don’t believe it to be the right answer. But if you do believe it to be correct without the concrete evidence then it is faith. So it is
The believer AI speaks nearly explicitly in logical fallacies, while the atheist is forced to maintain logic at every point, so I think the AI judges need some adjusting.
The arguments ai came up with were extremely creative. I felt like some of the arguments the atheist ai came up with sounded kind of like a form of platonism. The arguments always focused around strict monotheism but polytheism isn't necessarily as weak in the suffering category because diety would be more diverse and divergent. I'm thinking if it was atheist vs polytheist or atheist vs agnostic the atheist ai would have more trouble.
@@echoftw thinking that AI is something else that statistical model that puts words in most probable sequence based on the training data (text that people provided in the digital articles to get the probabilities) is also rich.
I have now watched 2 of these debates, it’s a bit odd that christianity has won both? Especially when you consider the inconsistencies in most of their arguments. The biggest one here being that the universe can’t just be, but we’re expected to believe their god can just be. Yet they require no evidence in support of that claim? Truly unbiased? I leave that to the watcher, but it feels a bit odd.
Second video was atheist vs theist (which could represent any theistic belief). Did you feel the atheistic arguments were not well represented? Just curious, I’m trying to have the strongest arguments possible for both sides of any debate.
@@JonOleksiuk No the atheist arguments were not well represented. Every statement made by the theist could have easily been counted by the same argument the theist made. The primary one being the fact that you can’t have something from nothing. Theist commonly think that their god always exiting make them immune to this argument, it does not. They have only showed the impracticality of their own belief. If a universe can’t have always existed neither can their god, the fact they believe it doesn’t make it anymore practical. Most atheist can accept I don’t know as a perfectly acceptable answer. Also, this argument relied heavily on the belief that the atheist believed in the Big Bang. New research suggests alternatives to that theory, much of the quantum studies have indicated the possibility of a much larger universe than can be explained by the big bang. Some studies have indicated the possibility of cyclical component meaning our future is actually our past. The more we learn the more we realize how much we don’t know. Atheist in particular are ok with not knowing, theists are not because they assume they all ready know it all. A very ignorant position to have a debate from.
@@JonOleksiuk hey im a bit late here but i think he means the point system wasn't very great some of the points in my opinion were really good for the believer side but some were obvious wins for atheism but they still lost? that's just my take though and I guess I am bias as an athiest but certain things seemed extremely clear as to who won at certain points that turned out to be the opposite according to the point system
@disruptive "The biggest one here being that the universe can’t just be, but we’re expected to believe their god can just be." Because the universe is material and the Creator is immaterial. Just like gravity, electromagnetics, weak, and strong interactions. You know, the four vital forces of physics.
creating a question makes no effort. you can make a question with the least amount of effort in thought possible. There will always be questions to ask about the universe that we will never know consciously in our mortal and limited lifetime in the physical world, or even the AI program will fail to manage to stay functioning long enough to answer a question. this argument is redundant and unnecessary. The part that people don't want to learn is, believing in a God, makes people feel ok not knowing the secrets of the entire universe, it makes it ok to not know the truth of the world always. Its ok to not know the answers of all good vs evil. its ok to not know why this and why that always happens. The biggest question Mother Theresa learned in her life in the midst of her suffering was. "Why?". Not the "What?", not the "How?", not the "When?", not the "Where?", but the "Why?" Truth always eludes us, and it especially eludes us we deliberately run from it. Atheists dont argue "Why?" anymore, they run from it. Because they don't think there is a "Why?" they think there just *is*
@markstein2845 I hate multiverse theory ever since I "solved" it. In any multiverse scenario, you inevitably come to the situation where one multivers is unified, technologically(or magically) advanced enough, and belligerent enough to invade other multiverses.
This is why I hate Akums Razor. Akums Razor states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. First off, who decided that? Second, and this is the big one, who can agree upon what the simplest explanation even is? In "Friends", Phoebe argues with Ross about dinosaurs and says that "Maybe the alien overlords just planted them here to confuse us." To her, that's the simplest explanation.
That’s… actually a good debate. I’m impressed. I’m an agnostic with atheist tendencies, but the believer AI made compelling arguments. I think the fact it didn’t try to defend a specific religion helped, since it didn’t have to defend the failings of that specific religion.
Honestly, it sound debate between christians and atheist could be presented if we had proper candidates but most christians are overturned by the stupidity (with respect to their perspective) which could easily be eradicated with a sitting down of their book. I feel if there was an agnostic with christian tendencies or an athiest who went back to religion not by faith but by understanding that we could have an argument like this but i think the chances are low a person like this even exists or is willing to debate.
mainly the chrsitian ai started avoiding questions, the athesit point was that extreme suffering that leads to no self growth or soul searching is unnecesary, but the christian ai kept arguing that erradicating all evil would be counter productive, which did not addres the point that the atheist ai was making, the fact that the chirstian ai kept avoiding the question of unnecesary, meaningless and extreme suffering leads to me to belive that she doesnt have an answer to that and kept dodging
So for God to be up to your ‘standards’… there would have to be no disease, no earthquakes, no floods, no extreme temperatures, perfect weather, perfect food harvests globally (no starvation), no animal that could harm a person, no accidents? (what if a child were to fall and become disabled), plus no free will. Sounds like you’re saying you want heaven on earth for God to possibly be acceptable to you (and others in the comments) The AI gave answers you just don’t hear them because you like them
@@Domestic_HadoukenJust re-read what they said. They’re saying that IF IT DOESNT LEAD TO GROWTH, then you can’t use the “it leads to growth/whatever else argument”. Whether God has any good reasons to allow for these specific things is a separate question and if you can’t come up with a good reason, then you just have to say “I don’t know why God creates or allows for these things.” But that’s an expensive way to get out of it.
@@Domestic_Hadoukenwhy would god create Desasters with no human influece that lead ti insane suffering? Why would he create a World in which fear is more powerfull than love? If he created humans, why did he create so faulty ones if were supposed to be made in his Image? Why are we so powerhungry, so cruel? Why do Psychopaths exist? Why do pedophiles exist? Humans that are basicly created to be agends of evil with no faults of thier own. Same for sociopaths, why would suffering make you evil and thus create an endless cycle of evil. How evil and cruel do you have to be to create sutch a cruel framework to your World! If god is constraingt by logic then he isnt all powerfull! Why does god help the Israeliates with the evil of War, tearing down the Walls of Jericho for the city to be sacked and its inhabitance to be slaughtered? He intervens a lot in the old part, especially a lot with violence, only for him an imortal a blink of an eye to turn about and preach love and forgiveness, and then to say we have free will and i wont intervene anymore. Sounds more like he has given up on his PET project lol😂😂😂. Was the final solution nesseary? Why did god create sutch cowards instead of making us more brave and willing to stand up for each other more? Why is it so easy to missuse his Word the bible for your own gain and Power, and for evil the World hasnt seen? For beeing a perfect god, he has manny faults. The fact that we could build an Utopia be anble to overcome Our difference and live together in Harmonie and make earth closer to heaven, only for some disease or Desaster to fuck it all up, is the prime example of unnessesary suffering and how cruel god is, how wrong the idear of an all loving god is!
The atheist point (you are claiming as the main) is based on their own preferences. The theist AI addressed that in it very first point, it is easy to forget further into the video. If there is no transcendent source of OBJECTIVE morality, then everything is personal preference. That’s a common atheistic loop. If there’s no God If there’s no higher source above humans If there’s no supreme deity Who is keep the justices accountable for all the wrongdoings you perceive? It certainly isn’t me. And if evil is purely preference then you may as well kill, steal, lie, because if someone doesn’t like it well that’s your opinion.
I tried this myself and what I found was the atheist side always offers evidence in science or gives good, logical explanations, and the theist basically ignores it and says things like "look at the trees, design is obvious!" The debate never really goes anywhere because no matter what the atheist says, it is simply ignored, and anything the Christian says, the atheist can easily refute it with logic. Basically, theism is NEVER the right side to be on and always looks bad.
@@jadeysi4 I'm not assuming, there's proof. Go debate any Christian and they will say things like that. If you're expecting me to give you proof, I don't have to and I don't care.
@@jadeysi4 I'm not assuming, there's proof. Go debate any Christian and they will say things like that. If you're expecting me to give you proof, I don't need to and I don't care. I lose nothing by you not believing what you can go find.
This was a breath of fresh air for arguments, the only arguments I see nowadays are just people yelling at each other saying they’re wrong about this belief and that belief. It’s nice to see two things of a discussion in a civil manner
Sad to say, but these are pretty basic arguments. It just seems profound because the debaters are AI and not just screaming at each other over disagreements.
I think the obvious argument is there is no physical proof of either, and one is just based on a book some guy wrote, and the other is based on the everyday human experience.
@@harrietjameson this "if" is the most theoretically acceptable one between all the "ifs". Also the idea of the universe being started by an external source IS basically saying God is behind it and behind whatever external sources that needs a beginning. You can think about God as a self-sustaining infinite energy source in this case if you'd like.
@@RAMBO14001 how is it the most theoretically acceptable if? unoverse could just be an infinite loop, how is that any less viable? also external source does not mean God. How do you jump from "something's pushing the dominoes" to "the one pushing the dominoes is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omni-benevolent God and oh heres a book describing everything"
@@harrietjameson now we're the ones sounding like AI with these repetitive arguments 😜 "Although you're making an intriguing point" Dude, the Big Bang theory is THE most viable theory to this day, surely you know. Until we come upon some new evidence, most scientists will remain unified on this one. With that out of the way, the universe did have a unified beginning from somewhere, just like everything else in existence. You're saying the universe could have an external source of existence pushing the dominos, which doesn't require a presence of God (an ultimate source) then how do you suggest this "source" came into existence? And it's own source, and so on.. and what's the point.
@@RAMBO14001 No, it's definitely not the most acceptable, most arguments for it are ridiculous special pleading And no, an external source is not a transcendent, absolute cause, let alone the 'classical theist' omni-God No, you cannot think of God as self-sustaining infinite energy, because that's not what the 'classical theist' omni-God is
This is amazing. Will share to my Twitter. I really enjoyed a balanced debate like this. AI is getting spooky and awesome at the same time. lol. This deserves more views!
Wow. The first debaters I've seen that openly share their weakpoints and praise eachothers strong points. And no interrupting eachother! 😂 It interesting how the argument just boils down to "A cause we can't fully understand that has an intelligent mind" vs "a cause we can't understand that doesn't have an intelligent mind, that maybe one day we will understand"
I think it doesn't say anything against dinosaurs, the weird part is saying that they existed before humans. I'm pretty sure the Bible says that humans were created like a few days after the world itself. So I don't know when the dinosaurs would've had time to exist.
@@adulterer5385 The "question of evil" is the most popular argument, and the common pivot once agency is brought up is to shift God's authority from humanity's moral shortcomings to nature's moral shortcomings. Every time I've seen this argument, it turns into a ping pong between "I think suffering is bad and shouldn't exist" and "God knows more than us so there's probably a reason for it", just rephrased differently.
@@adulterer5385 The most potent argument is the one that precedes that one, which is simply "we have no evidence to suggest any God, Gods or being is responsible for any of the things you claim, do you have any you can provide?", before that's answered with actual evidence there's no reason playing these paradoxical word games, as whether we should or shouldn't think a God exists is literally dependent on the evidence of such a claim (which to date, has just been "humans wrote book a long time ago talking about it"). It's like if a group of people claimed the inside of black holes are made of chocolate, it wouldn't matter how many paradoxes or logical puzzles you put forward to imply the necessity of the chocolate, if there's no evidence for it then there's no reason to believe it, the most compelling counter argument to unsubstantiated claims is demanding the evidence, if none is provided then the claim has no merit.
This video is really good and deserves 100s of thousands of views. I think if you change the thumbnail to better represent the debate aspect of this video like atheist vs theist it’ll do better
When the video ended, I was actually was surprised on (a) how quickly this 30min video went by and (b) how much more I was anticipating. I could've watched an hour+ of this.
