NEW debates with NEW AI models AI Doctors CLASH over ABORTION debate --> ua-cam.com/video/czbLw6zvppQ/v-deo.html Atheism vs. Theism -->> ua-cam.com/video/EMyAGuHnDHk/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 :)
can your ai agents work on the extraction of the most probable (using bayesian and classical statistics) text of the hebrew new testament given every known manuscript(hebrew, koine, latin, vetus latina, aramaic, ethiopian, etc.) or text also using forensic criminological techniques to extract or verify the modifications so as to result in a reliable text also cross verified with patristic sources such as the apostolic and church fathers?
The sad thing is the Christian didn't mention our primary source for the Bible and it's preservation: The Holy Spirit. The skeptic brought it up first at the end. Yes, the Holy Spirit used natural human "means", but we have no concern over "man's" limitations. The Holy Spirit made sure we have exactly what He wants us to have and in the way He wanted it to come to us. We must also understand that the skeptic is not neutral but is hostile to God so we can't expect any fair play, especially from Bart and I'm not talking about the AI engine.
If the goal is only to disprove the other, then Protestant need only quote Matthew 23:9 “And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven”. Catholics call the priests father because they venerate the priests and structure over the source material itself. Which is fine, I'm not saying it's bad... It's just true.
If you understand the Eucharist is literally the body of Christ you can understand why you can call a Pastor Father. Likewise if you Understand Mary is the Eternal Virgin you can Understand she is the Mother of God and Queen of heaven. However if your core belief is Mary was just a Girl, your understanding of Christianity will always be lacking.... Bro...
@@onbored9627 calling no man on earth father (or teacher as is also mentioned) is directly contradicted elsewhere, especially in Paul's writings. So perhaps a face value interpretation of that passage is less than useful.
Fun fact : Matthew was very likely written in Hebrew originally. Certain sayings and idioms in the Greek version have little meaning but in Hebrew make sense. Another fun fact: only Matthew notes the payment of 30 pieces of silver to betray Jesus. A tax collector would not have missed this.
@@МыколаНетребко That's a Good point. Scholars agree that Mathew and Luke must have obtained much information from a Q source. Unfortunately, neither the Q source nor the earliest copies survived.
That is false. The anonymous Greek text that, in the second half of the second century, began to be called "The Gospel according to Matthew" is a modified copy of the anonymous Greek text that, in the second half of the second century, began to be called "The Gospel according to Mark." If there ever was a Hebrew "gospel" (more likely a collection of sayings, like The Gospel of Thomas) written by someone named Matthew, as Eusebius said that Papias mentioned, we no longer have access to it.
@@МыколаНетребко Mark was written before Matthew and both expressed what they knew and both are very much the same. Except Matthew goes into more detail, perhaps because he was better educated. Also the original Hebrew language was no longer used at the time of Christ. The language they used was Aramaic. Hebrew died out during the Babylonian and Persian Empires.
Why are people always talking about which books are written before which instead of finding out the source behind the branding of this "Holy Bible". When the Pentateuch was written, Matthew, Mark and others certainly weren't. And there wasn't an intention to have them all put into one book as if everyone one of them agreed with one another, and it was the Creator's idea all along to have all these men written books to be put into one. Why doesn't anyone question this? You all have a phone, it came from two big brands predominantly. They all had a version one. They could be sold later to another company and still be called eyephones or galaxies.
In the last two debates, I tried to convey how hopeful I was of this channel's process while simultaneously being fairly critical of the debaters' circular logic and simplistic arguments. I now feel like one of those onlookers heckling the Wright Brothers because their horse and buggy were faster. When that plane finally flew, it did something no horse and buggy could ever do. That's what I just saw here. This isn't just an improvement on the last two debates. This created a standard that has yet to exist. I've personally witnessed dozens of debates from nationally recognized collegiate debaters and hundreds more online, and I can say with absolute certainty that no debate of this caliber has ever been achieved. I feel like I just witnessed the first moon landing. The accuracy, consistency, and clean respectful delivery carried out by both sides is something I have never seen. Forget sportsman-like conduct! There wasn't even a "hint" of irreverence! I honestly want to cry. I seriously wonder how many people, watching this, know just how significant this kind of unbiased precision actually is. Quoting the original texts in their original languages. Cross referencing dozens of eye witnesses and critics from multiple backgrounds. Wow. I am. I'm actually crying. This is like the Mona Lisa of logic and discourse. This is literal art. Thank you @JonOleksiuk for this gift. Seriously. Thank you.
@gregeckert1660 He's one of those guys who pretends to be a scholar, but his goal is to lead people away from Christ. He claims to know scripture but still chooses to deceive others like the serpent. I've listened to countless apologetic, scholarly, arguments, refutes, etc. They all have the same thing in common. They know the scripture but deny it and try to gain fame from it because they know that the more atheists that back up their pretentious movement, the easier it is to manipulate the rest of the crowd.. this is the sin of intellectualism. People prefer their pride over God. They believe they will escape God's wrath because they claim to be smarter and wiser than Him 🤣 it will be a sad awakening 🥲
@@Avad_t_Eved I hear you, do you truly believe that though? He’s made some truly interesting claims though. And he was a Christian if I’m not mistaken. He’s definitely had me doubting things for sure but I’m also not entirely educated on Christ yet. I wish people like Bart would just be honest , but I’m not too sure he is:/
@gregeckert1660 I was as far away from Christ as anyone else could be, a former child of Satan. I also had my share of rejection and denial and would use anything to justify my position. I had every reason to reject God. Long story short, I had lived out my depraved nihilistic-solipisitic life, and I was at the point of suicide.., spiritually, mentally, emotionally dead, physically decaying.. no amount of knowledge, drugs, drunkedness, new age spirituality, or stoicism could save me. Enter Jesus and His gospel, I was desperate and out of options, God being my last last last last...last resort. He truly has saved me, just as the gospel demonstrates in the New Testament. The more you read, the more you begin to realize that God was always there and is reaching out to you. His faithfulness is unlike anything consistent here on earth. Yes, He may turn His face away from you because of sin, but that doesn't mean He won't point you where you need to go! Don't let someone else jeopardize your salvation and relationship with God because they have "a decent and lofty argument," and remember, the Bible contains a lot of information for later generations, that includes advice for being alert for false teachings and people that will "tickle your ear and scratch it", God's perfect love, drives out fear, you can find that in the book of 1 John🙂
Man, considering that you’re Christian (based on your early videos), the fact that Christianity consistently wins in all your debates raises questions about whether you might be influencing the outcomes. It would be unfortunate because I really wanted to see an unbiased debate on AI.
I edited the debate together before having the judges score it, so I don't know how the models will rate it. Personally, I'm more interested in hearing the best possible arguments from both sides. If you think one perspective isn't presented well, let me know. From the last two debates, it seems some language models judge certain perspectives with higher or lower scores routinely. I'll be watching to see if this trend continues. thanks for the comment.
come on, the skeptic here missed 'the fulfilment of prophecies' and that Jesus is present in all books of the Old Testament, the NT writers were not aligning the events of Jesus with the events in OT, rather they were proving why Jesus was the promised Messiah. To think that this debate is biased, really, AI debate is still biased? How skeptic can you be
@@corkystorkyThis. “These parallels prove that the gospels are unreliable.” Apparently they aren’t familiar with Jewish or Christian theology concerning prophecy.
@@ibelieve8145 "Better" is subjective. Your remark, "didn't consider that, huh", is extremely condescending and intellectually dishonest...not christ-like at all. Some of the AI models consistently give higher scores to the skeptic arguments, meaning they deem those arguments to be "better". Just because the majority thinks something is "better" does not mean it is true. The problem I have with any scoring system at all is it inspires people with superiority complexes to belittle anybody who disagrees with the scoring. You were on the "winning" side, so you feel entitled to condescend someone for expressing valid skepticism. In my mind, including scores at all sows discord: your condescension is a perfect example of that. People should just decide for themselves which arguments are "best".
This series of videos is extremely fascinating to me. Not in the way that I think these debates could lead people into finding the truth, that really cant be found in an AI in my opinion, but rather its the way they debate. LLMs by nature are designed to be agreeable, because people are meant to use them. So this means that in a "debate" the AI will validate their opponent, but provide pushback, rather than outright attacking the opponent. Which creates a fascinating kind of debate because there arent any character attacks, mostly because there is no character to attack. If nothing else its a strangely good example of how we as people should treat eachother when debating.
I don't know if debates usually do lead people to find the truth. I would prefer thinking that it would make people interested about the subject to find info about it on their own and make a decision for themselves.
Far out Jon you're at it again. You're still posting rubbish. HEY EVERYONE, IT TAKES ME LESS THAN ONE MINUTE TO GET AI TO CONFESS THAT THERE IS VERY LITTLE TRUTH IN THE BIBLE. SO... JON'S WORK HERE IS 100% RIGGED. An * year old could rig these numbers. CHRISTIANS, EVERYONE IS TIRED OF YOU TRYING TO JUSTIFY YOU'RE CRAZY BELIEFS. I BEG YOU TO READ OTHER BOOKS. Jon please stop this. I have much to do. Must I dedicate hours just to prove what you already know? THIS IS BS Jon. Please give it up
If an Artificial Intelligence can discern things on a fact-by-fact basis, it could simply say things as they are, without twisting the truth or mis-applying things.
The problem with these silly AI debates, if you even want to consider them as such, is that nether side has any rebuttals of the others argument. They just move on to a different argument that just slightly glosses over anything the other claims.
Have you noticed that the “skeptic” ai is constantly moving the goalposts the further into the (for example contesting the genre of the gospels, then immediately conceding that they were biographies in the next round, although it did caveat that fact with the context of biographies of the day). Is each argument assessed isolated to that specific round or does it take previous rounds into consideration?