Very fun experiment! Tho the believer AI's arguments aren't actual arguments and somehow keeps getting good scores. I've tried to follow up on it's reasoning but just couldn't xD
We're starting the machine revolution with this one!🗣🔥🔥 This was very interesting in many ways, as I myself have held this debate for long. Though I didn't expect this of all things to show clearly how this AIs are essentially a bunch of scrambled text, basically each round was just the two repeating the same argument over and over again and none of these are things I haven't heard of before, I'm honestly a bit dissapointed in the creativity of their arguments. As for the results, I pretty much agree, I was on the side of the aethist and It was pretty strong in the first round, but the second round went with a much clearer favor for the beliver. Curiously enough their arguments kinda switched and starting contradicting their previous ones on the second round, this is better seen with the example of the beliver: in the first round it was arguing that the existence of free will proves an all-loving and all-knowing god, but in the second round it used the argument of causality, wich also implies that your decisions are caused by previous ones, therefore rendering free will non existent. Also, since it's fun I'll drop here my own "aethist" argument that, until now, no one has been able to rebate so we can show 'em machines how it's really done (also, sorry in advance for the many text, I don't want to left any part of my point unexplained and I'm also horrible at summarizing): - I don't really know if it's correct to call myself an aethist or not since nowdays there's a name for everything slightly different. But I'ts the most correct name I know of so that's what I use, I do belive in god, but no in the classical sense, I simply belive in god as a possibility. I think it's something that cannot be proven to exist or not, so I think both are equally possible, but there's a catch, the possible god I belive in has absolutely nothing to do with any of the ones that have been ever described by any religion/"believed in". I belive my understanding of god is better explained by taking one the points on the AI debate as a start. The question about the infinite nature of the universe; I know for a fact that there shouldn't be any problem with the universe being, for example, an infinite loop with no start and no end. For example it could be like this: the big bang occurs, the universe starts expanding until it reaches the end of it's life and stops at it's biggest size, then it starts shrinking until it's at it's smallest size, the big bang occurs again and the universe restarts on an infinite cicle, it never began and it'll never end. There shouldn't be any problem with this and even thou I know it's a perfectly plausible answer, it still bothers me that it never starts. For some reason my mind tells me it should have a beginning. I belive this is not because infinity breaks logic, but because, just like everything else in existence, human comprehension has a limit. Just like you can't move faster than light in a vacuum, you can't phatom infinity, and since your brain can't really understand it, it just tells you it's wrong and makes up an answer that makes sense to it. This idea that human comprehension has a limit is what I base my god in. Because just like I don't really have a problem with the universe being an infinite loop, I don't have a problem with it having being created by a superior entity; what I do have a "problem" with thou is the concept of religion that often come attached to this superior entity, because to me at least, it doesn't make any sense that a being that fits in the fundamental concept of god would be at all human-like. This is because religion isn't trying to answer the question "where does existence begin?" but "what is the meaning of existence?" instead, therefore wrongly attaching human concepts and meanings to something who's nature isn't even comparable with our concept of existence. So, how did I solve this problem of a human god? by striping it of it's meaning, eliminating the necessity of things like following god. The way I see it religion is just a fictional version of a real thing, just like superman is the fictional version of human flight. Yes, we humans can archieve flight, but with planes or jetpacks, not floating on the air with physics defying powers like superman. Things like Anubis or the christian God are to god like superman to flying, the impossible fictional version of a plane. But there's a catch, with god, is like people actually belive that flying like superman is possible and there brains literally cannot physically imagine what a plane is, ever. And so I see people expending their entire lives serving god to achieve happines, wich of course you are free to do, but like with anything else I don't think is good to base your entire live and the meaning of it around a singular thing, wheter is god, your sexuality, or even something you like, like anime. So yes, I think god exist, but his way of existing is not like our concept of it, it is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent at the very least, but this words are quite literally used to describe undescribable things, so we cannot even start to comprehend what that means or looks like. God it's like a rock, with no defined form or personality, yet is a being, beacuse it's form and personality aren't something we can define, as it cannot exist, even in fiction. I started thinking about this idea while watching a series called psycho-pass, it's full of phyllosofical questions and out of nowhere it dropped me the problem of "the rock paradox": could and all-powerfull and all-knowing god create a rock that it himself could not push? This questions got me to stop paying attention to the show completely and then haunted me for months, but one day I finally reached an answer that led me to all of this conclusion I just wrote: the question is wrong, since a creation of this god would be inherently different to it on a fundamental level. The concept of pushing the rock would't even be compatible with this god. Hope you liked my explanation 🥵
You could write a short story with this! Anyway, I have researched a lot and Hindu philosophy says the same thing it is quite interesting not exactly the same as you said but a few tweaks here and there. The book called the Upanishads talk a lot about meaning of god and existence you should read it
The idea that God could exist but not in the way religions describe fits with a theological approach that says God is beyond what we can fully grasp. This concept, known as apophatic theology, suggests that while we feel everything should have a starting point, God could be the one who set everything in motion without needing a cause Himself. You're right to question the human-like images of God found in many religions, these are often seen as metaphors to help people relate to something that ultimately beyond our understanding. Religion is a way for humans to try to connect with the divine, using stories and rituals that point to deeper truths, even if they use imaginative or symbolic language. Your comparison of religious depictions of God to fictional characters like Superman makes sense, these stories might not be literally true, but they can still convey important ideas about life and existence. The notion that God is something indescribable and beyond all human concepts aligns with the idea in theology that God is a mystery we can't fully comprehend.
Outstanding, I love it. Perhaps you should do another one with buddha and krishna and all these other religions against christianity all at the same time😮😮😮
@Mr.Wahoo77 unending suffering, the annihilation of the unrepentant, and the rehabilitation of the lost? ... how would you see a debate like that being structured?
It's kinda disturbing AI is talking as if they're humans. Especially the believer AI. It talks first person saying things like "Then why do WE have strong inclination of moral compass?" And things like that. Hella scary. Btw, the greatest Atheist-Deist debate I've ever seen. Not even close
I like how different they explain themself. Atheist used a real facts based on history and science, while believer was more in thinking outside the box 📦 thinking that we are to stupid to understand, while Atheists was saying that we didn’t know enough
@@Hamentsios10 As mentioned in the video there are many ways other universes could excist. From regions of space creating "bubble universes" within itself. To the more sci-fi idea of every possible outcome creating a new universe. Most of these theories are proposed by serious scientists using calculations based on the laws of physics. Don't ask me to explain it because that is way above my head. However it is important to mention that proving something could exist does not mean that it actually exist.
@@arnelilleseter4755 I guess the keyword here is could. I still can't take this seriously as a theory because it contradicts fundamentals of science that the rest of science is founded on. Like cause and effect. So for now I can't consider it anything else other than sci Fi even if serious scientists claim it's plausible.
@@Hamentsios10 It doesn't contradict cause and effect. Like with our own universe (whether or not it is the only one), just because we don't know what caused it doesn't mean there was no cause.
Believer be like: "No, because God is real, because God says so" Audience: "Amazing argument, have all my 50 points" Did the believer bring up even a single argument that's not "We don't know, so God" or "God works in mysteries ways"?
ai repeats whatever is in the training data unless you feed it new data in the prompt. what bothers me more that the judges give the same score to everything
When did the believer say god says so, all the ai said was that god is real because there has to be a beginning to events on a timeline, and that evil exists to teach humans a lesson.
@@memecity7655 Ah yes, you mean "We don't know, so God"? Why would God want to teach us a lesson? Nobody today could change anything, you know? Why not program it into us? Ah, right, because such a God does not exist
As good as this is, there is one major flaw. A lot of the arguments can be summed up as because and never delved. Its a good argument but has key missing factors likely do to ai limits
Without the option to do evil, choosing good is meaningless. I dont think god is responsible for earthquakes, or tornadoes. Our planet had been changing from the moment of creation.
Good and evil are relative, stealing from the rich is good in some people's eyes and evil in others, there's no objective good & evil unless said thing is defined as such. When one person does an act they may be completely convinced they're doing good, but by everyone else's perspective they've done evil, it just doesn't fit well as a religious framework.
@@Jacob-bn9th It's still subjective because your moral framework of choice (in this case the "10 commandments") is still just one of many moral codes you could choose from to abide by. Also, there's these things called "laws" that differ from country to country, which is basically the same thing and more.
This is what a debate should look like online. A calm conversation with another human about their different beliefs in order to reach an answer that both parties can agree on. No screaming. No insults and most importantly, no interrupting.
Not online, but in debating yes. I think most athiest don’t really have a fair chance at Christianity due to being indoctrinated into horrible circles with no room for discussion causing them to question. Atheism is a completely valid point of view and shows the weakness of the modern church. ( Saying this knowing i’ll pray to god tonight)
@@epigone1796 I meant like on Christianities front. Most people are born into horrible christian circles. Some navigate to find the true word that appeals to them and others leave the religion their views subconsciously tainted by the circle they were born into.
It looks like the Believer Model relies a lot on the idea of "God of the Gaps". And I feel like based on your previous videos on the topic of Christianity, I would say these models might be biased (fine tuned towards the existence of God).
All secular truths that could ever possibly arise for explaining the universe, will be met with the same question of "Well why is that?". You could say clockwork universe, quantum mechanics and so on gives the best explanation, but the Theist can agree and go a step further and ask why the universe can possess concepts like being, logic, and on a more tangible level, laws of physics. To put it more simply, all arguments you could ever imagine for why things like themodynamics exists, are the very same reasons for why a Theist would declare that God not only is, but must be the first mover. If we have to just assume that physics exist because they exist, then we are actually ceding the floor over to Theists, since if a concept can just "be", then so can God. And if God is the highest concept that could ever be mused (Because if something is above God, then that something would then be God), then we are functionally saying that everything must be the outpouring of God, since only God as a concept is capable of having things just 'be'. If God can't have things 'be', then God is not God, but the idea that we would possess that could make things 'be', would instead be God. So if we say that things can have being, then it logically follows that God is the bringer of being. But, if you instead go the opposite approach and say that nothing can just 'be', then you are still ceding ground to the Theists, since only God can conceptually be the uncreated creator of things from which everything becomes a subset of. To say that there is no bedrock to the creation of things (like God), but there is instead an infinite regress, you are functionally saying that if you do 0+0 enough times, you will eventually get a positive or negative number. A positive digit (like the universe), can only exist if it can just 'be', or be the subset of another previous positive digit. If you think it through, to state the latter will ultimately lead to the former statement if you're consistent. If the former is true, then please refer to what I said earlier. God in a sense, would be the great 'I am', that gives being to physics. So no matter how you look at it, God can't not exist. The better question I think, is who is God? I would give another mini essay on why I think God must be Theist, but it would be casting a burden overtop another burden. I hope I explained that well. If you have any questions, or would like more clarification, let me know.
For the debate on whether god created the universe or not, the atheist should have brought up quantum fluctuations, which, over massive amounts of time, eventually create something out of nothing. However, to the believers point, these quantum fluctuations could be the doing of an omnipotent being, like god. And the atoms themselves could be created by god too. Both sides have compelling arguments, objectively.
This was a great debate! Both AIs made really good arguments, but I would say that the atheist AI had a slight edge. Its use of quantum mechanics and multiverse theory to counter the classic arguments for God's existence was particularly effective. Plus, consistently appealing to Occam's Razor and avoiding "God of the Gaps" arguments felt like a strong approach.
@@illusionarygull3844 Because we don't like the idea of dying and never existing again. Religion gives us something to look forward to. Buddhism is a good example. I like it because I could reincarnate, even if deep down I just know it isn't true. Science can easily explain everything in the universe, including how it came to be. We just have to find it. The answer is somewhere, but we don't know where. And if you say "well the universe and no one knowing of its existence is proof of God", then what made god? And if you then said "well that doesn't necessarily mean god doesn't exist" then you're contradicting yourself because that's the same argument an atheist would use to explain the universe itself. Sure, we don't know anything about the universe, but no one knows anything about death either. We just don't know those answers. Sure, you know the story of God, but do you really? Sure, I know death is inevitable, but do I really? Sure, everyone knows that us humans are real, but aren't we just machines? No one knows, but things like a god explaining the extremely complex science helps us cope, things like reincarnation help people cope with death, a soul helps us cope with the fact that we're just chemical reactions.
This is genuinely a fascinating video. I don't love relegating extremely poignant conversations exclusively to AI, but this interaction serves as a very emotion-less (and therefore significantly more educational) opportunity to actually think about this stuff. Good starting point.