On the topic of oral traditions and memory studies, I find it highly disingenuous to assume and compare modern day results and assume that people 2,000 years ago (or more) would've functioned the same way. It's almost as if they purposely leave out the fact that people of old ONLY had memory and oral tradition, so their recollection and transmission would've relied on accuracy. Whereas, through the ages up to modern day, as communication methods shifted away from that, of course retention/accuracy would've curved downward. It'd be like putting a city person in the middle of a jungle and expecting them to be able to survive like a tribesman...
At the 24 mins mark when memorisation of text was mentioned, I can add that in ancient tradition in China, same method was used to study ancient text and to transmit to the next generation. The level of accuracy is almost 100%.
@JonOleksiuk I wanted to message you directly, but I couldn't figure out how to do it, so I'm just gonna post it here for all to see. Thank you so much for this. Both sides were presented so well that, honestly, neither side "won" the debate. Instead, they each provided the building blocks for a thousand conversations to come opening channels that were once closed, and changing what I consider one of the most interesting topics on planet Earth into more than just a screaming match. Whatever your beliefs are, I pray that God makes a place for you if for no other reason than what you just gave us here today. From the bottom of my heart, I thank you.
@@JonOleksiuk This still has me emotional. I think I'm experiencing what others experience when they hear opera for the first time. I thought progress like this was still YEARS out for these AI. Just hearing such clear competency from both sides with such air tight arguments that actually built on each other. This was like a verbal battle between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazer. I honestly feel like you and yours accomplished something historic here.
@4:00 There is a fallacy based on 3rd-4th-century manuscripts because there is still a major gap arriving from the 1st and 2nd centuries. There are no 'abundance' manuscripts to verify the consensus for source texts or early copies. In the 1st and 2nd centuries, there was no professional clergy class to overlook the copies. It was the Wild West; anyone could have included the unverifiable errors. Neither do we have any copies of the Q source.
@@dakotaneuman8748 Isn't one of the arguments most biblical scholars use to point out that the pastoral epistles weren't written by Paul precisely that there wasn't such church hierarchy at that time?
@@vejeke I don't know about that. Some of the greatest saints many which were clergy, and are directly in the New Testament. Lazarus was a bishop, Steven was a deacon, ect.
@@dakotaneuman8748@dakotaneuman8748 There were woman deaconesses, too. We know this for certain, as it was reported to Emperor Trajan at the end of the 1st century. It doesn't mean priests, bishops, and deacons were professional scribes.
Amazing...i'm working on the next video right now. If you haven't already please subscribe and hit "All Notifications" not to miss what's coming next :)
Hi, just checked out your channel, good work, congrats. The dialogue for these AI debates is generated by multiple LLMs which interact to revise arguments, fact-check, add footnotes, etc, before producing a final output . The text is then copied from the AI transcript manually into a graphic template i made in premiere. currently its ton of work (as you know) but i'm interesting in these topics and enjoy learning the arguments as i put it together.
@@JonOleksiuk Oh wow, so you really do sync every text with the audio yourself, yeah that must be a ton of work! Also, how do you avoid AIs going on with their own talking points, making sure that they actually respond to each other? I'd guess it's one of the other LLMs which instructs them to do that.
8:24 The context of that verse actually negates the skeptics point. In Mark 15:34 the word for "my God." in koine greek is "Ἐλωΐ" which corresponds to the Aramaic word "elahi". The word in Matthew is recorded as "Ἠλί" (which more closely matches the Hebrew form used in Psalm 22, but is attested to the Aramaic "elahi" as well) Here's the cool part: In both gospels, the crowds assume that Jesus is crying out for the Prophet Elijah to save him. (Mark 15:35, Matthew 27:47) The reason is because the Aramaic word for Elijah is "Ēlīyā" The closeness of pronunciation between "Ēlīyā" and "Elāhī" is nearly lost on a koine greek speaking audience. I say nearly because the koine greek difference would've been "Eloi" and "Ēlian" Sources: (Davies, William D. and Dale C. Allison. 1997. Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Volume III. P.624) (Williams P.J. 2004. The linguistic background to Jesus' Dereliction Cry. The New Testament in its first century setting (ed. Williams P.J., Andre D. Clarke et al.) p. 7-8.)
yeah, you need to have the AI models do a intertextual analysis through the Hebrew OT Septuagint OT. Greek NT for word and phrase tracing and then use a more sophisticated analysis such as poetic patterns like chiasms and a set of rules to detect how strong a reference is and consider books such as the Decalogue as a unit that might not be strictly chronological as the book "Through the Waters" suggests that references to Exodus are present in the narrative in Genesis in a way that is not strictly quotations but more plot points included to foreshadow. I think Machine Learning could be very useful in removing emotion from scholarship analysis to clarify disagreement as a more neutral arbitrator.
calling oral traditions "flexible," doesn't make them sound like anything other than people talking to each other and trying to remember something about that conversation later on 🤔🤷♂️
The AI made so many blunders on textual criticism. First and foremost Daniel B Wallace used to be a radical conservative meaning he used to believe the majority text could reconstruct the original text. Now he’s a reasoned eclectic meaning he believes the Alexandrian manuscript which is not the majority text type should allow to reconstruct the original text. The AI quotes A outdated source from Wallace. There’s so many other problems
3 місяці тому+4
Good job! I have a question: What model is doing the debate text? You say "advanced AI", but which AI?
I can see why this topic is hotly debated, since both the believer and the skeptic perspectives were rated so closely given access to the same body of information. It was also interesting that there was some favoring even in the AIs that judged the debate. It was also interesting to hear "robots" debate. Humans could take a few notes. Question: did anyone pick up on any logical fallacies?
Much love to all Catholics but scripture is too clear that faith is what saves us for us to deny that. I don't claim to be a protestant but one who follows the Bible (though what the Bible teaches aligns with what the protestant side teaches). Not a denomination or specific church. 1 John 5:13 ESV I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. Ephesians 2:8-10 ESV For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, [9] not a result of works, so that no one may boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. Romans 6:23 ESV For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. God bless and much love ❤️✝️
@AdamRogers Revelation 22:12-13 ESV "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. [13] I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." John 6:47-51 ESV Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. [50] This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. [51] I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." ❤️✝️
I feel like the fact that there’s a score undermines the whole debate. All people will want to do is see if the score supports their opinion instead of listen through the debate and come to their own conclusions
I've had catechesis when I was a child and since then I became an atheist on the basis of a question that I could not resolve ever since. So I would appreciate if you could actually ask this AI to answer it. When confronted with the evidence that dinosaurs existed millions of years before humans-a fact supported by extensive scientific research-believers often turn to various interpretations of the biblical creation story to reconcile this disparity. However, this very need to reinterpret or adapt the Scripture to align with modern scientific discoveries raises critical questions about the veracity and reliability of the biblical narrative. How can one discern which parts of the Scripture are meant to be taken literally and which are intended as allegory or metaphor? If foundational events like the creation of the world can be reinterpreted or adapted to fit modern scientific understanding, it challenges the notion of the Bible as an immutable and divinely inspired text. This interpretative flexibility may lead to doubts about the authenticity of other biblical teachings and stories, calling into question the extent to which the Scriptures reflect objective truth or are instead shaped by the cultural and historical contexts in which they were written.
I appreciate this comment and see so many people like you everyday. I encourage you not to give up on this. The Bible was written by many different people over a very long time and contain stories too profound for any human to make up. There is something special and life transforming about it. As far as how to interpret it, look at the style. If it reads like history, it probably should be read as history. If it reads like prophecy, it should probably be read as prophecy. If it reads like poetry, it should probably be read as poetry. This is something we learn, we don't start out knowing how to do this and it is harder for some than for others (it's really hard for me but it's gotten better over time persistently trying to get better). As far as dinosaurs, now keep in mind I'm not saying this as definitive truth but I think it's a fun theory: When Adam was formed from dust most people believed he was a grown man. But also it's true that he was only a day old. God somehow made Adam with an appearance of age as if he had past experiences but in reality he didn't. Could the same be true of the Earth? Could the Earth have been made with an apparant history with bones of organisms that never lived? It would be similar to an author creating a fictional world with an entire history that takes place before the story. The era of the dinosaurs might have been prelude to the story God has written for this world, what we call history. Again, not saying this is for sure true, just a maybe. I do want to warn you though. One of the Bible's biggest claims is that the reason anyone of us accepts or denies God is due to the heart, not due to the mind. I once knew a man who like you claimed to not believe in God because he couldn't get a satisfactory answer to a question he had. After I gave him one, I then asked if he would believe in God and he said no. I asked him why and he just said because he didn't want to. The questions that you should ask yourself, the questions that will change your life if you're honest in answering them is whether you love God or hate God. Whether you trust God or mistrust him. These are matters of the heart, not of the mind. Remember, Jesus offers to take your sin from you as far is the east is from the west if only you trust him to do so
@@trevorbilliot2625 it is a beautful answer and I appreciate it. However, as one grows older, we come to realize that politics often involves deception, where ideals are frequently compromised for power. By studying history, we see how institutions, like the Catholic Church, have wielded religion not just as a path to salvation but as a tool for control, shaping empires, influencing monarchs, and preserving its authority.. While there is some truth in what you say about believing with the heart, I can't overlook how the church’s actions throughout history have undermined the purity of the word of God. They prophesied salvation, yet their intervention has to me at least, distorted and perverted the message, making it difficult to separate divine truth from human manipulation.
If you're talking about which translation was used, largely they're quoting text from the original Koine Greek from the various extant texts (dead sea scrolls, textus receptus, Codex Sinaiticus, various papyri fragments, etc) and then translating said Koine Greek into English. If you would like a baseline, the KJV is based on the textus receptus (compiled in the 15 and 1600s) but they also reference much older texts. As for the religious perspective, they're just "Atheist" and "Christian" but the scholars they are parroting are from across the board, though they are all Western (American and Europe) as far as I know. Sources for each argument are cited in the description.