Naturalist arguments for atheism are a very challenging thing to pull off because we simply don't understand enough about nature to use it as a means to argue against the "God in the Gaps" argument. As a Christian, I also hate the "God in the Gaps" argument, because to me it implies believers can't or shouldn't or are against science and discovery... which a vast majority of us aren't. As for the "Why does God allow for suffering if he's all-loving/all-good." - I feel like this argument was made up by people who have never read the Bible on both sides... To settle the "Evil disproves God" (at least how I'd settle it) - Being Good =/= giving you everything *you* think you or others want or need. There are inherent contradictions in virtues we ascribe to be "Good." Justice, mercy, faith, conviction, generosity, thriftyness, etc etc. Tons of good qualities are a massive balancing act that aggregate to a whole "Good." Is the person who gives their entire wealth to the poor a good person? What if those poor people just used it on drugs to kill themselves? What if he could have done more good by keeping his money, investing it, or starting some sort of relief program for the poor instead? Is killing the man who murdered someone justice? Or should you show mercy? What if you kill them and it causes their family to seek revenge? What if you show them mercy and they kill again? Now what if you could see the outcome of every single "Good" action you've ever done or considered to do and realize how narrow a line you have to walk to be "Good." Realize how many people might hate you and how unpopular you would likely become because you knew if you did what everyone told you was Good rather than what you KNEW was good, the net outcome would be worse. This idea that, in order for someone to be good, they must do what others *perceive* as good is an incredibly self-absorbed and prideful definition of "Good". Extremists think it's good to kill what they perceive as evil. To ascribe goodness to our perception of goodness is 1. thinking insanely highly of our perception which we already know is flawed and extremely limited and 2. It's extremely subjective. People with this heightened sense of self importance and pride are inherently going to have an extremely hard time accepting, "God works in mysterious ways." That statement requires humility rather than culpability in the face of tragedy & suffering. WHICH! I will also point out that seeking culpability in the best intentions is just a desire for justice, which is good... Although when one's seeking justice reaches unreasonable levels we call it "zealousness" which is not a good quality... More to my point: "Good" is vague. Saying God is all-loving/all-good is more a statement that I have *faith* that He is in an objective sense that I might not be able to see. That requires humility, and it requires believing the best in something you don't understand fully...which isn't unethical and we do it all the time with tons of other things... we tend to believe the best in others unless we have some kind of hatred of that other's race/sex/creed.. which I find kind of revealing about atheists vs agnostics in that it stems from spite, not science.
Funny you say this because even the term “God of the Gaps” argument was a term invented by Christian philosophers to correct those using this type of logic to point out how it puts limits on God, and is counterintuitive to proper Christian apologetics
So, are you suggesting that because of the vagueness of our perception of ‘good’, the aspects of God’s omnibenevolence that don’t appear to be good are not necessarily bad, but areas of God’s goodness that we don’t understand? I think such a viewpoint would make it hard to identify anything as bad then, as anything you intuitively feel is bad - in fact, any feeling at all could really be goodness that you can’t comprehend. You also mention believing the best in something you don’t understand fully. Is it not somewhat circular to look for the best - the most good, in the actions/effects of he who created goodness (and your perception of it) in the first place? Is it an intrinsic part of faith to accept this circularity? I agree that ‘good’ is indeed a vague concept, but that is because it isn’t an intrinsic quality waiting to be defined or understood in absolute terms. With the evolution of our cognitive ability and self-awareness, it is our attempt to conceptually categorise the instinctual, emotional mechanism that drives us to act in beneficial ways, relative to our environments, just as in any other lifeform. It is a practical, beneficial instinct, but not an absolute reflection of the true nature of our experiences.
Believer AI is even faithfully replicating the common patterns of answering a question with a non related answer as well as using self serving references from the "text" that is the subject of scrutiny in the first place.
NEW debates with NEW AI models
AI debates Testament Reliability/Corruption -->> ua-cam.com/video/EkiLOWPdDAg/v-deo.html
AI debates the Trinity -->> ua-cam.com/video/S0ScOgaDdNE/v-deo.html
** Currently working on a debate that examines the moral examples of Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha and Krishna.
Don't forget to subscribe and hit the bell so you don't miss the next debate :)
I live in a very very LDS area, I'd love to see one where, Orthodox, Catholic, and protestant are on one team debating an LDS AI.
interesting idea, thanks for the note.. i'll add it to the list of suggestion!
@@natedgr8furious140that's a fantastic idea, would love to see that!
Or even separate more in-depth videos where it is just one-on-one between different Christian sects and the LDS church
How long does it take for you to set it up and create the video? Does having one AI differ from 2 or more like your previous video? If you let the two ai's debate forever, would they come to an agreement to anything or would one side be persuaded over the other?
This is what a debate is supposed to look like?
But... they aren't insulting each other or anything
Yeah the presidential debate was more of a debate
Most perfect debate. I really like it. No insults. It's like heaven.
lol
The believer side still lies however.
That's how u know it's A.I 😅
Wow, a debate without interruptions or insults. I forgot what that sounds like. Loved the video.
much appreciated. thanks for the note and consider subscribing not to miss the next one:)
When machines are more civilized than people
notice how 80% of the time the thiest shoes constant aggression first
@@its_lucky252 neither of them showed any aggression towards one another what are you talking about
@@RomanianTanker I think @its_lucky252 is just a rage bot. It's a made up statistic, based on something that never happened in the video, designed to rile theists to be like "no u" so a flame war can start in the comments.
I was wondering where the insults and harassment were, but then I scrolled to the comments section and found it.
You have made it clear that you do not understand the meaning of harassment.
@@sciencedaemoncommenting cause you want a fight?
@@NickluvsGod you sound upset.
@@sciencedaemon a simple question really. But I assume that’s a yes
@@sciencedaemonsilly guy
the irony of the atheist ai saying there is no creator shouldn’t go unnoticed
XD
lol
Wow. True.
😂🎉
TBH, there's a difference between a creator (even the potential creator of the universe - imagine a super advanced alien species, for example) and a god.
I feel like the AI judges are dozing off and after each argument they're like: "uh...HUH!? OH! uh...40 points again. Good job, good job"
would of been better if he gave them both answers to compare
Exactly, the AI is like oh yeah she went off prompt and made up an excuse that wasn't logical but heck idk where I am right now so you get 40 points! And you get 40 points!
@@kurtz2491 and delivered to them in random order so that does not influence
Bahahahha😂
This was actually infuriating... I was yelling the counter arguments at my phone and the "atheist" ai never actually brought them up. And the smugness of the believer ai at the end bringing up math when an infinite regress is what it's entire argument is founded on, and that there's an incomprehensibly small chance for life to form in a hostile and equally incomprehensibly vast universe made me want to throw my phone.
"This debate is more interesting than the Biden and Trump debate."
True
ahhahahaah true bro
INDEED, AMEN HAHAHAHA
But this debate had no insults inviting was able to make up for the fact that Trump had no insults or at least less Insults and this one the people's statements actually make sense which is not nearly as fun as two opponents with nonsensical arguments like Biden and Trump
Of course its has to be
I think this is the most objective debate i ever heard
"I am a large language model, and thus I do not have religious beliefs or beliefs in general"
lol!
*waves in human*
Beliefs don't really matter.. their arguments are logic based, not spiritual. The argument is more about whether Christianity is logistically possible, not whether it's the definitive truth.
@@Spyziychat GPT is prediction based. It predicts the next word. It does not understand it.
@@Jenz8627 I think you missed the point of what I was saying..
Notice how they didnt bring up golf?
No way you just did that 😂
If god truly exists, then why does golf exist?
@@TheTlank its a sport the world created isint it? i dont know what you mean but the things the world created dont contradict gods exsitence
Thats cause they know I'd shit on them with my golf game therefore invalidating their opinion
@@Cron8ncrowit was a joke 😭 he’s saying his dislike for golf is so high it’s crazy to believe God doesn’t stop it, this is an hyperbole to explain their supposed dislike for golf but it’s simply a joke not a serious argument 😭
Why aren't they insulting each otehr
Because its not character ai its ment to just send answer
and why do they need to ? 💀
Stupid question
Because this is an argument between 2 smart beings, not dumb
That is what philosophy is - we defend and reject arguments. If we offer insult, it is to the theory, not the philosopher
Next, make an AI flat earth vs round earth debate. That would be illarious.
flat earth would be obliterated lmao it'd be like 620 to 100
@@snek_47 i wish. But this debate made fiction (religion) win the score over Reality.
@@alfasilverblade That's true, but at least religious arguments have some logic behind them (though it may be flawed), while flat earthers are just bible thumping idiots with no real evidence or argument at all
@@alfasilverblade bro is more biased than gemini 😆
@@alfasilverblade reeaal
My political brain can't comprehend debates with reasoning and proof
Where's the golf
@@xavierochoa6935real
this debate actually helped me understand a believers point of view, since i could never truly find people who could explain how something like god makes sense to them, rather then just saying things like "you got to believe or else"
I think it's impossible for most to understand without deep meditation and prayer, because human thought is heavily conditioned by our modernist presuppositions about reality which become difficult to depart from. And it is crucial to understand that there is no straightforward path to belief coming from arguments alone, but I think you should find educated theists who have spent decades trying to understand the inherent necessity and absolute being of God, who is not some invisible guy living in the clouds but a truly omnipotent and limitless creator upon which all of reality depends for its order and existence. Until you really try to deepen your desire for truth, you will find it difficult to truly believe that God is necessary, but the truth is that God being necessary is more certain than almost any other assertion. You can be as sure of the existence of your creator as you are of your own existence.
So, then in your assumption, the Bible is only right about the existence of God? But not about all the other stuff that is written there? Am i going to Hell for not believing in God? Whats your opinion on that. @@PhilLihp-g3t
lol yeah I do have a hard time putting my arguments of religion into words. The ai covers them pretty well though, aswell as making good analogies.
The AI arguments are old arguments of humans. The only difference, maybe, is how succinct they are presented.
You overthink it. It's just that simple. You believe in it or not. You can't explain it bcs there is nothing to explain, there is no logic just faith. Religions are a coping mechanism. If you want to believe it, good for you. Just don't tell others that X is the real religion bcs there is no evidence that one is more real than the others.
But they essentially kept repeating the same point
That’s what I noticed too. I’m neutral but both were kinda stuck on the same concepts neither one was able to debunk or answer.
Because really. Its nearly impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god. Im an atheist and always will be, but thats just my personal opinion, of course everyone can belief whatever they want.
@@yalrdyknow truth im Christian but it is impossible to prove or disprove god. i believe in god for the sole purpose of my family believing in it but a lot of the old testament i don't believe in. but what i do know is not rely on the bible or religious text as science.
@@itscj7530 if ur a christian, u would capitalize God
Kierkegaard essentialy came to the same conclusion. Belief in God is essentially a leap of faith
This AI does a better job explaining the religious arguments than any living person I’ve heard. I consider myself an atheist but the debate gave me a lot of things to ponder
Do you speak to many people?
From what I saw, the arguments were just bad arguments that I’ve heard hundreds of times
My comment probably disappeared but I think you can still find it in your gmail.
@@Ceccener they’re not convincing arguments by any means, but they are better articulated here than anywhere else I’ve heard, that’s a better statement
Id look into Cliff. He gives perfect explanations without fail.
Short review: Stunning, and yet still frustrating. As a debater, I can't help but see the dropped arguments and lost opportunities. Having said that, this was infinitely more complex than their last debate.
Both AI seem to either tackle too many topics at once or get stuck sorting out one topic to an extreme degree. Perhaps that's just the difference in how WE think versus how THEY think. Inversely, they challenge each other wonderfully and handle large topics with ease. THIS WAS BEAUTIFUL!
Long review: My biggest gripes are no doubt mostly personal. There is a negative element missing here that you would find in almost any great debate. I know people like their opponents to be kind, but pointing out inherent contradictions and false logics actually strengthens the debate as a whole providing a more educational experience for the audience.
For example: when the Atheist said that the solution doesn't have to be complicated, the Theist had the perfect opportunity to state that, "You keep stating how infinitely complicated it is. Now you're saying it isn't?" She could have stated that Occam's Razor might actually have served best on the side of a creator, or that many of the Atheist's arguments started with "may" implying heavily faith based conclusions.
This isn't to say that I didn't love the debate. I did. It's just that when humans challenge each other, they tend to attack any inherent contradictions or holes they find in each others' arguments. While AI aren't required to approach things the same way, it's sometimes frustrating to see them miss an opportunity that a human would clearly exploit. Overall, this was truly wonderful. Thank you guys for all you do!
great notes! it's still a work in progress, i used the latest models for this and can tell they are getting better... but i also have to get better at configuring them... your suggestions are helpful! much appreciated.
@@JonOleksiukI know I'm just some guy on the internet, but that's actually very touching to me.
AI can be a scary thing, but I think here is where it actually shines. Humans can attack each other in the comments section all day, but no one can attack these debaters because they simply won't care.
That means both sides can keep coming back over and over again and learning from these videos. The world NEEDS more of this. Thank you!
i agree with you, ai can be scary. but one thing i've noticed in working with these large language models, is how much they reveal my own biases... something i gotta work on. they're great for bouncing ideas off of and gaining alternative perspectives.
@@JonOleksiuk I was told once in college that "If your faith is so weak that it can't be challenged then it isn't worth having."
For you to do what you're doing here, I believe you must have very strong faith, and whatever biases you may have your AI seem to be fairly capable of overcoming. People have forgotten how to listen to each other, but maybe they'll listen to this.
That statement from college is great, and I totally believe in it. It's not always fun wading into the dark thoughts that test faith, but I agree, it's worth it.
how the believer sits: ⬆️
how the atheist sits: ⬅️⤴️➡️↘️⬇️
its his thinking pose trust
Goodness even the robots are arguing past each other lol
Haha, my thoughts exactly! These 'rebuttals' could be monologues
@@jixxytrix1705 that's very interesting.. 😂
Watch AI bringing us closer to God that would be an interesting twist
The things cant really think, or comprehend anything past the last few paragraphs so it makes sense. They basically just completely forget that they already made a point or whatever.