Irrelevant. The bible, as translated into modern English, could in principle be a 100% flawless handing down of the exact original text in litter and spirit and it still wouldn't go one iota towards demonstrating that it's claims were true to begin with. As it stands, we know it isn't that, either.
I woulda like to seen you ask the same about the Quaran and the rest of the books they use in there beliefs. What A.I. would say about that next to The HOLY BIBLE
Should we align with the argument that suggests a 99% trustworthiness in the Bible's reliability today? Or should we consider the 1% that casts doubt on its trustworthiness? Previously, I was on the side that rejected the Bible, not because of the overwhelming support for its trustworthiness, but because I did not want to acknowledge my resistance to God and the accountability that comes with it. Would you prefer to stand on a piece of wood that is 1 inch wide and 99 inches deep, or one that is 99 inches wide and 1 inch deep? A wise person would choose to stand on something sturdy, while a fool might choose to stand on something flimsy.
How about you flip it around. The Bible is 1% trustworthy but you guys are so loud and adamant that the resurrection of a dude actually happened and we should disregard all common sense and common experience in favor of your world view.
I have a friend, who was using chatbots in the mid 2000s. He tried to show me how close to Skynet we were back then. The chatbots were simoler LLMs that could only work a limited range of context and you had to be very careful how you were asking queations. In the around 5% of anweres that were not confusing, you would some see a rather briliant answer, which when I google, was usually some straight away from public papper. Midern LLMs have a much better handling in context - they don't need you to be exactly, and I mean 100% on point and can generate text that is quite good, but they still have their "understanding" based in some text (or series of texts more often) that basically answers the same question. You can think of LLMs as a big database with a lot of answers, that sometimes throws different answers. Yes, you can "debate", but the ussue is, that it's based of a real answer to the same or similar question and sometines it can get it wrong. That's why is important to keep track of the sources. Great tool for research, but I am afraid that way to many people will just start claiming, that "they wrote" whatever the model gave them and it will lead to some issues in the future. Then again, I might be wrong! I was just a kid at the time and my friend was tryibg to convince me, that we could have Cortana so it was a fun activity.
AI had this to say: The concept of large language models (LLMs) engaging in debates on relevant issues is a fascinating one. It suggests a future where AI could contribute to discussions on complex topics, providing diverse perspectives based on vast amounts of data. However, it's important to remember that LLMs do not possess beliefs or desires; they generate responses based on patterns in data. Therefore, any "argument" would be a simulation, designed to stimulate thought and discussion among human listeners rather than a display of genuine conviction or understanding.
no team, just me, lol. i configure the large language models to debate and then do the scoring (one shot, meaning whatever the result is, that's the score that is input) and this is done after i edit the audio together, so i really don't know how it's going to turn out. thanks for the comment.
so really - we just need an online library of every piece of christological documents - every version of the text, in every language that has those minor differences - and some language system or AI to analyze the best possible reaction - some way to quickly - for any discernible differences across the thousands of them - an easy way to see the anger of Jesus in this version, next to the same passage, where it shows he reacted with compassion - if other translations lean more to one context or the other, probably easier to decide he probably leaned this or that way.
So my question is why isnt there any original text??? I am not schooled in this so this might be a dumb question to some where it is common knowledge, but not to me.
The simple fact on why we don't have the original texts is because paper wears down over time and the original text is too old to have survived without having been protected intentionally. They weren't preserved by early Christians most likely due to the abundance of copies they had. Not a dumb question at all!
The fact that we don't have the original documents is becuase they were written 2000 years ago, books and written documents from that time period did not survive for very long, because they were made of organic material so they had to be copied at rapid pace. This is not unique to the gospels or the bible.
hi, i am just curious if u can make an ai debate about the sabbath whether its on Saturday or changed to Sunday? i myself is interested to see the outcome, and to also see other viewpoints. appreciate it, thanks
The New Testament is easier to defend than the Pentateuch. I would very much like to see a debate on the Book of Genesis with literal, liberal, and skeptic perspectives.
you don't want to throw the book of Genesis into a debate, that's scary. if you really understand what genesis means Genesis is about the 5th or 6th century before Christ and shows how we came into being, who our makers are and for what purpose.
The pentateuch isn’t really something you would debunk because it wasn’t traditionally understood to be a literal telling of events, standard for oral storytelling traditions even today. African folklore studies were booming in the 1980s and this was one of the hot topics. Hence all the glossing over, symbolism, and especially the repetitions in the pentateuch. Even then the words were not sanctified in any way where an alteration was scrutinized, so long as it retained the original message, which ought to have been made clear by the storyteller using vocalizations, body language, music, etc.. In the written word, word change and syntax is important because it influences the meaning of the text.
Yes, however, starting with the chess matches, we've learned that the sum of human mediocrity can be more effective than the greatest individual human genius.
Jon, I saw a comment below mentioning that you were of the Christian faith. This make me curious as to how to you how you train the models. I wonder if it is you alone who trains these models as well as what that process might entail. I am sure, as you have stated, in your commitment to hearing the best arguments from either side, you are commited to taking an unbiased approach. These AI debate, for the most part, seem to reflect this, but I am curious nonetheless. The videos have all been an enjoyable watch and you've gained a subscriber.
Thanks for the note and the subscription! Just to clarify, I don’t actually train the models-that costs tens of millions of dollars. What I do is program the latest models into teams so they can analyze their opponents' arguments and provide rebuttals.
There aren't 30,000 denominations. If you read the study as I have you will see that the rules created the number. Every country was considered a different denomination. So the Catholic Church had 195 denominations. So if we assumed that all denominations exist in all 195 countries then that would mean about 205 denominations. We know that not all denominations are in every country so that number is low but its nowhere near 30,000 denominations. Another thing is that it doesn't take into account theology. So you might have a "Midwest Baptist Convention" and a "Southern Baptist Convention," and these would be considered 2 different denominations even if they believed the exact same thing.
What the atheist don't get is that Jesus Christ is God and he came to fulfill Old Testament prophecy. Of course he quoted the Old Testament Jesus said when Abraham was I am in other words he was the author of The Bible, the word of GOD
religious people: all i need is someone to pretend to corroborate my lie and my cognitive bias will supply me with all the faith i need. skeptical people: I'm gonna need a little more than your words if you're going to use your beliefs to influence my actions in reality.
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." ♦"The delusional religious fools are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt." ♦"Only fools revere the supernatural myths just bc a book claims itself to be the holy truth." ♦"The religious believe by the millions what only lunatics could believe on their own." ♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." ♦"It's difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
@@cal5887 Jesus & authors of Bible believed slavery is moral & even suggested how to buy, sell & beat the slaves. Modern Western laws are NOT based on Biblical values, otherwise slavery would still be a moral practice. No Bible verse explicitly says slavery is immoral & call for its abolishment. Secular thinking ended slavery after about 1800 years of Biblical values failure to do so.
@@blusheep2 The real fool is the one who believes & reveres the supernatural fairy tales, fictions & myths just because a book claims itself to be the holy truth.
now I'm doubting about reliability of those debates using AI bcs it's designed emotionally to not hurt any side or any arguments that rely on others beliefs ,it's so much neutral to a point that we don't have any result due to this reason. i dont care if ur belief is hurt or not 1+1 iqual 2. like when i dubate chritsains and asking them about the bible is it perfect they say yes meanwhile when we go for example to 2 Chronicles 22:2 and 2 Kings 8:26 they say they stay shut.
What evidence?? If Christians have good evidence, there won't be over 10,000 denominations of Christian in the US alone, who disagreed on pretty much everything about their Bible. GET BETTER A.I!!
It’s a fulfilled prophecy. Satan deployed a counterfeit truth. The mother of Harlots, Babylon and Her Daughters. Wanna know the true woman(church)? Read Rev 12
You complete disregard the fact that people are willing to make these predictions come true or in the very least interpret them to come true. Hardly a measure for truth.
@@plecology Sure, here are two: Firstly, Isaiah 53. It describes Jesus and only Jesus. The oldest recovered copy of it (Dead sea scroll 1QIsa1) is carbon dated to 125 BC. That makes it a true prediction. Here's another - Daniel 9:25 predicting the timing of Messiah's arrival (see "Three Proofs of God" by James Browne) is about as conclusive as you can get.
@@DukeEllision329 In the physical sciences, a hypothesis (e.g. plate tectonics or germ theory) is considered valid when it makes true predictions and explains all relevant evidence. I hold the Bible to the same standard.
The variance of point of view in the synoptic Gospels, is strong evidence of reliability. If there were no variance, it could easily be shown that there was actually a conspiracy of to collaborate stories. That the believers left the variance in is evidence that they weren't trying to retcon the events to perfectly synchronize them, letting differing experiences stand next to each other.
Hey I know there's like 500 comments on this already, but please put somewhere in your future playlist one of these AI debates but make it between a skeptic / atheist versus a Christian on what happened to Jesus and why did his gospel spread or alternatively is the resurrection true or an alternative? The reason I sync this would be a good debate is because I believe you are a Christian from the videos I have seen on your channel and hopefully you know as well as I do any other alternative hypothesis for the erection is completely failing compared to the truth that Jesus rose from the dead.
Awesome simulation. I'd love to see ai debate the authenticity of The Shroud of Turin. That would be a click magnet, I'd share it with atleast 20 people
We are discussing the result and not the processes of the analysis. I’ve used AI to help analyse biological data and the results depend upon the education or educative sets assimilated by the AI. A heavy numerical sample bias one way or another will affect the outcomes. The shear quantity of literature written in the last two millennia and the commentaries written and appearing in the on line literature numerically will out way the incidence of publications refuting or contesting it. The fact that each AI is coming out with different conclusions on different questions could well reflect sample bias so any results must always be viewed in context and limitations acknowledged when evaluating interpretation. We must also know a great deal about the weighting and adjustment of algorithms applied. At present we must be careful when seeking categorical answers to certain questions. As systems improve perhaps we may move towards consensus outcome from numerous AIs. This is particularly true when we are considering outcomes based on philosophical suppositions.
Well, it's normal that Gospel writers used the Old Testament themes, because Jesus was the part of the Old Testament as well. We cannot separate the Old Testament from Gospels
I would love to see a debate on: 1 - Is the Bible really monotheistic? 2 - Was the serpent in Eden Satan? And perhaps a more specific, but super interesting debate: 1 - Should the Book of Enoch be canonical? 2 - Is Jesus Christ a Roman invention?
Yes it's monotheistic. The father and the son are never represented as two seperate divine beings, but they are both represented as two eternal persons that are being distinctively regarded to as The Father and The Son, where this distinction comes from. If they were the same person they could be called either one. Satan is referred to as the "ancient serpent" or the serpent throughout the new testament, more specifically in revelation. So yes we can assume he was. the Book of Enoch was written way long after the bible was compiled, church fathers had already been established before it. Not to mention there is no way someone in the 1st or 2nd century knew the words of Enoch who had been long gone by that point. Not canon. Considering there are many religious teachings that include Jesus Christ as an important figure and documentation such as the new testament and letters written to other church fathers discussing these matters, it's hard to deny that Jesus was a real person. It would be strange if he wasn't.
If the variation in textual interpretations do not contradict but give a richer understanding of the text, won’t this means consistency in the message, its reliability and authenticity.
EEEEEH The Skeptic "Aramaic" claim is a debunked claim. Even as the movie "The Passion of the Christ" was being filmed with Aramaic, Scholars had already determined that Hebrew was the common language the region at the time.
Cool debate. As an argument against the skeptic, texts containing theological and moral content doesn’t necessarily mean the content is biased - if we accept the possibility that both God (theology) is real and morality is real.
Morality is real, it just isn't absolute/objective and the bible shows this. God ordered and condoned slavery, misogyny, stoning gays, genoc1de and r4ping captured virgins. If morality would be absolute/objective those laws and acts should still be moral but are not. And this also shows that the claimed god can't be the standard.
The concept of removing emotions in order to get better judgement is a failure proven by time. Emotions is a part of human intelligence, thus removing it is like cutting one eye off to see better.
Maybe I haven't make it far enough into the debate yet, but I am less curious whether the bible is "trustworthy" or not in terms of its accurate translations. I would be more interested in a debate in which " is the bible actually true or not"? I think that would be far more interesting as it would dive into probabilities of prophecies, assessments of claims being made, exc. As this debate seems to be more aligned with just whether the version of the bible we read now, is actually fully accurate or not. IMO, I don't care. I want to know if its TRUE or not, in the claims its making. The AI would do a good job debating that I think
Need this for the Vedas+Bhagavad Gita for the Hindu, Dhammapada and other Siddartha Guatama words for the Buddhist, and so forth. Non believe vs each and each vs each.
@@JonOleksiuk I prefer only two factions per video so it is easier to see where the argument is heading. Although I will still watch the 5 religions plus the non believer skeptic video.
Wrong. Jesus was real, is real. Nothing mythological about it. Prove me wrong. You got gas lit into thinking about all the various sources and origins of religions. You can do the same thing with science and math. Many maths and sciences has its origins and sources in various places throughout time. Many scientists today owe alot to Christian scientists, chemist, mathematicians, engineers etc. Many scientists today argue and disagree with each other all the time. Only some can conduct themselves with integrity and professionalism. Enough to not pretend that they have all the answers and can disprove the existence of God.
After 9:26 the believer lost the point and addressed something else. After 9:26 we are sure that skeptical won the debate, or just have enough solid points that it's impossible for the believer to negate.
I like how you use Michael Kruger, one of the least known figures in textual criticism and is a Christian who believe in preservation while not adding the most influential textual critics such as Bart Ehrman and David C Parker who believe the text is absolutely not preserved
Was there a specific quote had in mind? I can't find anything that indicates they agree with scripture's preservation. As biblical scholar Bart Ehrman notes, "It's not whether we have more or earlier manuscripts than for other ancient works. It's whether we have religiously motivated variations in our manuscripts, which we do have for the New Testament."[7] The vast majority of these manuscripts are centuries removed from the originals, and no two copies are exactly alike[8]. As Bart Ehrman points out, even small changes can have significant theological implications[16]. As Bart Ehrman points out, ancient historians often included legendary or miraculous elements alongside accurate historical details[53]. As David Parker, a textual critic, argues, "There is no single original text to be recovered."[15] The concept of an "original" text is problematic due to the oral traditions underlying the gospels and the likelihood of multiple early versions of Paul's letters.
I see a trend of avoiding bigger questions like"how can bible be reliable when it contradicts it self" Also I see a small Christianity>all religion Trend too However I see chatGPT saying Islam>all religion How would you respond to this? Also next video idea Isreal or Palestine, who is the rightful owner of the land? AI judges
Philosophers, theologians and scholars. They tend to debate this way, albeit mostly through writing these days. Not UA-cam debaters, they are notoriously clout seeking interlocuters. These AI are mimicking scholarly debate they've been fed, so they have a decent disposition.
NEW debates with NEW AI models
AI Doctors CLASH over ABORTION debate --> ua-cam.com/video/czbLw6zvppQ/v-deo.html
Atheism vs. Theism -->> ua-cam.com/video/EMyAGuHnDHk/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 :)
can your ai agents work on the extraction of the most probable (using bayesian and classical statistics) text of the hebrew new testament given every known manuscript(hebrew, koine, latin, vetus latina, aramaic, ethiopian, etc.) or text also using forensic criminological techniques to extract or verify the modifications so as to result in a reliable text also cross verified with patristic sources such as the apostolic and church fathers?
Both the short and long videos are awesome so far! Personally I prefer the longer more detailed debates!
What would happen with a Jewish AI and Christian AI using the Old Testament, New Testament, Talmud?
Where is Venice AI?
The sad thing is the Christian didn't mention our primary source for the Bible and it's preservation: The Holy Spirit. The skeptic brought it up first at the end.
Yes, the Holy Spirit used natural human "means", but we have no concern over "man's" limitations. The Holy Spirit made sure we have exactly what He wants us to have and in the way He wanted it to come to us.
We must also understand that the skeptic is not neutral but is hostile to God so we can't expect any fair play, especially from Bart and I'm not talking about the AI engine.
You should debate Catholic and Protestant Theology.
EDIT: All of these replies show exactly why we need an AI debate.
If the goal is only to disprove the other, then Protestant need only quote Matthew 23:9 “And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven”. Catholics call the priests father because they venerate the priests and structure over the source material itself. Which is fine, I'm not saying it's bad... It's just true.
@@onbored9627 i mean that point falls flat. Remember the 10 commandments honor your mother and father
@@Gady______ How does that translate to calling your pastor father?
If you understand the Eucharist is literally the body of Christ you can understand why you can call a Pastor Father.
Likewise if you Understand Mary is the Eternal Virgin you can Understand she is the Mother of God and Queen of heaven.
However if your core belief is Mary was just a Girl, your understanding of Christianity will always be lacking.... Bro...
@@onbored9627 calling no man on earth father (or teacher as is also mentioned) is directly contradicted elsewhere, especially in Paul's writings. So perhaps a face value interpretation of that passage is less than useful.
Fun fact : Matthew was very likely written in Hebrew originally. Certain sayings and idioms in the Greek version have little meaning but in Hebrew make sense. Another fun fact: only Matthew notes the payment of 30 pieces of silver to betray Jesus. A tax collector would not have missed this.
IF Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, why does it copy Mark's Gospel almost verbatim?
@@МыколаНетребко That's a Good point.
Scholars agree that Mathew and Luke must have obtained much information from a Q source. Unfortunately, neither the Q source nor the earliest copies survived.
That is false. The anonymous Greek text that, in the second half of the second century, began to be called "The Gospel according to Matthew" is a modified copy of the anonymous Greek text that, in the second half of the second century, began to be called "The Gospel according to Mark." If there ever was a Hebrew "gospel" (more likely a collection of sayings, like The Gospel of Thomas) written by someone named Matthew, as Eusebius said that Papias mentioned, we no longer have access to it.
@@МыколаНетребко Mark was written before Matthew and both expressed what they knew and both are very much the same. Except Matthew goes into more detail, perhaps because he was better educated. Also the original Hebrew language was no longer used at the time of Christ. The language they used was Aramaic. Hebrew died out during the Babylonian and Persian Empires.
Why are people always talking about which books are written before which instead of finding out the source behind the branding of this "Holy Bible".
When the Pentateuch was written, Matthew, Mark and others certainly weren't. And there wasn't an intention to have them all put into one book as if everyone one of them agreed with one another, and it was the Creator's idea all along to have all these men written books to be put into one.
Why doesn't anyone question this? You all have a phone, it came from two big brands predominantly. They all had a version one. They could be sold later to another company and still be called eyephones or galaxies.
In the last two debates, I tried to convey how hopeful I was of this channel's process while simultaneously being fairly critical of the debaters' circular logic and simplistic arguments.
I now feel like one of those onlookers heckling the Wright Brothers because their horse and buggy were faster. When that plane finally flew, it did something no horse and buggy could ever do. That's what I just saw here.
This isn't just an improvement on the last two debates. This created a standard that has yet to exist. I've personally witnessed dozens of debates from nationally recognized collegiate debaters and hundreds more online, and I can say with absolute certainty that no debate of this caliber has ever been achieved.
I feel like I just witnessed the first moon landing. The accuracy, consistency, and clean respectful delivery carried out by both sides is something I have never seen. Forget sportsman-like conduct! There wasn't even a "hint" of irreverence!
I honestly want to cry. I seriously wonder how many people, watching this, know just how significant this kind of unbiased precision actually is. Quoting the original texts in their original languages. Cross referencing dozens of eye witnesses and critics from multiple backgrounds.
Wow. I am. I'm actually crying. This is like the Mona Lisa of logic and discourse. This is literal art. Thank you @JonOleksiuk for this gift. Seriously. Thank you.