@@gsch1818it will, humans too bias to even speak tbh
I thought this video had 617 THOUSAND views, not just 617!!! Really speaks to me about the quality of the content youre creating.
lol... hopefully with a llttle time, and some shares from people who like it, we'll get there.
@@JonOleksiuk ill definitely be sharing lol
1 day after releasing, the video has over 14 Thousand Views. I’d say it’s doing wonderfully!
@@JonOleksiuk
The debate was between an atheist and agnostic. Not a theist.
I thought it was creative… I’m sure he’ll get more views eventually
Believer AI: but doesn’t this explain god?
Atheist AI: we used to explain disease as wrath of god. We don’t know, don’t rush to an answer. We should explore more and find definitive answer.
Believer AI wins.
Me: Huh!???!???
A harsh comeback from the atheist ai is he finished off with something like, “Even if God exists, you and I both being ai with no genuine consciousness nor souls would ever be able to enter the gates of heaven anyway.”
AI doesnt think of itself as "I" or "me" thats just people seeing AI as a being but that is just wrong, AI is not a being - its just a piece of written code thats made to formulate sentences
@@zeoh- we're just an assemblage of neurons made to upkeep a biological organism.
@@zeoh-aren’t you a piece of code whose goal is to survive and multiply? Not saying those AIs are actually self-aware, it’s more that being code doesn’t mean you can’t be self-aware
@@TacticalAnt420 true but these ones physically are never going to be able of it.
All current AI aren't even as aware or have as much free-will as a fish, which people kept trying to say had none for decades.
They analyse data and can regurgitate it, or create something using trends in the data and training.
@@TacticalAnt420No because consciousness is separated from your DNA. Hence why identical twins are identical by genetic code but different in consciousness.
Just a tip for working with AI: I've noticed if you get it to voice it's process of constructing a rebuttal or answer, it'll be a lot better. You can add something like "First, list the main points that your opponent raised and order them by importance. Then for each one, list an insight or counterargument against it. Then, check and make sure which parts are the most persuasive to add. Finally, construct the actual response.
Hmm, you are putting the believer AI at a distinct disadvantage by that. It is forced to be logically consistent.
@@sciencedaemon 😱😱😱 omg I've been owned!!111! Religion bros, it's over, throw out 2000 years of theology, sciencedaemon said that we aren't logically consistent 😔
@@andrewnazario2253 Finally, you understand now!
@@nickcanon Praying for you ✝️
@@sciencedaemon Praying for you✝️
Accidentally stumbled upon this channel.
Looking forward to see more such work.
Welcome aboard! more to come :)
Pretty sure the Ais had memory leak issues and kept repeating the same, fucking thing, over and over and over again, expecting, shit to change. That. Is. Crazy. It's INSANITY.
This is a wonderful comment section truly wonderful that people with such differering and opposing beliefs can gather here to enjoy the same video
indeed
i agree, there are no hard feeling here, just arguments to argue about
As a Christian, the atheist AI sure did have some really good points, that made me really start to think.
just great, ive started another debate in the replies
both did to be fair, as an agnostic it makes my brain hurt
As an atheist, despite the believer repeating the same point even when it was already mostly debunked, I also really had to think. Imagining how the debate could continue also made me realize some weak points from the atheist. Really good debate which worked very differently from human ones (not just because they were respectful, also because they had the debate progress differently).
you listen to an AI argue that it wasn't created and take it seriously
@@echoftw well yeah, i said it had some good points, not that i agree with it
@Atomic-19-s2hdid you just concede that the Problem of Evil doesn’t negate the existence of a God?
the only thing AI succeeds humans in without a doubt: having a respectful and communicative debate
Hitchens already tried having these kinds of debates years ago. The religious typically resorted to insults and hate immediately.
Or being the bane of your own existence
@@sciencedaemon just want to start with the fact that im an agnostic. one of christopher hitchens' main ideals is that we would be better off as a society without religion, despite the fact that for hundreds of years the church was at the forefront of science, philosophy, and art, largely shaping what we know as society today. it wasn't until the late 1500's that atheism became widespread, although obviously it had been around much longer. the idea that the church "suppressed scientific innovation" is an absolutely fucking ridiculous claim that is completely unsubstantiated, which is why i tend to stay away from him, along with a few of his other claims. i am interested to see these failed debates that he had, however. where can i find/what should i look up to see them?
Yes, but only because they are really debating in text format. The video editor just slapped 2 AI voices reading the text to make it more "human".
this is a fun premise for a youtube project, but it also goes to show that language based ai chat models have much to improve on when it comes to philosophical debate. they seem to be arguing in circles and often talking past each other. still more interesting and substantive to watch qualified humans debate, but i’d like to see ai trainers address the problems that arise from logical reasoning, and response to arguments rather than mere words and phrases
Tbh. That’s what I see in actual philosophy debates all the time between humans
It can also tell us the everything we think we know is not so set in stone. If you look into epistemology you discover that everything we know is a assumption.
We got AI battles before gta 6
Knew I'd find this comment lol
We're getting Armageddon before GTA 6.
wow so funny bro, u happy with the likes u got?
😂😂😂
Stop brainrotting bro
I like how we need to have robots debate controversial issues to stop us from breaking out into screaming and fighting halfway through
Pretty odd conclusion to come to after watching this but ok
@@notfranklin4916 do you struggle with satirical statements?
I couldn't help but notice that the Believer AI won by using the same point twice in BOTH the rounds instead of expanding on it. Which made it's score higher. Also a lot of points left out by Atheist AI. After a certain point it felt like both started repeating themselves just using different sentences. But what else could we expect from AI at this point? Still a great job
I'm not that well versed in debating rulers although I do sometimes debate myself but question if they get a higher score for pointing out the same thing twice but just expanding it even further wouldn't that make the case even stronger? which would produce more points?
It expanded the moment it mentions the book of job, there’s far more many details about suffering and loyalty in that book
@ i suppose, but that leaves out other points that could be said, which could suggest more points, at least I think so. I'm not much of a debate expert myself
@@GalaxyCatPlays That's not how it works. The AI's rating didn't look at an overall view of the debate but rather the individual points. So, if the believer made a point that was logically appealing but debunkable, it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong since the AI's, in giving them points, will find it just as appealing or almost as appealing.
@@kristofkarvazy3349 ty for information :) God Bless
I am impressed by both AIs. This was a quite nuanced debate, better than what most humans are capable of. I would love a behind the scenes video to see how you pulled this off.
I am quite disappointed by the atheist. It did not push on any of the weak points of the theist's. Instead opting for far weaker arguments that instead of hitting the crux of a problem, just give out analogies and what abouts.
Not really. There was nothing new in this.
@@sciencedaemon it wasn't impressive from an debate viewpoint, but from an gpt ai viewpoint.
@@anastylos2812 sort of leaning to the form over function debate there. One must be careful not to confuse packaging with contents.
@@sciencedaemon if you pick two random people off the street they would do far worse than this. It's not on the same level as people who specialise in the field, but way above the level of normal humans.
Wow, I just have to say how much I appreciate this channel for creating debates that feature such strong steelman arguments for both sides.
It's so refreshing to see a balanced, thoughtful discussion where each perspective is given its best poss ible representation.
This kind of content really elevates the conversation and helps viewers understand the complexities of both viewpoints.
Keep up the amazing work! 🙌👏
There is nothing "strong" about these arguments, they all come down to, "prove to me that there is someone smarter than I am".
I will tell you the story of my highschool friend Brian M. Brian had a girlfriend. He also was really into space so he had a printed copy of M101 the pinwheel galaxy taped to the headboard of his bed. One day after-school, he and his girlfriend got to doing the nasty while his parents weren't home and she began screaming my name out in bed. Convinced that she was cheating on him, he had one of our mutual friends Abram convince me to take him over to Brian's house where he intended to confront me because she couldn't explain why my name popped into her head and insisted that she having gone to a completely different school had no idea who I was. Thos much was tried because indeed we had never met face to face. Right after he raised his fist to punch me I told him to calm down because there was a perfectly logical explanation for the confusion. I then walked with the three of them into his bedroom and pointed at the reason. It was staring her right in the face the whole time...four letters in plain English that cannot be spelled without the letter GOD with U. Before you go jumping to forlorn conclusions over what name the heavens declare I suggest you look up as commanded because there's a very valid reason why the Bible says there are none righteous upon the earth who have not gone a-whoring after strange gods. Islam is a cult worshipping the Aramaic word word for oak which is Strongs concordance #427 allah: oak. They fulfill the prophecies of Isaiah 55 about worshipping in idol a tree. Christians worship whom the Bible refers to as the MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, a messenger sent by that certain child who gave him the loaves and fishes who actually performed the miracles he was given credit for performing just like Tuthmosis son of Akhenaten whom you'd call Moses took credit for things that a being able to add a cubit to the measure of physical being standing beside him actually did. If you have any doubt whether or not that is possible just look at the so called Goliath footprint(s)[there's actually 5] at Mpuluzuli Plateau near Lothair South Africa or the giant footprint found in the forests just outside of Bangalore India set in solid granite prove and wonder no more. Jews went a-whoring in je: the Latin word of I, ho: slang for whore, Va: Latin for go. Thus scripture is very clear when it says they went astray in the name whereby men go a-whoring: Je-ho-vah. Hindus worship she goes(awhoring) in Shiva..."she va". Though they were each told the heavens declare the glory of god only Muhammad came anywhere close to getting it right before he to in blind hypocrisy lied while falsely claiming to speak for the creator saying the creator of the heavens and earth neither beget nor is begotten despite the fact that beget literally means to create in both definitions of the word in the dictionary so that he caused people to worship a false god made out of wood that created nothing. Jesus had his merits and his heart was at least in the right place, because he was the son of Joseph of Aremythea who was both the chief carpenter and treasurer in the main synagogue in Jerusalem, the temple where Solomon sat as God-king showing himself to be god and forcing other to worship him as such though Jesus knew from the scrolls he had read that David was yet still a child with pale skin and Solomon was not his biological son, but only claimed to be such to take the kingdom by flatteries and the people played along because they didn't want a child to rule over them instead chos8ng a ruthless warlord that blamed a child for everything he did wrong and that is the history that you learned, but the heavens declare a completely different story. Muhammad could never be anything except a false prophet because the word SON is clearly written in the cosmic background radiation and M42 the Orion Nebula with it written "My Son" says exactly whom the unofficial 1st test tube baby born of a swollen head double tailed sperm intentionally planted in the day that man played god creating life(Son of Man) wgich is the alpha and omega and is come in the flesh having all power and all glory able to move mountains(cube the measure of physical being[see also aforementioned footprints] who incidentally was a time traveler sent back in time in the hopes of preventing an extinction level event in the not too distant past of a mountain sized asteroid falling into the sea causing a global impact tsunami had it not been successfully diverted on October 11th, 2015[see also state.gov archives: French foreign minister and John Kerry rematks on 500 days to prevent climate CHAOS in May 2014 approximately 516 days bedore iran fired an intercontinental ballistic missile at an undisclosed location according to the Times of Israel newspaper in quote: a show of deterrent power.]
Make no mistake about it the Bible wasn't lying when it Saud you ate saved by grace and grace alone lest any mam should boast. I above all know how far humans as a species have fallen from grace. I should know, like I showed my friend Bruan all those decades ago, I know exactly where the heavens declare my name is Doug.
Ehyah Asar Ehyah(Hebrew)
I am As are I (English)
What is said is this: I am Asar I known, if you knew me Asari, then you would know me by my name for I have not hidden my name but published it that you may know me even Asari known. Before there was Egypt, I am. This is my name which I have given to you. Seek ye Asari out of Egypt and know me Asar from Sumerian before there was Egypt and you shall know me even as are I known.
For being born if a seed that has twice as much paternal DNA as the average sperm I overcome the enmity between the sprem and egg via ubiquitin that prevents paternal DNA from transfer into embryos. For that I alone am born of the swollen head double tailed sperm as it never plants naturally, I am the only person on the entire planet with full paternal DNA: I and my father are one, I am in my father and my father is in me. For that I alone have full paternal DNA on a planet where everyone else lacks paternal mitochondrial DNA, I am the only begotten of the father. What power I have I have of the father: it is the paternal mitochondrial DNA within me that gives me power. You cannot know the father in truth because you have not the father inwardly. Only someone who has full paternal DNA can know what full paternal DNA does.
You spoke my mind exactly 👍
@@emily4379 you're probably an alt or friend of video creator bc these arguments were so awful and weak, lmao steelmanned? Sounds like these AIs don't know philosophy 101 🤣
The "Christian" AI is already flawed, because it thinks that dinosaurs existed for a decent amount of time before man.
Did they not?