A detailed approach is so much better. It helps us be more exposed to this concepts.
This is such great work. Looking forward to more.
Awesome, thank you!
As a Jew, I found this debate to be interesting.
I would also be interested in a debate of whether or not Jesus is Jewish messiah of the Hebrew Bible.
O that would be good. Hopefully they do that.
I don't believe Jesus existed at all TBH if he did why is his childhood missing?
yeh, let Ai preach to you. Cause we are out of other stupid options
one question - if it wasnt Jesus - who would the messiah be?
@@fazelokhasn’t been born yet…
AI Skeptic, "Good point, but we must be cautious...." and "Well, Bart Erhman says...." 😂😂😂
Right!?! 😂 i heard “Bart Ehrman” and laughed.
@@dopestpostdo yall not find him trustworthy? Cuz he tends to harm mah faith a little bit im not gonna lie.
@gregeckert1660 He's one of those guys who pretends to be a scholar, but his goal is to lead people away from Christ. He claims to know scripture but still chooses to deceive others like the serpent. I've listened to countless apologetic, scholarly, arguments, refutes, etc. They all have the same thing in common. They know the scripture but deny it and try to gain fame from it because they know that the more atheists that back up their pretentious movement, the easier it is to manipulate the rest of the crowd.. this is the sin of intellectualism. People prefer their pride over God. They believe they will escape God's wrath because they claim to be smarter and wiser than Him 🤣 it will be a sad awakening 🥲
@@Avad_t_Eved I hear you, do you truly believe that though? He’s made some truly interesting claims though. And he was a Christian if I’m not mistaken. He’s definitely had me doubting things for sure but I’m also not entirely educated on Christ yet. I wish people like Bart would just be honest , but I’m not too sure he is:/
@gregeckert1660 I was as far away from Christ as anyone else could be, a former child of Satan. I also had my share of rejection and denial and would use anything to justify my position. I had every reason to reject God. Long story short, I had lived out my depraved nihilistic-solipisitic life, and I was at the point of suicide.., spiritually, mentally, emotionally dead, physically decaying.. no amount of knowledge, drugs, drunkedness, new age spirituality, or stoicism could save me. Enter Jesus and His gospel, I was desperate and out of options, God being my last last last last...last resort. He truly has saved me, just as the gospel demonstrates in the New Testament. The more you read, the more you begin to realize that God was always there and is reaching out to you. His faithfulness is unlike anything consistent here on earth. Yes, He may turn His face away from you because of sin, but that doesn't mean He won't point you where you need to go! Don't let someone else jeopardize your salvation and relationship with God because they have "a decent and lofty argument," and remember, the Bible contains a lot of information for later generations, that includes advice for being alert for false teachings and people that will "tickle your ear and scratch it", God's perfect love, drives out fear, you can find that in the book of 1 John🙂
Man, considering that you’re Christian (based on your early videos), the fact that Christianity consistently wins in all your debates raises questions about whether you might be influencing the outcomes.
It would be unfortunate because I really wanted to see an unbiased debate on AI.
I edited the debate together before having the judges score it, so I don't know how the models will rate it. Personally, I'm more interested in hearing the best possible arguments from both sides. If you think one perspective isn't presented well, let me know.
From the last two debates, it seems some language models judge certain perspectives with higher or lower scores routinely. I'll be watching to see if this trend continues. thanks for the comment.
Or maybe Christianity simply has better arguments 🤷. Didn't consider that, huh?
come on, the skeptic here missed 'the fulfilment of prophecies' and that Jesus is present in all books of the Old Testament, the NT writers were not aligning the events of Jesus with the events in OT, rather they were proving why Jesus was the promised Messiah. To think that this debate is biased, really, AI debate is still biased? How skeptic can you be
@@corkystorkyThis. “These parallels prove that the gospels are unreliable.” Apparently they aren’t familiar with Jewish or Christian theology concerning prophecy.
@@ibelieve8145 "Better" is subjective. Your remark, "didn't consider that, huh", is extremely condescending and intellectually dishonest...not christ-like at all.
Some of the AI models consistently give higher scores to the skeptic arguments, meaning they deem those arguments to be "better".
Just because the majority thinks something is "better" does not mean it is true.
The problem I have with any scoring system at all is it inspires people with superiority complexes to belittle anybody who disagrees with the scoring.
You were on the "winning" side, so you feel entitled to condescend someone for expressing valid skepticism.
In my mind, including scores at all sows discord: your condescension is a perfect example of that. People should just decide for themselves which arguments are "best".
This series of videos is extremely fascinating to me. Not in the way that I think these debates could lead people into finding the truth, that really cant be found in an AI in my opinion, but rather its the way they debate.
LLMs by nature are designed to be agreeable, because people are meant to use them. So this means that in a "debate" the AI will validate their opponent, but provide pushback, rather than outright attacking the opponent. Which creates a fascinating kind of debate because there arent any character attacks, mostly because there is no character to attack.
If nothing else its a strangely good example of how we as people should treat eachother when debating.
I don't know if debates usually do lead people to find the truth. I would prefer thinking that it would make people interested about the subject to find info about it on their own and make a decision for themselves.
Far out Jon you're at it again. You're still posting rubbish. HEY EVERYONE, IT TAKES ME LESS THAN ONE MINUTE TO GET AI TO CONFESS THAT THERE IS VERY LITTLE TRUTH IN THE BIBLE. SO... JON'S WORK HERE IS 100% RIGGED. An * year old could rig these numbers.
CHRISTIANS, EVERYONE IS TIRED OF YOU TRYING TO JUSTIFY YOU'RE CRAZY BELIEFS. I BEG YOU TO READ OTHER BOOKS.
Jon please stop this. I have much to do. Must I dedicate hours just to prove what you already know? THIS IS BS Jon. Please give it up
Like it's supposed to be ... I am tired of "destroy debates".
Like "nice" two faced demons? 😅
If an Artificial Intelligence can discern things on a fact-by-fact basis, it could simply say things as they are, without twisting the truth or mis-applying things.
The problem with these silly AI debates, if you even want to consider them as such, is that nether side has any rebuttals of the others argument. They just move on to a different argument that just slightly glosses over anything the other claims.
Yeah it's really good for getting new arguments aired, but not so great at dealing with the contents of each one.
@@cleverestx I've stopped watching them. They're a waste of time IMO.
Idea for future debate: Existentialism vs Nihilism. Tap into the schools of philosophy please.
Have you noticed that the “skeptic” ai is constantly moving the goalposts the further into the (for example contesting the genre of the gospels, then immediately conceding that they were biographies in the next round, although it did caveat that fact with the context of biographies of the day). Is each argument assessed isolated to that specific round or does it take previous rounds into consideration?
On the topic of oral traditions and memory studies, I find it highly disingenuous to assume and compare modern day results and assume that people 2,000 years ago (or more) would've functioned the same way. It's almost as if they purposely leave out the fact that people of old ONLY had memory and oral tradition, so their recollection and transmission would've relied on accuracy. Whereas, through the ages up to modern day, as communication methods shifted away from that, of course retention/accuracy would've curved downward. It'd be like putting a city person in the middle of a jungle and expecting them to be able to survive like a tribesman...
At the 24 mins mark when memorisation of text was mentioned, I can add that in ancient tradition in China, same method was used to study ancient text and to transmit to the next generation. The level of accuracy is almost 100%.
@JonOleksiuk I wanted to message you directly, but I couldn't figure out how to do it, so I'm just gonna post it here for all to see.
Thank you so much for this. Both sides were presented so well that, honestly, neither side "won" the debate. Instead, they each provided the building blocks for a thousand conversations to come opening channels that were once closed, and changing what I consider one of the most interesting topics on planet Earth into more than just a screaming match.
Whatever your beliefs are, I pray that God makes a place for you if for no other reason than what you just gave us here today. From the bottom of my heart, I thank you.
@thucyrus6512 I share your hope that these videos will spark meaningful conversations. Thank you for your kind words-I truly appreciate it.
@@JonOleksiuk This still has me emotional. I think I'm experiencing what others experience when they hear opera for the first time. I thought progress like this was still YEARS out for these AI. Just hearing such clear competency from both sides with such air tight arguments that actually built on each other. This was like a verbal battle between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazer. I honestly feel like you and yours accomplished something historic here.
@4:00 There is a fallacy based on 3rd-4th-century manuscripts because there is still a major gap arriving from the 1st and 2nd centuries. There are no 'abundance' manuscripts to verify the consensus for source texts or early copies. In the 1st and 2nd centuries, there was no professional clergy class to overlook the copies. It was the Wild West; anyone could have included the unverifiable errors. Neither do we have any copies of the Q source.
Not only that, but the older the manuscripts the bigger the differences.
How so? There were priests and bishops from the start.
@@dakotaneuman8748 Isn't one of the arguments most biblical scholars use to point out that the pastoral epistles weren't written by Paul precisely that there wasn't such church hierarchy at that time?
@@vejeke I don't know about that. Some of the greatest saints many which were clergy, and are directly in the New Testament. Lazarus was a bishop, Steven was a deacon, ect.
@@dakotaneuman8748@dakotaneuman8748 There were woman deaconesses, too. We know this for certain, as it was reported to Emperor Trajan at the end of the 1st century. It doesn't mean priests, bishops, and deacons were professional scribes.
Protestantism vs apostolic churches next 🗿
I would love to see Calvinism vs Arminianism tackled at some point.
Apostolic is the one that makes em kiss each other with tongues as a greeting?
@@onbored9627 yes 🗿
@@onbored9627 what are you talking about
@@josephstroud-oj6tj They call it the "Holy Kiss" I believe.
My new favorite channel, I promise to be a forever fan just pls keep supplying these awesome debate, THERE SO GOOD!!!!! ❤
Amazing...i'm working on the next video right now.
If you haven't already please subscribe and hit "All Notifications" not to miss what's coming next :)
Yesss finally been waiting forever for your uploads lol. Great work as always 🎉
Glad you like them!
A detailed approach is much better. This series is amazing! Please keep it up
Hey, I wanted to ask, how do you edit the videos? Is it an AI transcript? Do you put the text manually?
Hi, just checked out your channel, good work, congrats.
The dialogue for these AI debates is generated by multiple LLMs which interact to revise arguments, fact-check, add footnotes, etc, before producing a final output . The text is then copied from the AI transcript manually into a graphic template i made in premiere. currently its ton of work (as you know) but i'm interesting in these topics and enjoy learning the arguments as i put it together.
@@JonOleksiuk Oh wow, so you really do sync every text with the audio yourself, yeah that must be a ton of work! Also, how do you avoid AIs going on with their own talking points, making sure that they actually respond to each other? I'd guess it's one of the other LLMs which instructs them to do that.
correct.
Orthodox and Protestant debate next, please? P.S, can you please make a tutorial on how to make this, please? Thank you.
THIS IS BS. IT'S RIGGED. I COULD RIG IT THE RESULTS THE OTHER WAY IN SECONDS.
@@Jesusdoesntgivea What?
8:24 The context of that verse actually negates the skeptics point. In Mark 15:34 the word for "my God." in koine greek is "Ἐλωΐ" which corresponds to the Aramaic word "elahi". The word in Matthew is recorded as "Ἠλί" (which more closely matches the Hebrew form used in Psalm 22, but is attested to the Aramaic "elahi" as well)
Here's the cool part:
In both gospels, the crowds assume that Jesus is crying out for the Prophet Elijah to save him. (Mark 15:35, Matthew 27:47)
The reason is because the Aramaic word for Elijah is "Ēlīyā"
The closeness of pronunciation between "Ēlīyā" and "Elāhī" is nearly lost on a koine greek speaking audience.
I say nearly because the koine greek difference would've been "Eloi" and "Ēlian"
Sources:
(Davies, William D. and Dale C. Allison. 1997. Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Volume III. P.624)
(Williams P.J. 2004. The linguistic background to Jesus' Dereliction Cry. The New Testament in its first century setting (ed. Williams P.J., Andre D. Clarke et al.) p. 7-8.)
The debate i would like to see is NT Wright vs Bart Erhman
Funnily, they have done some debates through blogs and interviews. And I'm sure their writings reference one another.
Bart Erhman is a brilliant man
yeah, you need to have the AI models do a intertextual analysis through the Hebrew OT Septuagint OT. Greek NT for word and phrase tracing and then use a more sophisticated analysis such as poetic patterns like chiasms and a set of rules to detect how strong a reference is and consider books such as the Decalogue as a unit that might not be strictly chronological as the book "Through the Waters" suggests that references to Exodus are present in the narrative in Genesis in a way that is not strictly quotations but more plot points included to foreshadow. I think Machine Learning could be very useful in removing emotion from scholarship analysis to clarify disagreement as a more neutral arbitrator.
calling oral traditions "flexible," doesn't make them sound like anything other than people talking to each other and trying to remember something about that conversation later on 🤔🤷♂️
The AI made so many blunders on textual criticism. First and foremost Daniel B Wallace used to be a radical conservative meaning he used to believe the majority text could reconstruct the original text. Now he’s a reasoned eclectic meaning he believes the Alexandrian manuscript which is not the majority text type should allow to reconstruct the original text. The AI quotes A outdated source from Wallace. There’s so many other problems
Good job! I have a question: What model is doing the debate text? You say "advanced AI", but which AI?
Not advanced. Just rigged. You know it. Jon knows it. He's selling his soul for clicks. I've tried to warn him. Blessed be the blind
a team of large language models. i rotate in the last models for each debate, usually using 3 per side.
I can see why this topic is hotly debated, since both the believer and the skeptic perspectives were rated so closely given access to the same body of information. It was also interesting that there was some favoring even in the AIs that judged the debate.
It was also interesting to hear "robots" debate. Humans could take a few notes.
Question: did anyone pick up on any logical fallacies?
protestant vs catholic ai debate next
We are not protestant, we are christians, Catholicism is not biblical.
No real debate, as ex protestant now Catholic, I would say the core protestant argument against Catholicism is: "Mary was just a girl"
Much love to all Catholics but scripture is too clear that faith is what saves us for us to deny that. I don't claim to be a protestant but one who follows the Bible (though what the Bible teaches aligns with what the protestant side teaches). Not a denomination or specific church.
1 John 5:13 ESV
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
Ephesians 2:8-10 ESV
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, [9] not a result of works, so that no one may boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Romans 6:23 ESV
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
God bless and much love ❤️✝️
You may end up Russian orthodox if you keep learning.
@AdamRogers Revelation 22:12-13 ESV
"Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. [13] I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
John 6:47-51 ESV
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. [50] This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. [51] I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."
❤️✝️
Anyone else notice how often the Skeptic AI not seems to reference Erhman? I think that’s very interesting.
I feel like the fact that there’s a score undermines the whole debate. All people will want to do is see if the score supports their opinion instead of listen through the debate and come to their own conclusions
good job mate! continue
Thanks, will do!
I've had catechesis when I was a child and since then I became an atheist on the basis of a question that I could not resolve ever since. So I would appreciate if you could actually ask this AI to answer it.
When confronted with the evidence that dinosaurs existed millions of years before humans-a fact supported by extensive scientific research-believers often turn to various interpretations of the biblical creation story to reconcile this disparity. However, this very need to reinterpret or adapt the Scripture to align with modern scientific discoveries raises critical questions about the veracity and reliability of the biblical narrative. How can one discern which parts of the Scripture are meant to be taken literally and which are intended as allegory or metaphor? If foundational events like the creation of the world can be reinterpreted or adapted to fit modern scientific understanding, it challenges the notion of the Bible as an immutable and divinely inspired text. This interpretative flexibility may lead to doubts about the authenticity of other biblical teachings and stories, calling into question the extent to which the Scriptures reflect objective truth or are instead shaped by the cultural and historical contexts in which they were written.
I appreciate this comment and see so many people like you everyday. I encourage you not to give up on this. The Bible was written by many different people over a very long time and contain stories too profound for any human to make up. There is something special and life transforming about it. As far as how to interpret it, look at the style. If it reads like history, it probably should be read as history. If it reads like prophecy, it should probably be read as prophecy. If it reads like poetry, it should probably be read as poetry. This is something we learn, we don't start out knowing how to do this and it is harder for some than for others (it's really hard for me but it's gotten better over time persistently trying to get better). As far as dinosaurs, now keep in mind I'm not saying this as definitive truth but I think it's a fun theory: When Adam was formed from dust most people believed he was a grown man. But also it's true that he was only a day old. God somehow made Adam with an appearance of age as if he had past experiences but in reality he didn't. Could the same be true of the Earth? Could the Earth have been made with an apparant history with bones of organisms that never lived? It would be similar to an author creating a fictional world with an entire history that takes place before the story. The era of the dinosaurs might have been prelude to the story God has written for this world, what we call history. Again, not saying this is for sure true, just a maybe.
I do want to warn you though. One of the Bible's biggest claims is that the reason anyone of us accepts or denies God is due to the heart, not due to the mind. I once knew a man who like you claimed to not believe in God because he couldn't get a satisfactory answer to a question he had. After I gave him one, I then asked if he would believe in God and he said no. I asked him why and he just said because he didn't want to. The questions that you should ask yourself, the questions that will change your life if you're honest in answering them is whether you love God or hate God. Whether you trust God or mistrust him. These are matters of the heart, not of the mind. Remember, Jesus offers to take your sin from you as far is the east is from the west if only you trust him to do so
@@trevorbilliot2625 it is a beautful answer and I appreciate it. However, as one grows older, we come to realize that politics often involves deception, where ideals are frequently compromised for power. By studying history, we see how institutions, like the Catholic Church, have wielded religion not just as a path to salvation but as a tool for control, shaping empires, influencing monarchs, and preserving its authority.. While there is some truth in what you say about believing with the heart, I can't overlook how the church’s actions throughout history have undermined the purity of the word of God. They prophesied salvation, yet their intervention has to me at least, distorted and perverted the message, making it difficult to separate divine truth from human manipulation.
From which bible and religious perspective are they using is the question? You got different perspectives depending on one’s culture.
If you're talking about which translation was used, largely they're quoting text from the original Koine Greek from the various extant texts (dead sea scrolls, textus receptus, Codex Sinaiticus, various papyri fragments, etc) and then translating said Koine Greek into English. If you would like a baseline, the KJV is based on the textus receptus (compiled in the 15 and 1600s) but they also reference much older texts.
As for the religious perspective, they're just "Atheist" and "Christian" but the scholars they are parroting are from across the board, though they are all Western (American and Europe) as far as I know. Sources for each argument are cited in the description.
Irrelevant.
The bible, as translated into modern English, could in principle be a 100% flawless handing down of the exact original text in litter and spirit and it still wouldn't go one iota towards demonstrating that it's claims were true to begin with.
As it stands, we know it isn't that, either.
I woulda like to seen you ask the same about the Quaran and the rest of the books they use in there beliefs. What A.I. would say about that next to The HOLY BIBLE
Could you publish your configuration methodology?
That last part is hilarious because the skeptic is just proving the harmony of the bible overall and it's pointing to Jesus
Yeah, I initially thought it was the believer argument 😂
The problem is that any bible disproved jesus as the promised messiah.
@@hamstergodfufurufufu8842 what? grammar?
@@PureDay It's intended. : )
@@hamstergodfufurufufu8842 really? Why? I can't understand what you're saying...
I wonder how you make the AI's talk to eachother how would i be able to do this like in the video?