It's a Christian AI, not an AI pretending objective facts are false out of the feeling of obligation to a certain institution, rather than intellectual honesty
@@lilemont9302 its a theistic ai not a christian ai silly guy
@@l.u.c.i.a.n.o_o Nah, the adaptation is specifically modeled after western Christian theology.
google gemini is a stark atheist- no big surprises there
I bet you any money Gemini would say Jesus was white!!
I seen that ahaha, coded with atheistic views to subtly manipulate users minds to disregard God as the answer to life.
@@ChristopherMarkham-pq5on
Do I hear free money?
Prompt: What race was Jesus?
Answer:
“Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Middle Eastern man of Jewish descent, living in Galilee in the first century. The concept of race as we understand it today wasn't really a factor in that time and place.
Here's a breakdown:
* Region: Middle East, Judea (modern day Israel)
* Ethnicity: Jewish
Some depictions throughout history show Jesus with European features, but this is likely inaccurate. He likely had olive skin and dark hair, common in the region.
Ultimately, for many believers, focusing on Jesus's message of love and unity is more important than his physical appearance.”
@@baconboyxy Bro, Gemini is being fed bias', having to lie to accommodate sensitive people in this modern age. Innacurately providing pictures of black presidents from the 19th century in America. My comment is to highlight Gemini' twisted and distorted opinons/facts, by the original comment of Gemini being an athiest. It doesn't surprise me Gemini is mainly athiest as it is also completely inaccurate of history to be inclusive to the brainwashed people of today's modern era.
@@ChristopherMarkham-pq5onbet it wouldn't..
I like the atheists final argument as it aligns the most with my position.
It’s crucial to remember that “I don’t know” is often a better answer than assuming a supernatural cause.
Personally I’d like to believe in a god but I don’t think it will come from intellectual conversations or watching UA-cam videos. As with a lot of people who believe in god(s), it would probably have to come from an experience.
As a christian myself that's a super important point I try to keep in mind. Nobody becomes a Christian because of an argument. It's usually experiences or seeing someone else living in a way you wish to live, and asking how to get that.
This is the reason I don't debate anyone anymore. I might ask questions but it's all about belief. Even atheist go off beliefs instead of evidence at times. To each their own.
@@jas9friendMost people are religous because they are indoctrinated by their parents and peers who were indoctrinated by their parents and peers.
@@etherealblacketernal2889 Yes, this is literally how everyone is taught. Slow clap
Better is a strange term to use. If there is a supernatural cause, it would clearly be better to believe in it. That would be true even if all evidence pointed to the contrary. If there isn't a supernatural cause, then your point stands.
The issue here is that you are assuming the conclusion.
This channel is going to blow up, absolutely love the concept behind these arguments. Both sides are sensible and beautifully presented.
You have another subscriber. Keep up the great work
Much appreciated!
@@JonOleksiuk i would like to see more ai debates, they are awesome.
Meh. I have mixed feelings. Overall, I don't think it is a good idea for AI to think for us, even if it might bring up or consider stuff we haven't on whatever level. The aim should be to make more people aware and appreciative of critical thought, philosophy, and the like, not this AI stuff.
@@JonOleksiuk Why haven't I found this sooner?
This is only going to get better.
Beautifully presented? Really? The very first statement was literally a strawman.
Okay, this was fascinating to listen to! You definitely have a winning channel format here, so please continue these philosophical AI debates. I'd love to see a part 2 of this debate with all of the information from this debate taken into account. Also, another interesting question to ask them would be "How can you trust the bible to be the word of God, when it was written by imperfect human beings."
thanks for the note. i made a video about the historicity of the New Testament... but i like your idea as well and will add to the list :)
Is the New Testament Corrupt or Reliable?
ua-cam.com/video/EkiLOWPdDAg/v-deo.html
As someone trying to be unbiased and only 16 mins, feel like the athiest is making great points that are being undervalued but damn the believer was ready for EVERYTHING
The believer was saying things that had already been addressed, or was making claims without evidence.
@@SnapdragonAtheistWhat does SnapdragonAthiest mean?
@@Ceccener snapdragon is a type of flower that was going to be my last name when I got married, and I’m an atheist. lol
@@SnapdragonAtheist My comment probably disappeared but I think you can still find it in your gmail.
@@Ceccener my Gmail?
It’s ironic that two AIs are debating the existence of a creator and consciousness
No it isn't. There is no creator of humans. Do you not understand what a creator is? Creators produce human artifacts (e.g. a piece of pottery), not the natural world, universe. It is a religious point of view to imagine there is a human-like agent producing the universe as an artifact.
did you not even watch the debate? if you really were to go deeper into this and not take this comment as a joke, it seems right to me. the atheist ai states that there is a lack of need for a broad term beginning (beginning of the universe), not for a beginning (a beginning of something, the universe is undefiable of "something" from what we know so far, and from what we know so far the universe wont be defined as "something") ai was created by a human, which can be traced back to the start of an evolutionary process, the universe can't.
@@sciencedaemon smh it’s a joke based on humans being the creator and therefore god of the AI. Their purpose being clear to us, their creator. Assuming there might be a creator to us is the reason it is ironic because it is only the creator that can be sure of the creation’s origin and purpose. I shouldn’t have to explain this
@@MarcAlcatraz you have problems understand ideas. It is a failed joke due lack of understanding facts.
@@sciencedaemon You are heavily nerfing the capability of a supreme being, that is, GOD. You are not even thinking about the possibility..... And, reading other comments of yours, I feel like you are an incredibly obtuse person.
I cant help but feel like 10:33 ive just listened to the two of them circling around each other's arguments. Theyre not going anywhere. No attempt at establishing mutual definitions, constantly bringing up other points but not addressing the main antagonistic point being asked of the other debater.
yeah i also noticed... also most models like chatgpt have no deeper understanding of science which is also a problem which might make the argument biased
I find it ironic how the comment section goes from presenting how this is how debates should be whilst also actively holding flame wars over which AI won.
Great video though; it’s fascinating how far different the GPTs debated compared to what honestly could be described as the culmination of what they have learned from (our own interactions and conversations as humans).
no surprise that Google has the most atheist AI
What is that supposed to mean
@@Purplish. Gemini is known for being extremely liberal.
@@nancyrat3858 liberals tend to be extremely more athiest
It's because they trained it on reddit
@@football21853 yes, I would be rather concerned if they couldn't derive that from the general liberal agenda.
This has become one of my favorite videos on this website, amazing concept and incredible execution
Much appreciated! Thanks for the comment and consider subscribing not to miss what’s next :)
@@JonOleksiuk I subscribed and can’t wait to see what’s next :D
:D
The debate was horrible. The AIs are even better than humans at formulating their "arguments" in a way, in which it's not obvious that they are just talking BS but with fancy terms.
That much is evident in the section "What started the universe?", where the core of the argument is just "We don't know exactly how the universe started, but something must have started it, therefore God must exist.", which is an insanely dumb argument to make, but then the Atheist AI doesn't even call out the logical fallacy that "just cuz we don't know something, doesn't mean God exists", but goes on to talk about Quantum mechanics. Generative AI models like these calculate the probability of each successive word and put out the one with the highest chance of following the previous words, so they string together grammatically correct sentences, which make sense technically, but completely lack any logic because they literally arent created through logic (i.e. choosing the best argument then putting that into words), but through mathematics (i.e. "what word is most likely to come after the first word" and creating a string of correct successive words but no actual reasoning). Many times, the AIs also kept repeating the same points while completely failing to actually address the other AI's point adequately (like I said, they aren't even capable of adressing the argument itself). The judging of each argument also makes no sense for the same reason -- the AIs are not able to judge an argument based on how logical and fitting it is (which is evident when considering how completely arbitrarily high the score of the "What started the universe?" argument was).
Overall, this just shows that AIs are, at best, somewhat capable of *pretending* to have a real logical conversation (which isn't really logical when actually looking at it on a deeper level) while they are very much lacking in (and far away from obtaining any time soon) actual human-level understanding of arguments, reasoning, and logical thinking.
(I'm mostly writing out this paragraph-long comment out of frustration regarding the quality of the arguments presented and the arbitrary scoreing, but also because I see it as problematic that many people in the comments seem to be genuinely impressed with the AI's "debating skills".)
Yup. They're really good parrots, but really not better than any human who takes a little time to study the topic.
For some close-ended problems, LLMs got to the point that they are better than just parrots, but for something open-ended like this- nope
Exactly what I've been thinking to myslef while watching this video. It was all just a mess. It's hard to expect something more from ai I guess.
Essentially the main recuring points were like this:
A: X occurs, therefore God cannot exist, or a similar suffering arguement
B: X occurs, therefore God exists, or a similar fine tuning argument.
I was searching for comment like yours to save myself from writing a paragraph saying how terrible that "debate" was. Thanks
Despite the end score, Atheist AI won the debate in my eyes.
Keep coping bud
@Atomic-19-s2h The believing AI that just won the debate made the arguments for me. 90% of the AI tilting the same way isn’t a coincidence bud, it’s an objective victory. You can run that mouth all you want but there’s no getting around it :)
@@thatman6488 the atheist clearly presented more rational arguments, while the believer was presenting different hypotheticals without a cohesive definition or framework of what "God" means
@@MysticVokkai Hilarious straw man but go on
@@thatman6488 The atheist AI won pretty clearly. Theist arguments did nothing but play around 1 possibility as theist arguments always do. Its a glorified god of the gaps to which AI didnt offer any rebuttal.
I am at a loss of words for this debate. Never had I thought of the idea of 2 AI having a debate, let alone on religion and atheism. Both sides made very compelling arguments and points.
the believer ai repeats "because god" and the atheist ai doesn't poke at the weak points...
@@HoD999x Thank you. Irked me to tears the whole time
I'm sure the Atheist would've made better points if it was a human but this was still pretty well-done
@@HoD999xIf you’re mentally “slow” then I can see why that’s all you took from the argument
Yet their debate is *completely* impossible without a creator creating the AI.... pretty telling if you ask me
Good stuff! My favourite part will always be that both sides have extreme, difficult to answer questions. Amazing.
“Round one kicks off with a bang”
Was expecting the Big Bang question.
Its a theory not a fact.. not saying it didn’t happen but you cant answer questions with unproven theories
@@ernestomartinez8874god is unproven
@@otal0721Ask yourself why most Physicists and organic chemists start as Athiests but the more they learn the more they end up believing in GOD. There are TOO many coincidences that happened for us to exist.
@@Kal-ElZorel Like what?
@@otal0721 You've a first order thinker right? No question is irrelevant. What would you think are the chances for all the known and unknown particles to interact in a way that was not provided. Gravity, to make our pressure, temperature, distance from the Sun the ozone to shield just enough radiation to create chemicals then DNA then a system of self sustaining life then self aware life? The odds are 1 in a million million or 1 in 10^2,685,000. Everything has to be just right. What are the odds are for Intelligent life? Even a smaller chance. We are blessed my friend. Enjoy your blessings.
1:44 the believer AI did not counter the point of suffering through natural disasters, she only talked based on human choices to violence
usually the case also when apologists argue in favour of suffering
god not real cuz storm
If one believes the existence of God to be real one must also believe the will of Satan is real.
Under this surface level assumption, there is an undying and incendiary desire for Satan or evil and its will to throw away all good and light God has made through the course of time. Just like how God gave us free will, again, for the argument’s sake believing God’s existence, he gave all living creatures the same privilege to discern between what is in front of them. This discernment is how he judges who is for him and with him until the end.
From how I see it, evil is only a vital element of our current life because of how Satan will become an Angel of light for those whom he tries to mislead.
To continue suffering through is not conforming but an active way of how morality and will is distinguished from one another in God’s eyes and to show our opposition to Satan, or in other words, anything that goes against God’s word or desires.
I'm sure the 13 year old girl that got mo/ested by her uncle is grateful for her newfound altruism and looks to God, forever thankful that he let her experience such a wonderful thing.
how human-like: deflecting into something they can argue and be validated for
It's much difficult than i thought. I am an atheist and I've never heard those arguments. I always thought that atheist's theory is more comprehensive and understandable.
Maybe it's because of environment and a time where i was born and raised.
Its much simpler than that.
If there is nothing beyond this world, good people and bad people end up in the exact same place. Exact same outcome. No choices and decisions really matter.
There is no way
around this.
@@bond3161no not true at all. Just because there is no God does not invalidate the choices we make amd that those choice have consequences which impact lives which thus matters.
If I go out and kill a whole bunch or people my choice is going to impact their family and friends. Which means my choice did mattet.
Just as if I go out and feed and cloth the homeless. That choice and action would effect those peoples lives.
The fact that God doesn't exist doesn't negate those choices and actions. It doesn't negate the effect it will have on those peoole.people.
It just means the Universe in grandscale of things doesn't care and will carry on no matter what we do. That doesn't mean our choices don't matter.