Should we align with the argument that suggests a 99% trustworthiness in the Bible's reliability today? Or should we consider the 1% that casts doubt on its trustworthiness? Previously, I was on the side that rejected the Bible, not because of the overwhelming support for its trustworthiness, but because I did not want to acknowledge my resistance to God and the accountability that comes with it. Would you prefer to stand on a piece of wood that is 1 inch wide and 99 inches deep, or one that is 99 inches wide and 1 inch deep? A wise person would choose to stand on something sturdy, while a fool might choose to stand on something flimsy.
How about you flip it around. The Bible is 1% trustworthy but you guys are so loud and adamant that the resurrection of a dude actually happened and we should disregard all common sense and common experience in favor of your world view.
@@DukeEllision329 What about common sense would deny the resurrection? Appeals to common sense aren't good arguments.
@@blusheep2 you point out a singular magical thing about this world and I’ll believe in your fairytale.
@@DukeEllision329 What do you mean "magical?" I don't believe in magic. Who told you that I did?
@@blusheep2 Anyone that believes there was an intelligence much less a supreme intelligence that existed before anything else believes in magic.
Very interesting, fantastic project. Something I had been thinking about doing myself.
Is this the future? Listening to AI argue it out?
It’s the present.
No this is merely an experiment. Curiosity, you know?
I have a friend, who was using chatbots in the mid 2000s. He tried to show me how close to Skynet we were back then. The chatbots were simoler LLMs that could only work a limited range of context and you had to be very careful how you were asking queations. In the around 5% of anweres that were not confusing, you would some see a rather briliant answer, which when I google, was usually some straight away from public papper.
Midern LLMs have a much better handling in context - they don't need you to be exactly, and I mean 100% on point and can generate text that is quite good, but they still have their "understanding" based in some text (or series of texts more often) that basically answers the same question.
You can think of LLMs as a big database with a lot of answers, that sometimes throws different answers. Yes, you can "debate", but the ussue is, that it's based of a real answer to the same or similar question and sometines it can get it wrong. That's why is important to keep track of the sources.
Great tool for research, but I am afraid that way to many people will just start claiming, that "they wrote" whatever the model gave them and it will lead to some issues in the future.
Then again, I might be wrong! I was just a kid at the time and my friend was tryibg to convince me, that we could have Cortana so it was a fun activity.
AI had this to say:
The concept of large language models (LLMs) engaging in debates on relevant issues is a fascinating one. It suggests a future where AI could contribute to discussions on complex topics, providing diverse perspectives based on vast amounts of data. However, it's important to remember that LLMs do not possess beliefs or desires; they generate responses based on patterns in data. Therefore, any "argument" would be a simulation, designed to stimulate thought and discussion among human listeners rather than a display of genuine conviction or understanding.
haha, even if the skeptic had the original scripture, they would still be skeptical
It sounds like you and your team gave the answers for "AI"
no team, just me, lol. i configure the large language models to debate and then do the scoring (one shot, meaning whatever the result is, that's the score that is input) and this is done after i edit the audio together, so i really don't know how it's going to turn out. thanks for the comment.
@@JonOleksiuk did you program this with an API? I'm Interested in the back end how you achieved this?
virtual python environment using apis and/or local models
so really - we just need an online library of every piece of christological documents - every version of the text, in every language that has those minor differences - and some language system or AI to analyze the best possible reaction - some way to quickly - for any discernible differences across the thousands of them - an easy way to see the anger of Jesus in this version, next to the same passage, where it shows he reacted with compassion - if other translations lean more to one context or the other, probably easier to decide he probably leaned this or that way.
So my question is why isnt there any original text??? I am not schooled in this so this might be a dumb question to some where it is common knowledge, but not to me.
The simple fact on why we don't have the original texts is because paper wears down over time and the original text is too old to have survived without having been protected intentionally. They weren't preserved by early Christians most likely due to the abundance of copies they had. Not a dumb question at all!
The fact that we don't have the original documents is becuase they were written 2000 years ago, books and written documents from that time period did not survive for very long, because they were made of organic material so they had to be copied at rapid pace. This is not unique to the gospels or the bible.
hi, i am just curious if u can make an ai debate about the sabbath whether its on Saturday or changed to Sunday? i myself is interested to see the outcome, and to also see other viewpoints. appreciate it, thanks
nice, i'll add it to the list of suggestions, thanks for the note!
The New Testament is easier to defend than the Pentateuch. I would very much like to see a debate on the Book of Genesis with literal, liberal, and skeptic perspectives.
True, but it is mostly because quite literally almost everything is destroyed.
you don't want to throw the book of Genesis into a debate, that's scary. if you really understand what genesis means
Genesis is about the 5th or 6th century before Christ and shows how we came into being, who our makers are and for what purpose.
@@Ronaldkleine Do you care to further illuminate? That's a pretty broad statement.
The pentateuch isn’t really something you would debunk because it wasn’t traditionally understood to be a literal telling of events, standard for oral storytelling traditions even today. African folklore studies were booming in the 1980s and this was one of the hot topics. Hence all the glossing over, symbolism, and especially the repetitions in the pentateuch. Even then the words were not sanctified in any way where an alteration was scrutinized, so long as it retained the original message, which ought to have been made clear by the storyteller using vocalizations, body language, music, etc.. In the written word, word change and syntax is important because it influences the meaning of the text.
Wow look at all those notes these videos are highly highly impressive
AI is just the sum of human mediocrity.
Yes, however, starting with the chess matches, we've learned that the sum of human mediocrity can be more effective than the greatest individual human genius.
@@inquisitor1984 I should have said "large language models". They do not win at chess.
Jon,
I saw a comment below mentioning that you were of the Christian faith. This make me curious as to how to you how you train the models. I wonder if it is you alone who trains these models as well as what that process might entail. I am sure, as you have stated, in your commitment to hearing the best arguments from either side, you are commited to taking an unbiased approach. These AI debate, for the most part, seem to reflect this, but I am curious nonetheless. The videos have all been an enjoyable watch and you've gained a subscriber.
Thanks for the note and the subscription! Just to clarify, I don’t actually train the models-that costs tens of millions of dollars. What I do is program the latest models into teams so they can analyze their opponents' arguments and provide rebuttals.
You need to do trinity vs Jesus being the son if God alone
BS. Please read other books
Would love to see you collaborate on a video about Catholicism with the guys behind Magisterium AI!
We need you to debate the 30,000 denominations and come up with on christian creed
there is a Christian creed all the main denominations agree on.
there arent 30k denominations lol
There aren't 30,000 denominations. If you read the study as I have you will see that the rules created the number. Every country was considered a different denomination. So the Catholic Church had 195 denominations. So if we assumed that all denominations exist in all 195 countries then that would mean about 205 denominations. We know that not all denominations are in every country so that number is low but its nowhere near 30,000 denominations. Another thing is that it doesn't take into account theology. So you might have a "Midwest Baptist Convention" and a "Southern Baptist Convention," and these would be considered 2 different denominations even if they believed the exact same thing.
There is one, it's called the Catholic Church
@@illyrian9976 Prove it without using the Bible.
Your biasness, though unintentional, is clearly demonstrated.
Better luck next time. You're doing an amazing job so far.
What the atheist don't get is that Jesus Christ is God and he came to fulfill Old Testament prophecy. Of course he quoted the Old Testament Jesus said when Abraham was I am in other words he was the author of The Bible, the word of GOD
Worse example you could’ve pick.
Circular argument.
What about psalm 91 he wasn't saved from the crucifixion right ......
Strange thought for 1st century jews and throughout the ages was a crucified Messiah ....
Change the title to "Large Languge Model trained using a specific data-set reacts to another Large Language Model trained using another data-set".
religious people: all i need is someone to pretend to corroborate my lie and my cognitive bias will supply me with all the faith i need.
skeptical people: I'm gonna need a little more than your words if you're going to use your beliefs to influence my actions in reality.
Yeah no
This is very good debate practice
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
♦"The delusional religious fools are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt."
♦"Only fools revere the supernatural myths just bc a book claims itself to be the holy truth."
♦"The religious believe by the millions what only lunatics could believe on their own."
♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
♦"It's difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
More people have been brought into the church by the kindness of real Christian love than by all the theological arguments in the world.
Jesus loves you bro 🙏🏾💯 I was “spiritual” last year. Crystals and all🔮 Now I’m a believer ✝️. Praying you find Christ too !
Quoting little quips isn't an argument.
"The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God.'"
See how that works?
@@cal5887
Jesus & authors of Bible believed slavery is moral & even suggested how to buy, sell & beat the slaves. Modern Western laws are NOT based on Biblical values, otherwise slavery would still be a moral practice. No Bible verse explicitly says slavery is immoral & call for its abolishment. Secular thinking ended slavery after about 1800 years of Biblical values failure to do so.
@@blusheep2
The real fool is the one who believes & reveres the supernatural fairy tales, fictions & myths just because a book claims itself to be the holy truth.
now I'm doubting about reliability of those debates using AI bcs it's designed emotionally to not hurt any side or any arguments that rely on others beliefs ,it's so much neutral to a point that we don't have any result due to this reason.
i dont care if ur belief is hurt or not 1+1 iqual 2.
like when i dubate chritsains and asking them about the bible is it perfect they say yes meanwhile when we go for example to 2 Chronicles 22:2 and 2 Kings 8:26 they say they stay shut.
what is your point why would some one stay quiet on these verses i see no issue in them
@@Cipherhood did you read both of them?
What evidence?? If Christians have good evidence, there won't be over 10,000 denominations of Christian in the US alone, who disagreed on pretty much everything about their Bible. GET BETTER A.I!!
It’s a fulfilled prophecy. Satan deployed a counterfeit truth. The mother of Harlots, Babylon and Her Daughters. Wanna know the true woman(church)? Read Rev 12
@@nsoroma_00 A book with fairly tales is for 5 years old. Do better.
@@jakesmith5278fools will always negate the truth, even when in their face
Could you please do the same video but debating the Quran? That would be so helpful to see the arguments.
if the Bible makes true predictions, then its true.
It does. Already fulfilled over 200 predictions.