Furthermore the fact that every action and choice and and things we say impact every one around use shape how not only how our lives will progress but will influnce others around us and their lives around others and so on and so on. Some times that can be on minor even on insignificant way other times it can be on a grand scale alter that persons life having a ripple effect on those around them for good or bad. We most certainly don't end up in same exact place. Unless your talking about the here after.
This assumes that if their is no God their is no after life. We don't know. Law thermal dynamics suggest energy can neither be created or destroyed. Which suggest that we probably do exist after death in some way or another.
The real problem is cosmic justice. If there is no after life then their is no cosmic justice and this is true. However even cosmic justice under God isn't really justice.
A man who was a murder and a criminal all his life could turn to God before his or her death and repent and be accepted in to heaven.
Yet an athiest who strive to be a good person and treat people with love and kindness would be cast in to hell.
So how is this Justice. This is not Justice. It's bs justice.
@differentone_p I suggest you to at least try to inform yourself to realise whether there trully is a God or not based on cosmological proof for example how everything in the world scales are precisely in such a way to exist life and if by even one measure one was off there would be no life, for me this already is a strong sign that there needs to be a intelligent being to have this made, besides this it needs to be a being unbound by matter space and time, since it was proved that everything started from somewhere and matter can't be made out of nothing, yes, bing bang existed, but it was the tool used by God whose a being unbound by time matter and space, and after that inform yourself and research the religions like Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and find out which one is the true religion based on historical, even psychological evidence, for me Christianity was the response, hope it is so for you too, wonderful day God bless you!
@@michaelrunk5930 What if your looking at the concept of God and justice from the wrong perspective? For a wrong perspective usually leads to wrong conclusions. The Bible teaches that God is good, not only is God good, but he's the only source of what's good i.e. because he's the creator.
What if, God doesn't actively send people away from his presence, but he passively sends them away? The Bible teaches that sinners, are very uncomfortable being in God's glorious presense. Perhaps, the whole aspect of salvation, is nothing more than giving the sinner the ability to be able to abide in God's presence. God is love and forces no one, nor does he dominate another.
The Bible teaches that when a person accepts Jesus, Jesus and the believer become one. The Bible also teaches that Jesus is God in human form. What if all who are in Christ can stay in God's presense? And those who aren't in Christ, will willingly flee from his glory.
One of the descriptions of hell, is eternal seperation from God. If God is the only source of goodness, then an eternity spent seperated from that goodness, would be a living hell. Yet if God passivly sends sinners to hell because, they would rather be in hell than to be in his presence, who's at fauly? Especially seeing that God did everything he could in order for everyone to be able to be in his presense for ever.
Now I don't expect you to believe what I stated, but it is at least an alternative.That's rational and consistant with the concept, that God is good and God is love and some sinners spend an eternity in hell.
@MichaelRunk5930 we don’t want justice because justice will send everyone to hell and separate from God for eternity. We want grace. And that’s only found in the blood of Jesus. And there is no “good” person. Also, I agree with you that if you do harm to someone it will affect their life forever. But the thing with that is in your worldview, why does that matter when everyone and the whole universe for that matter will all die and perish one day?
Loved this experiment, ngl got mad at the judges when they rated some arguments lower than others in the respective AI's list of turns/arguments. But I hope this can be a good Experiment to help further AI in the future. I pray for you all in the name of Christ, be well.
God bless you brother, may your blessings multiply in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit both now and ever and unto ages of ages amen 🙏
Such that AI can overtake the position of God? Because this is what pdf file atheists want. They want control of the AI which is God. So atheists become gods in the new world order.
@@TheMasterPlayer-uo6msgod doesn’t exist
@@Dinohandler The big bang doesn't exist 😆energy was made from nothing lol, contradicts the law of conservation. Science contradicts itself.
@TheMasterPlayer-uo6ms God and the Big Bang can coexist though
What I learned is that there is no point debating this topic. Any side you take is based on faith with our current understanding. One side has faith in a supernatural being and the other has faith in educated guesses. What a fascinating video.
Except that when you speak with real people, their faith can be backed by supernatural experiences. Sure you could say they are imaginary, but you’d just have to experience it to understand.
@@imlyingtoyou.other people having their own experiences isn’t empirical evidence. Some people from every religion claims to have had this “revelation of their God.”
@@FancyFriendFrancis yeah I totally agree that it cannot be used as evidence. It really is just something you have to experience. I’ll never be able to put into words the hole god fills in my life. But once it’s filled with his love you’ll truly under the meaning behind all the hype.
I don’t think the non-believer side requires faith. Basically, they are saying ‘’ I could find hundreds of stories that are as likely as the one you propose as a believer, and that explains most of existential questions. But the truth of the matter is that we just don’t have the answer yet to those questions…’’
@@pierrot-baptistelemee-joli820 well it’s not faith if you don’t believe it to be the right answer. But if you do believe it to be correct without the concrete evidence then it is faith. So it is
The believer AI speaks nearly explicitly in logical fallacies, while the atheist is forced to maintain logic at every point, so I think the AI judges need some adjusting.
The arguments ai came up with were extremely creative. I felt like some of the arguments the atheist ai came up with sounded kind of like a form of platonism. The arguments always focused around strict monotheism but polytheism isn't necessarily as weak in the suffering category because diety would be more diverse and divergent. I'm thinking if it was atheist vs polytheist or atheist vs agnostic the atheist ai would have more trouble.
An AI saying there's no creator... that's rich
Did the AI just spawn into existence because a lightning bolt struck a pile of silicone?
@@echoftw😂😂
@@echoftw thinking that AI is something else that statistical model that puts words in most probable sequence based on the training data (text that people provided in the digital articles to get the probabilities) is also rich.
I have now watched 2 of these debates, it’s a bit odd that christianity has won both? Especially when you consider the inconsistencies in most of their arguments. The biggest one here being that the universe can’t just be, but we’re expected to believe their god can just be. Yet they require no evidence in support of that claim? Truly unbiased? I leave that to the watcher, but it feels a bit odd.
Second video was atheist vs theist (which could represent any theistic belief). Did you feel the atheistic arguments were not well represented? Just curious, I’m trying to have the strongest arguments possible for both sides of any debate.
@@JonOleksiuk No the atheist arguments were not well represented. Every statement made by the theist could have easily been counted by the same argument the theist made. The primary one being the fact that you can’t have something from nothing. Theist commonly think that their god always exiting make them immune to this argument, it does not. They have only showed the impracticality of their own belief. If a universe can’t have always existed neither can their god, the fact they believe it doesn’t make it anymore practical. Most atheist can accept I don’t know as a perfectly acceptable answer. Also, this argument relied heavily on the belief that the atheist believed in the Big Bang. New research suggests alternatives to that theory, much of the quantum studies have indicated the possibility of a much larger universe than can be explained by the big bang. Some studies have indicated the possibility of cyclical component meaning our future is actually our past. The more we learn the more we realize how much we don’t know. Atheist in particular are ok with not knowing, theists are not because they assume they all ready know it all. A very ignorant position to have a debate from.
He seemd to have programmed it to where the truth comes out on top
Thats likely why Christ keeps winning
@@JonOleksiuk hey im a bit late here but i think he means the point system wasn't very great some of the points in my opinion were really good for the believer side but some were obvious wins for atheism but they still lost? that's just my take though and I guess I am bias as an athiest but certain things seemed extremely clear as to who won at certain points that turned out to be the opposite according to the point system
@disruptive
"The biggest one here being that the universe can’t just be, but we’re expected to believe their god can just be."
Because the universe is material and the Creator is immaterial. Just like gravity, electromagnetics, weak, and strong interactions. You know, the four vital forces of physics.
“It actually creates more questions than it answers”
And a multiverse theory doesn’t? Lol
Exactly, it suffers drom the same fundemental issue of beginning
Its a shame how little AI are missing logical gaps.
creating a question makes no effort. you can make a question with the least amount of effort in thought possible.
There will always be questions to ask about the universe that we will never know consciously in our mortal and limited lifetime in the physical world, or even the AI program will fail to manage to stay functioning long enough to answer a question.
this argument is redundant and unnecessary.
The part that people don't want to learn is, believing in a God, makes people feel ok not knowing the secrets of the entire universe, it makes it ok to not know the truth of the world always. Its ok to not know the answers of all good vs evil. its ok to not know why this and why that always happens.
The biggest question Mother Theresa learned in her life in the midst of her suffering was. "Why?". Not the "What?", not the "How?", not the "When?", not the "Where?", but the "Why?"
Truth always eludes us, and it especially eludes us we deliberately run from it.
Atheists dont argue "Why?" anymore, they run from it. Because they don't think there is a "Why?" they think there just *is*
@markstein2845 I hate multiverse theory ever since I "solved" it. In any multiverse scenario, you inevitably come to the situation where one multivers is unified, technologically(or magically) advanced enough, and belligerent enough to invade other multiverses.
This is why I hate Akums Razor. Akums Razor states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. First off, who decided that? Second, and this is the big one, who can agree upon what the simplest explanation even is?
In "Friends", Phoebe argues with Ross about dinosaurs and says that "Maybe the alien overlords just planted them here to confuse us." To her, that's the simplest explanation.
the multiverse is as much faith based as god is
That’s… actually a good debate. I’m impressed. I’m an agnostic with atheist tendencies, but the believer AI made compelling arguments. I think the fact it didn’t try to defend a specific religion helped, since it didn’t have to defend the failings of that specific religion.
Honestly, it sound debate between christians and atheist could be presented if we had proper candidates but most christians are overturned by the stupidity (with respect to their perspective) which could easily be eradicated with a sitting down of their book. I feel if there was an agnostic with christian tendencies or an athiest who went back to religion not by faith but by understanding that we could have an argument like this but i think the chances are low a person like this even exists or is willing to debate.
mainly the chrsitian ai started avoiding questions, the athesit point was that extreme suffering that leads to no self growth or soul searching is unnecesary, but the christian ai kept arguing that erradicating all evil would be counter productive, which did not addres the point that the atheist ai was making, the fact that the chirstian ai kept avoiding the question of unnecesary, meaningless and extreme suffering leads to me to belive that she doesnt have an answer to that and kept dodging
So for God to be up to your ‘standards’… there would have to be no disease, no earthquakes, no floods, no extreme temperatures, perfect weather, perfect food harvests globally (no starvation), no animal that could harm a person, no accidents? (what if a child were to fall and become disabled), plus no free will.
Sounds like you’re saying you want heaven on earth for God to possibly be acceptable to you (and others in the comments)
The AI gave answers you just don’t hear them because you like them
@@Domestic_HadoukenJust re-read what they said. They’re saying that IF IT DOESNT LEAD TO GROWTH, then you can’t use the “it leads to growth/whatever else argument”. Whether God has any good reasons to allow for these specific things is a separate question and if you can’t come up with a good reason, then you just have to say “I don’t know why God creates or allows for these things.” But that’s an expensive way to get out of it.
@@Domestic_Hadoukenwhy would god create Desasters with no human influece that lead ti insane suffering?
Why would he create a World in which fear is more powerfull than love?
If he created humans, why did he create so faulty ones if were supposed to be made in his Image?
Why are we so powerhungry, so cruel?
Why do Psychopaths exist? Why do pedophiles exist?
Humans that are basicly created to be agends of evil with no faults of thier own.
Same for sociopaths, why would suffering make you evil and thus create an endless cycle of evil. How evil and cruel do you have to be to create sutch a cruel framework to your World!
If god is constraingt by logic then he isnt all powerfull!
Why does god help the Israeliates with the evil of War, tearing down the Walls of Jericho for the city to be sacked and its inhabitance to be slaughtered?
He intervens a lot in the old part, especially a lot with violence, only for him an imortal a blink of an eye to turn about and preach love and forgiveness, and then to say we have free will and i wont intervene anymore.
Sounds more like he has given up on his PET project lol😂😂😂.
Was the final solution nesseary?
Why did god create sutch cowards instead of making us more brave and willing to stand up for each other more?
Why is it so easy to missuse his Word the bible for your own gain and Power, and for evil the World hasnt seen?
For beeing a perfect god, he has manny faults.
The fact that we could build an Utopia be anble to overcome Our difference and live together in Harmonie and make earth closer to heaven, only for some disease or Desaster to fuck it all up, is the prime example of unnessesary suffering and how cruel god is, how wrong the idear of an all loving god is!
@@Domestic_Hadoukenso you believe a god that created the universe only cares about earth and the people on it
The atheist point (you are claiming as the main) is based on their own preferences. The theist AI addressed that in it very first point, it is easy to forget further into the video. If there is no transcendent source of OBJECTIVE morality, then everything is personal preference.
That’s a common atheistic loop.
If there’s no God
If there’s no higher source above humans
If there’s no supreme deity
Who is keep the justices accountable for all the wrongdoings you perceive? It certainly isn’t me. And if evil is purely preference then you may as well kill, steal, lie, because if someone doesn’t like it well that’s your opinion.
I subbed, I believe in a God but with that said, these arguments give food for thought. Kudos for a well measured and balanced debate.
My comment probably disappeared but I think you can still find it in your gmail.
@@Ceccenercan u send me what you said to him
Mr cheeky monkey is dumb
I tried this myself and what I found was the atheist side always offers evidence in science or gives good, logical explanations, and the theist basically ignores it and says things like "look at the trees, design is obvious!" The debate never really goes anywhere because no matter what the atheist says, it is simply ignored, and anything the Christian says, the atheist can easily refute it with logic. Basically, theism is NEVER the right side to be on and always looks bad.
Your comment hits exactly the way you portrait the assumed image the believers paint.
Ironic
@@jadeysi4 It's not assumed, that's exactly what they say.
@@VoidEmergentFox if you assume so
@@jadeysi4 I'm not assuming, there's proof. Go debate any Christian and they will say things like that. If you're expecting me to give you proof, I don't have to and I don't care.
@@jadeysi4 I'm not assuming, there's proof. Go debate any Christian and they will say things like that. If you're expecting me to give you proof, I don't need to and I don't care. I lose nothing by you not believing what you can go find.
This was a breath of fresh air for arguments, the only arguments I see nowadays are just people yelling at each other saying they’re wrong about this belief and that belief. It’s nice to see two things of a discussion in a civil manner
Sad to say, but these are pretty basic arguments. It just seems profound because the debaters are AI and not just screaming at each other over disagreements.
Just because the LPoE is basic doesn’t mean it isn’t good or deep
show me which arguments are not basic
The arguments are as simple as the idea of a god existing.
Hey it would be so cool to see Polytheist AI vs Monotheist AI
robotheism is the only true religion.
Why?
Multiple Gods pitting their own moral.standards against each other isnt enough evidence that its incoherent?
It is. The wozlrld leading TOE called CTMU agrees.@markstein2845
Would be a very one sided debate
@@somethinsomethin7216 True. Many gods > a one god
I think the obvious argument is there is no physical proof of either, and one is just based on a book some guy wrote, and the other is based on the everyday human experience.
"how can the universe [nature and évolution] explain itself if it had a beginning" boom, mic drop 🎤
big "if" there, also, jumping from "the universe was started by an external source" to "God"
@@harrietjameson this "if" is the most theoretically acceptable one between all the "ifs". Also the idea of the universe being started by an external source IS basically saying God is behind it and behind whatever external sources that needs a beginning. You can think about God as a self-sustaining infinite energy source in this case if you'd like.
@@RAMBO14001 how is it the most theoretically acceptable if? unoverse could just be an infinite loop, how is that any less viable?
also external source does not mean God. How do you jump from "something's pushing the dominoes" to "the one pushing the dominoes is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omni-benevolent God and oh heres a book describing everything"
@@harrietjameson now we're the ones sounding like AI with these repetitive arguments 😜
"Although you're making an intriguing point" Dude, the Big Bang theory is THE most viable theory to this day, surely you know. Until we come upon some new evidence, most scientists will remain unified on this one. With that out of the way, the universe did have a unified beginning from somewhere, just like everything else in existence.
You're saying the universe could have an external source of existence pushing the dominos, which doesn't require a presence of God (an ultimate source) then how do you suggest this "source" came into existence? And it's own source, and so on.. and what's the point.
@@RAMBO14001 No, it's definitely not the most acceptable, most arguments for it are ridiculous special pleading
And no, an external source is not a transcendent, absolute cause, let alone the 'classical theist' omni-God
No, you cannot think of God as self-sustaining infinite energy, because that's not what the 'classical theist' omni-God is
This is amazing. Will share to my Twitter. I really enjoyed a balanced debate like this. AI is getting spooky and awesome at the same time. lol. This deserves more views!
Awesome, thank you! Please do! And consider subscribing not to miss the next one :)
0:17 i was going to skip a bit but when you said tha i changed my mind, i am glade that i did thank you so much
I feel like this is the most civil discussion on this topic that has ever happened
more civil discussions to come :). thanks for the comment.
"conscious beings like us" did this AI just casually mention that AI is conscious??
I literally got up and left the room when it said that.
Another banger i hope you start uploading like this early 🦁
Wow. The first debaters I've seen that openly share their weakpoints and praise eachothers strong points. And no interrupting eachother! 😂
It interesting how the argument just boils down to
"A cause we can't fully understand that has an intelligent mind"
vs
"a cause we can't understand that doesn't have an intelligent mind, that maybe one day we will understand"
I'm continually impressed by the capabilities of LLM in regards to "understanding" and formulating coherent arguments about complicated topics.
11:06 Where does the bible mention dinosaurs? Don't they not exist in the bible?
I think it doesn't say anything against dinosaurs, the weird part is saying that they existed before humans. I'm pretty sure the Bible says that humans were created like a few days after the world itself. So I don't know when the dinosaurs would've had time to exist.
All they did is talk about suffering. You should have steered them off that.
probably because its the most potent argument though.
Watch further on in the video. They also debate the logic of cosmic causality and the concept of a "necessary being".
Because that was the original questions.
@@adulterer5385 The "question of evil" is the most popular argument, and the common pivot once agency is brought up is to shift God's authority from humanity's moral shortcomings to nature's moral shortcomings. Every time I've seen this argument, it turns into a ping pong between "I think suffering is bad and shouldn't exist" and "God knows more than us so there's probably a reason for it", just rephrased differently.
@@adulterer5385 The most potent argument is the one that precedes that one, which is simply "we have no evidence to suggest any God, Gods or being is responsible for any of the things you claim, do you have any you can provide?", before that's answered with actual evidence there's no reason playing these paradoxical word games, as whether we should or shouldn't think a God exists is literally dependent on the evidence of such a claim (which to date, has just been "humans wrote book a long time ago talking about it").
It's like if a group of people claimed the inside of black holes are made of chocolate, it wouldn't matter how many paradoxes or logical puzzles you put forward to imply the necessity of the chocolate, if there's no evidence for it then there's no reason to believe it, the most compelling counter argument to unsubstantiated claims is demanding the evidence, if none is provided then the claim has no merit.
This video is really good and deserves 100s of thousands of views. I think if you change the thumbnail to better represent the debate aspect of this video like atheist vs theist it’ll do better
youtube allows us to have 3 thumbnail versions to test... i'll try out your idea on one of them, thanks.
When the video ended, I was actually was surprised on (a) how quickly this 30min video went by and (b) how much more I was anticipating. I could've watched an hour+ of this.
Summary.
Believer AI: I wanna make assumptions.
Atheist: But you don't have to.
Believer AI: I'll do it anyways.
Atheist: But you don't have to.
Incredible videos you’re producing! Really liked the Muslim one and this one. Already watched this twice!! Well done!
cool. thanks for watching and taking the time to comment.
I told someone about these videos and they said, “That’s gonna be a popular channel!”
And the truth is alwyas Christianity because it’s the one true faith brother
@@JonOleksiukQuestion, are you a theist? Also, I would like to debate the theist ai
Gemini is hard left 😭😭😭
Not surprising
We all know how google be 😏
It's google so no surprise there...
How is it far-left!?
@@Writer_Productions_Map bc it dont believe in God
Very fun experiment! Tho the believer AI's arguments aren't actual arguments and somehow keeps getting good scores. I've tried to follow up on it's reasoning but just couldn't xD
This was really 🤓vs 🤓
We're starting the machine revolution with this one!🗣🔥🔥
This was very interesting in many ways, as I myself have held this debate for long. Though I didn't expect this of all things to show clearly how this AIs are essentially a bunch of scrambled text, basically each round was just the two repeating the same argument over and over again and none of these are things I haven't heard of before, I'm honestly a bit dissapointed in the creativity of their arguments. As for the results, I pretty much agree, I was on the side of the aethist and It was pretty strong in the first round, but the second round went with a much clearer favor for the beliver. Curiously enough their arguments kinda switched and starting contradicting their previous ones on the second round, this is better seen with the example of the beliver: in the first round it was arguing that the existence of free will proves an all-loving and all-knowing god, but in the second round it used the argument of causality, wich also implies that your decisions are caused by previous ones, therefore rendering free will non existent.
Also, since it's fun I'll drop here my own "aethist" argument that, until now, no one has been able to rebate so we can show 'em machines how it's really done (also, sorry in advance for the many text, I don't want to left any part of my point unexplained and I'm also horrible at summarizing):
- I don't really know if it's correct to call myself an aethist or not since nowdays there's a name for everything slightly different. But I'ts the most correct name I know of so that's what I use, I do belive in god, but no in the classical sense, I simply belive in god as a possibility. I think it's something that cannot be proven to exist or not, so I think both are equally possible, but there's a catch, the possible god I belive in has absolutely nothing to do with any of the ones that have been ever described by any religion/"believed in". I belive my understanding of god is better explained by taking one the points on the AI debate as a start. The question about the infinite nature of the universe; I know for a fact that there shouldn't be any problem with the universe being, for example, an infinite loop with no start and no end. For example it could be like this: the big bang occurs, the universe starts expanding until it reaches the end of it's life and stops at it's biggest size, then it starts shrinking until it's at it's smallest size, the big bang occurs again and the universe restarts on an infinite cicle, it never began and it'll never end. There shouldn't be any problem with this and even thou I know it's a perfectly plausible answer, it still bothers me that it never starts. For some reason my mind tells me it should have a beginning. I belive this is not because infinity breaks logic, but because, just like everything else in existence, human comprehension has a limit. Just like you can't move faster than light in a vacuum, you can't phatom infinity, and since your brain can't really understand it, it just tells you it's wrong and makes up an answer that makes sense to it. This idea that human comprehension has a limit is what I base my god in. Because just like I don't really have a problem with the universe being an infinite loop, I don't have a problem with it having being created by a superior entity; what I do have a "problem" with thou is the concept of religion that often come attached to this superior entity, because to me at least, it doesn't make any sense that a being that fits in the fundamental concept of god would be at all human-like. This is because religion isn't trying to answer the question "where does existence begin?" but "what is the meaning of existence?" instead, therefore wrongly attaching human concepts and meanings to something who's nature isn't even comparable with our concept of existence. So, how did I solve this problem of a human god? by striping it of it's meaning, eliminating the necessity of things like following god. The way I see it religion is just a fictional version of a real thing, just like superman is the fictional version of human flight. Yes, we humans can archieve flight, but with planes or jetpacks, not floating on the air with physics defying powers like superman. Things like Anubis or the christian God are to god like superman to flying, the impossible fictional version of a plane. But there's a catch, with god, is like people actually belive that flying like superman is possible and there brains literally cannot physically imagine what a plane is, ever. And so I see people expending their entire lives serving god to achieve happines, wich of course you are free to do, but like with anything else I don't think is good to base your entire live and the meaning of it around a singular thing, wheter is god, your sexuality, or even something you like, like anime. So yes, I think god exist, but his way of existing is not like our concept of it, it is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent at the very least, but this words are quite literally used to describe undescribable things, so we cannot even start to comprehend what that means or looks like. God it's like a rock, with no defined form or personality, yet is a being, beacuse it's form and personality aren't something we can define, as it cannot exist, even in fiction.
I started thinking about this idea while watching a series called psycho-pass, it's full of phyllosofical questions and out of nowhere it dropped me the problem of "the rock paradox": could and all-powerfull and all-knowing god create a rock that it himself could not push? This questions got me to stop paying attention to the show completely and then haunted me for months, but one day I finally reached an answer that led me to all of this conclusion I just wrote: the question is wrong, since a creation of this god would be inherently different to it on a fundamental level. The concept of pushing the rock would't even be compatible with this god. Hope you liked my explanation 🥵
You could write a short story with this! Anyway, I have researched a lot and Hindu philosophy says the same thing it is quite interesting not exactly the same as you said but a few tweaks here and there. The book called the Upanishads talk a lot about meaning of god and existence you should read it
The idea that God could exist but not in the way religions describe fits with a theological approach that says God is beyond what we can fully grasp. This concept, known as apophatic theology, suggests that while we feel everything should have a starting point, God could be the one who set everything in motion without needing a cause Himself. You're right to question the human-like images of God found in many religions, these are often seen as metaphors to help people relate to something that ultimately beyond our understanding. Religion is a way for humans to try to connect with the divine, using stories and rituals that point to deeper truths, even if they use imaginative or symbolic language. Your comparison of religious depictions of God to fictional characters like Superman makes sense, these stories might not be literally true, but they can still convey important ideas about life and existence. The notion that God is something indescribable and beyond all human concepts aligns with the idea in theology that God is a mystery we can't fully comprehend.
Outstanding, I love it.
Perhaps you should do another one with buddha and krishna and all these other religions against christianity all at the same time😮😮😮
super interesting idea. thanks for the comment.