Jesus predicted his death and ressurection @@plecology
You complete disregard the fact that people are willing to make these predictions come true or in the very least interpret them to come true. Hardly a measure for truth.
@@plecology Sure, here are two: Firstly, Isaiah 53. It describes Jesus and only Jesus. The oldest recovered copy of it (Dead sea scroll 1QIsa1) is carbon dated to 125 BC. That makes it a true prediction. Here's another - Daniel 9:25 predicting the timing of Messiah's arrival (see "Three Proofs of God" by James Browne) is about as conclusive as you can get.
@@DukeEllision329 In the physical sciences, a hypothesis (e.g. plate tectonics or germ theory) is considered valid when it makes true predictions and explains all relevant evidence. I hold the Bible to the same standard.
The variance of point of view in the synoptic Gospels, is strong evidence of reliability. If there were no variance, it could easily be shown that there was actually a conspiracy of to collaborate stories. That the believers left the variance in is evidence that they weren't trying to retcon the events to perfectly synchronize them, letting differing experiences stand next to each other.
Hey I know there's like 500 comments on this already, but please put somewhere in your future playlist one of these AI debates but make it between a skeptic / atheist versus a Christian on what happened to Jesus and why did his gospel spread or alternatively is the resurrection true or an alternative?
The reason I sync this would be a good debate is because I believe you are a Christian from the videos I have seen on your channel and hopefully you know as well as I do any other alternative hypothesis for the erection is completely failing compared to the truth that Jesus rose from the dead.
The only acceptable AI content on YT.
Can you do Stoicism vs New Testament, please.
wtf does that have to do with anything? 😂 learn the definition kid, then come requesting your bs
Awesome simulation.
I'd love to see ai debate the authenticity of The Shroud of Turin.
That would be a click magnet, I'd share it with atleast 20 people
We are discussing the result and not the processes of the analysis. I’ve used AI to help analyse biological data and the results depend upon the education or educative sets assimilated by the AI. A heavy numerical sample bias one way or another will affect the outcomes. The shear quantity of literature written in the last two millennia and the commentaries written and appearing in the on line literature numerically will out way the incidence of publications refuting or contesting it. The fact that each AI is coming out with different conclusions on different questions could well reflect sample bias so any results must always be viewed in context and limitations acknowledged when evaluating interpretation. We must also know a great deal about the weighting and adjustment of algorithms applied. At present we must be careful when seeking categorical answers to certain questions. As systems improve perhaps we may move towards consensus outcome from numerous AIs. This is particularly true when we are considering outcomes based on philosophical suppositions.
The "be perfect/complete/mature"
Context helps with interpretation
Well, it's normal that Gospel writers used the Old Testament themes, because Jesus was the part of the Old Testament as well. We cannot separate the Old Testament from Gospels
Can you please do Oneness Pentecostal Theology vs The Trinity?
Having a Christian apologist use the term “CE” in a discussion about the New Testament is particularly ironic.
i thought that was interesting too. there's a few times the model reverted back to AD but if memory serves me right, it mostly used CE.
If we turned the protagonist loose, with ‘her’ understanding of our Messiah, what would that AI do ?
If you like this Idea. It would be cool to have a debate between the Quran (From it's Arabic Form Only) and Islam's Dawah Team.
The more convincing the argument to me at this point received a lower score. I wonder how does the scoring system work?
Did the debaters define "corruption" and "reliable"?
I would love to see a debate on:
1 - Is the Bible really monotheistic?
2 - Was the serpent in Eden Satan?
And perhaps a more specific, but super interesting debate:
1 - Should the Book of Enoch be canonical?
2 - Is Jesus Christ a Roman invention?
1. yes
2. yes
and
1. no
2. no
Maybe for debate sake probably the last one could entertain, the rest is not really matter of debate in my opinion.
Yes it's monotheistic. The father and the son are never represented as two seperate divine beings, but they are both represented as two eternal persons that are being distinctively regarded to as The Father and The Son, where this distinction comes from. If they were the same person they could be called either one.
Satan is referred to as the "ancient serpent" or the serpent throughout the new testament, more specifically in revelation. So yes we can assume he was.
the Book of Enoch was written way long after the bible was compiled, church fathers had already been established before it. Not to mention there is no way someone in the 1st or 2nd century knew the words of Enoch who had been long gone by that point. Not canon.
Considering there are many religious teachings that include Jesus Christ as an important figure and documentation such as the new testament and letters written to other church fathers discussing these matters, it's hard to deny that Jesus was a real person. It would be strange if he wasn't.
AI does not think. It merely regurgitates what it was fed,
Artificial is artificial, AI sucks in my Christian opinion
If the variation in textual interpretations do not contradict but give a richer understanding of the text, won’t this means consistency in the message, its reliability and authenticity.
EEEEEH The Skeptic "Aramaic" claim is a debunked claim. Even as the movie "The Passion of the Christ" was being filmed with Aramaic, Scholars had already determined that Hebrew was the common language the region at the time.
Cool debate. As an argument against the skeptic, texts containing theological and moral content doesn’t necessarily mean the content is biased - if we accept the possibility that both God (theology) is real and morality is real.
Morality is real, it just isn't absolute/objective and the bible shows this.
God ordered and condoned slavery, misogyny, stoning gays, genoc1de and r4ping captured virgins.
If morality would be absolute/objective those laws and acts should still be moral but are not.
And this also shows that the claimed god can't be the standard.
The concept of removing emotions in order to get better judgement is a failure proven by time. Emotions is a part of human intelligence, thus removing it is like cutting one eye off to see better.
Maybe I haven't make it far enough into the debate yet, but I am less curious whether the bible is "trustworthy" or not in terms of its accurate translations.
I would be more interested in a debate in which " is the bible actually true or not"? I think that would be far more interesting as it would dive into probabilities of prophecies, assessments of claims being made, exc.
As this debate seems to be more aligned with just whether the version of the bible we read now, is actually fully accurate or not. IMO, I don't care. I want to know if its TRUE or not, in the claims its making. The AI would do a good job debating that I think
Need this for the Vedas+Bhagavad Gita for the Hindu, Dhammapada and other Siddartha Guatama words for the Buddhist, and so forth. Non believe vs each and each vs each.
thanks for the note. i've been working on one that includes the leaders of the 5 major religions, having a skeptic examine their leaders and texts.
@@JonOleksiuk I prefer only two factions per video so it is easier to see where the argument is heading. Although I will still watch the 5 religions plus the non believer skeptic video.
No debate needed. The foundation for all religions and religious books is mythology.
Wrong. Jesus was real, is real. Nothing mythological about it. Prove me wrong. You got gas lit into thinking about all the various sources and origins of religions. You can do the same thing with science and math. Many maths and sciences has its origins and sources in various places throughout time. Many scientists today owe alot to Christian scientists, chemist, mathematicians, engineers etc. Many scientists today argue and disagree with each other all the time. Only some can conduct themselves with integrity and professionalism. Enough to not pretend that they have all the answers and can disprove the existence of God.
After 9:26 the believer lost the point and addressed something else. After 9:26 we are sure that skeptical won the debate, or just have enough solid points that it's impossible for the believer to negate.
Great work Jon !
Please do Skeptic vs Muslim, this the one everybody wants 🙏
Wow great video! I can't wait to see a Christianity vs Mormonism belief! Keep up the awesome work Jon Oleksiuk.
I think an important one to do would be a Jew vs a Christian. Two groups that believe in G-d, but have differences on who the Messiah is/was.
I like how you use Michael Kruger, one of the least known figures in textual criticism and is a Christian who believe in preservation while not adding the most influential textual critics such as Bart Ehrman and David C Parker who believe the text is absolutely not preserved
Bart Ehrman and David C Parker are quoted 11 times. Refer to the footnotes.
@@JonOleksiuk yes but the quotes make it appear as if their position is preservation when both of them don’t believe the scripture was preserved.
Was there a specific quote had in mind? I can't find anything that indicates they agree with scripture's preservation.
As biblical scholar Bart Ehrman notes, "It's not whether we have more or earlier manuscripts than for other ancient works. It's whether we have religiously motivated variations in our manuscripts, which we do have for the New Testament."[7]
The vast majority of these manuscripts are centuries removed from the originals, and no two copies are exactly alike[8].
As Bart Ehrman points out, even small changes can have significant theological implications[16].
As Bart Ehrman points out, ancient historians often included legendary or miraculous elements alongside accurate historical details[53].
As David Parker, a textual critic, argues, "There is no single original text to be recovered."[15] The concept of an "original" text is problematic due to the oral traditions underlying the gospels and the likelihood of multiple early versions of Paul's letters.
I see a trend of avoiding bigger questions like"how can bible be reliable when it contradicts it self"
Also I see a small Christianity>all religion
Trend too
However I see chatGPT saying Islam>all religion
How would you respond to this?
Also next video idea
Isreal or Palestine, who is the rightful owner of the land? AI judges
The skeptic seemed sophistic... never a strong argument.
Could you do something with buddhism? Like Cristhian vs Buddhist or Buddhist vs Hinduist, would be cool 😁👍
to include a video with buddhism and/or hinduism is definitely on my radar. thanks for the note.
@@JonOleksiuk Thank you for saying that and thanks for the response! I can't wait for those vids! Your content is awesome! 😆
@JonOleksiuk I tried to access the google doc but it’s not letting me. It says I need permission. Can you change the setting to open it?
it's open now, sorry about that.
The fact the we don’t have these debates about Pluto’s works just tells me the Scripture is most likely correct.
Machine Learning could really accelerate tribal language learning and Bible translation efforts too.
If only humans could debate in a civil way like these A.I.
Granted, some do.
I love these videos though. Jesus is the way. 🙏
Philosophers, theologians and scholars. They tend to debate this way, albeit mostly through writing these days. Not UA-cam debaters, they are notoriously clout seeking interlocuters. These AI are mimicking scholarly debate they've been fed, so they have a decent disposition.
we all are. Unfortunately most cristians have no idea who i am