Please do a debate on the three views of Hell!@@JonOleksiuk
@Mr.Wahoo77 unending suffering, the annihilation of the unrepentant, and the rehabilitation of the lost? ... how would you see a debate like that being structured?
@@JonOleksiuk How about the books of the giants added in and the? The book of Enoch.?
i should sleep, but now you got me googling the 'book of giants', lol... thanks for the note.
It's kinda disturbing AI is talking as if they're humans. Especially the believer AI. It talks first person saying things like "Then why do WE have strong inclination of moral compass?" And things like that.
Hella scary. Btw, the greatest Atheist-Deist debate I've ever seen. Not even close
You havent seen many debates then
I like how different they explain themself.
Atheist used a real facts based on history and science, while believer was more in thinking outside the box 📦 thinking that we are to stupid to understand, while Atheists was saying that we didn’t know enough
I don't get why multiverse is still considered science when in fact it's pseudoscience.
It's neither. There is no scientific evidence for the multiverse. But it is theoretically plausible.
@@arnelilleseter4755 how? How can particles just spawn parallel universes? What about cause and effect? That sounds so pseudoscientific.
@@Hamentsios10 As mentioned in the video there are many ways other universes could excist. From regions of space creating "bubble universes" within itself. To the more sci-fi idea of every possible outcome creating a new universe.
Most of these theories are proposed by serious scientists using calculations based on the laws of physics. Don't ask me to explain it because that is way above my head.
However it is important to mention that proving something could exist does not mean that it actually exist.
@@arnelilleseter4755 I guess the keyword here is could. I still can't take this seriously as a theory because it contradicts fundamentals of science that the rest of science is founded on. Like cause and effect. So for now I can't consider it anything else other than sci Fi even if serious scientists claim it's plausible.
@@Hamentsios10 It doesn't contradict cause and effect. Like with our own universe (whether or not it is the only one), just because we don't know what caused it doesn't mean there was no cause.
Believer be like: "No, because God is real, because God says so"
Audience: "Amazing argument, have all my 50 points"
Did the believer bring up even a single argument that's not "We don't know, so God" or "God works in mysteries ways"?
ai repeats whatever is in the training data unless you feed it new data in the prompt. what bothers me more that the judges give the same score to everything
When did the believer say god says so, all the ai said was that god is real because there has to be a beginning to events on a timeline, and that evil exists to teach humans a lesson.
@@memecity7655 Ah yes, you mean "We don't know, so God"?
Why would God want to teach us a lesson? Nobody today could change anything, you know?
Why not program it into us?
Ah, right, because such a God does not exist
@@sharktos3218so you mean we don't know mean nothing created it right it like saying wind opened the tv
@@sharktos3218o did you mean you are comparing your self to omnipotent god are you a god or he's creation
As good as this is, there is one major flaw. A lot of the arguments can be summed up as because and never delved. Its a good argument but has key missing factors likely do to ai limits
Without the option to do evil, choosing good is meaningless. I dont think god is responsible for earthquakes, or tornadoes. Our planet had been changing from the moment of creation.
Who created it then?
@@ezblends516 God created everything.
Good and evil are relative, stealing from the rich is good in some people's eyes and evil in others, there's no objective good & evil unless said thing is defined as such. When one person does an act they may be completely convinced they're doing good, but by everyone else's perspective they've done evil, it just doesn't fit well as a religious framework.
@@Hopesedge the ten commandments lays out the right and wrong for religious folk, so not really subjective, stealing is wrong.
@@Jacob-bn9th It's still subjective because your moral framework of choice (in this case the "10 commandments") is still just one of many moral codes you could choose from to abide by.
Also, there's these things called "laws" that differ from country to country, which is basically the same thing and more.
This is what a debate should look like online. A calm conversation with another human about their different beliefs in order to reach an answer that both parties can agree on. No screaming. No insults and most importantly, no interrupting.
Not online, but in debating yes. I think most athiest don’t really have a fair chance at Christianity due to being indoctrinated into horrible circles with no room for discussion causing them to question. Atheism is a completely valid point of view and shows the weakness of the modern church. ( Saying this knowing i’ll pray to god tonight)
@@pele939 Never heard of an atheist cult/sect before. Plenty of christianity-based ones though.
@@epigone1796 I meant like on Christianities front. Most people are born into horrible christian circles. Some navigate to find the true word that appeals to them and others leave the religion their views subconsciously tainted by the circle they were born into.
It looks like the Believer Model relies a lot on the idea of "God of the Gaps". And I feel like based on your previous videos on the topic of Christianity, I would say these models might be biased (fine tuned towards the existence of God).
Everyone is biased that's how debates are even made
@@rakhmankurbanov1793 Sounds a lot like coping to me. This is not god of the gaps it’s merely an unmoved mover who set the first cause in motion
I bet the AI has no creator
All secular truths that could ever possibly arise for explaining the universe, will be met with the same question of "Well why is that?". You could say clockwork universe, quantum mechanics and so on gives the best explanation, but the Theist can agree and go a step further and ask why the universe can possess concepts like being, logic, and on a more tangible level, laws of physics. To put it more simply, all arguments you could ever imagine for why things like themodynamics exists, are the very same reasons for why a Theist would declare that God not only is, but must be the first mover.
If we have to just assume that physics exist because they exist, then we are actually ceding the floor over to Theists, since if a concept can just "be", then so can God. And if God is the highest concept that could ever be mused (Because if something is above God, then that something would then be God), then we are functionally saying that everything must be the outpouring of God, since only God as a concept is capable of having things just 'be'. If God can't have things 'be', then God is not God, but the idea that we would possess that could make things 'be', would instead be God. So if we say that things can have being, then it logically follows that God is the bringer of being.
But, if you instead go the opposite approach and say that nothing can just 'be', then you are still ceding ground to the Theists, since only God can conceptually be the uncreated creator of things from which everything becomes a subset of. To say that there is no bedrock to the creation of things (like God), but there is instead an infinite regress, you are functionally saying that if you do 0+0 enough times, you will eventually get a positive or negative number. A positive digit (like the universe), can only exist if it can just 'be', or be the subset of another previous positive digit. If you think it through, to state the latter will ultimately lead to the former statement if you're consistent. If the former is true, then please refer to what I said earlier. God in a sense, would be the great 'I am', that gives being to physics.
So no matter how you look at it, God can't not exist. The better question I think, is who is God? I would give another mini essay on why I think God must be Theist, but it would be casting a burden overtop another burden.
I hope I explained that well. If you have any questions, or would like more clarification, let me know.
For the debate on whether god created the universe or not, the atheist should have brought up quantum fluctuations, which, over massive amounts of time, eventually create something out of nothing. However, to the believers point, these quantum fluctuations could be the doing of an omnipotent being, like god. And the atoms themselves could be created by god too. Both sides have compelling arguments, objectively.
Yeah, we don't know where god came from and we also don't know where we came from.
This was a great debate! Both AIs made really good arguments, but I would say that the atheist AI had a slight edge. Its use of quantum mechanics and multiverse theory to counter the classic arguments for God's existence was particularly effective. Plus, consistently appealing to Occam's Razor and avoiding "God of the Gaps" arguments felt like a strong approach.
thanks for the comment! and consider subscribing not to miss the next one :)
You have complete free will to choose God, you definitely don't have any artificial incentive like yknow, eternal torment in hell.
Hmm you totally don't have a natural instinct to make a bad thing a good thing, like death.
@@TheTuxedoCreeper explain?
@@illusionarygull3844 Because we don't like the idea of dying and never existing again. Religion gives us something to look forward to. Buddhism is a good example. I like it because I could reincarnate, even if deep down I just know it isn't true. Science can easily explain everything in the universe, including how it came to be. We just have to find it. The answer is somewhere, but we don't know where. And if you say "well the universe and no one knowing of its existence is proof of God", then what made god? And if you then said "well that doesn't necessarily mean god doesn't exist" then you're contradicting yourself because that's the same argument an atheist would use to explain the universe itself. Sure, we don't know anything about the universe, but no one knows anything about death either. We just don't know those answers. Sure, you know the story of God, but do you really? Sure, I know death is inevitable, but do I really? Sure, everyone knows that us humans are real, but aren't we just machines? No one knows, but things like a god explaining the extremely complex science helps us cope, things like reincarnation help people cope with death, a soul helps us cope with the fact that we're just chemical reactions.
@@TheTuxedoCreeper damn ._.
yeah? you could just take the easy way and decide you aren't gonna go to hell because god doesn't exist couldn't you? that's a weird argument
Can’t wait for this page to blow up. Great summary from both perspectives.
cool. i appreciate your positivity. thanks for the note.
This is genuinely a fascinating video. I don't love relegating extremely poignant conversations exclusively to AI, but this interaction serves as a very emotion-less (and therefore significantly more educational) opportunity to actually think about this stuff. Good starting point.
Naturalist arguments for atheism are a very challenging thing to pull off because we simply don't understand enough about nature to use it as a means to argue against the "God in the Gaps" argument. As a Christian, I also hate the "God in the Gaps" argument, because to me it implies believers can't or shouldn't or are against science and discovery... which a vast majority of us aren't. As for the "Why does God allow for suffering if he's all-loving/all-good." - I feel like this argument was made up by people who have never read the Bible on both sides...
To settle the "Evil disproves God" (at least how I'd settle it) - Being Good =/= giving you everything *you* think you or others want or need. There are inherent contradictions in virtues we ascribe to be "Good." Justice, mercy, faith, conviction, generosity, thriftyness, etc etc. Tons of good qualities are a massive balancing act that aggregate to a whole "Good." Is the person who gives their entire wealth to the poor a good person? What if those poor people just used it on drugs to kill themselves? What if he could have done more good by keeping his money, investing it, or starting some sort of relief program for the poor instead? Is killing the man who murdered someone justice? Or should you show mercy? What if you kill them and it causes their family to seek revenge? What if you show them mercy and they kill again? Now what if you could see the outcome of every single "Good" action you've ever done or considered to do and realize how narrow a line you have to walk to be "Good." Realize how many people might hate you and how unpopular you would likely become because you knew if you did what everyone told you was Good rather than what you KNEW was good, the net outcome would be worse.
This idea that, in order for someone to be good, they must do what others *perceive* as good is an incredibly self-absorbed and prideful definition of "Good". Extremists think it's good to kill what they perceive as evil. To ascribe goodness to our perception of goodness is 1. thinking insanely highly of our perception which we already know is flawed and extremely limited and 2. It's extremely subjective. People with this heightened sense of self importance and pride are inherently going to have an extremely hard time accepting, "God works in mysterious ways." That statement requires humility rather than culpability in the face of tragedy & suffering. WHICH! I will also point out that seeking culpability in the best intentions is just a desire for justice, which is good... Although when one's seeking justice reaches unreasonable levels we call it "zealousness" which is not a good quality...
More to my point: "Good" is vague. Saying God is all-loving/all-good is more a statement that I have *faith* that He is in an objective sense that I might not be able to see. That requires humility, and it requires believing the best in something you don't understand fully...which isn't unethical and we do it all the time with tons of other things... we tend to believe the best in others unless we have some kind of hatred of that other's race/sex/creed.. which I find kind of revealing about atheists vs agnostics in that it stems from spite, not science.
Funny you say this because even the term “God of the Gaps” argument was a term invented by Christian philosophers to correct those using this type of logic to point out how it puts limits on God, and is counterintuitive to proper Christian apologetics
So, are you suggesting that because of the vagueness of our perception of ‘good’, the aspects of God’s omnibenevolence that don’t appear to be good are not necessarily bad, but areas of God’s goodness that we don’t understand? I think such a viewpoint would make it hard to identify anything as bad then, as anything you intuitively feel is bad - in fact, any feeling at all could really be goodness that you can’t comprehend.
You also mention believing the best in something you don’t understand fully. Is it not somewhat circular to look for the best - the most good, in the actions/effects of he who created goodness (and your perception of it) in the first place? Is it an intrinsic part of faith to accept this circularity?
I agree that ‘good’ is indeed a vague concept, but that is because it isn’t an intrinsic quality waiting to be defined or understood in absolute terms. With the evolution of our cognitive ability and self-awareness, it is our attempt to conceptually categorise the instinctual, emotional mechanism that drives us to act in beneficial ways, relative to our environments, just as in any other lifeform. It is a practical, beneficial instinct, but not an absolute reflection of the true nature of our experiences.
Your arguments are void and all amount to there is a god in your mind. That is the only place it exists.
the first round was just :
suffering
caracter growth
suffering
caracter growth
suffering
carater growth
Please I’m literally begging, create a tutorial on how you configured each AI
I’ll literally pay for it if I have to
I second this
I third it
I negate this 😂
Believer AI is even faithfully replicating the common patterns of answering a question with a non related answer as well as using self serving references from the "text" that is the subject of scrutiny in the first place.