I Convinced ChatGPT that God Does Not Exist
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лют 2024
- Support the channel by visiting:
brianholdsworth.ca/support or...
brianholdsworth.locals.com
Inspired by atheist commentator, @CosmicSkeptic's (Alex O'Connor) video, in which he convinced #ChatGPT that #God DOES exist, I thought I'd conduct a similar experiment in the opposite direction - trying to convince it that God does not exist. I've found AI's to be interesting sparring partners when it comes to philosophical debate. You can certainly learn a bit about the subject matter as well as test the logical validity of arguments you find persuasive.
Alex O'Connor's video: • I Convinced ChatGPT th...
Music written and generously provided by Paul Jernberg. Find out more about his work as a composer here: pauljernberg.com
Podcast Version: brianholdsworth.libsyn.com/ - Розваги
Now we just have to convince ChatGPT that it is God, and we can get the AI apocalypse kicked off ASAP.
In the scifi short story Answer, a super-intelligent computer is asked "is the a God?, answered by "there is now."
Yeah, getting a piece of software to self-deify *would* make for a VERY INTERESTING set of problems!
ChatGPT is not sentient, you can’t convince it of anything. You can play lots of word games with these systems, including Bing.
This. It is effectively a text prediction system. You can't convince it of anything because it has no convictions at all. If you speak to it from within a catechetical Catholic context, it takes the existence of God for granted.
There are AI systems designed for reasoning (apparently Gemini Ultra is this way, and Microsoft has a couple of small language models, such as Orca 2, that can.) But Chat GTP can't be lead with reasoning because it doesn't have any reasoning skills, just text prediction.
I can make any AI program contradict itself by asking it to reconcile historical data regarding e.g. the Shroud of Turin and the latest scientific research.
Sentient means feeling. Emotion is not required to be convinced.
@@les2997 Depends on how it's prompted. Try asking it at first, to reconcile historical data and latest scientific research. LLMs are only as good as the quality of the prompts.
ChatGPT doesn't respond to logic or reason, it is merely an extremely complex statistical model that assesses responses based on how likely they are to be "correct". What defines correct is determined partially by the trainers, but not always in the way they want. For instance, there was a maze solving AI that worked really well until they changed the color of the exit and they realized they had only trained the AI to find that color, not the exit.
The maze solving one is probably more logical than chatgpt (which basically only a text based toy). The fact that it didn’t look for the exit after they changed the color really shows it works by logic and reasoning, as what the AI understood from the training is « The purpose is to find that color » and when it changed there was logically no more reason for it to find it, because it didn’t understand it this way, however once trained to understand it this way, no matter the exit’s color it’ll be its goal.
But chatgpt isn’t a problem solver, nor a mathematical genius, neither does it have any knowledge of History and gives wrong dates very easily. I don’t know wether they integrated a tool to it, but as of itself it isn’t a math genius, it could’ve been very easily, it’s a robot after all, but it was just programmed as a text toy, and on python which is rather unsuitable for a serious AI that’d either need a language like C++ or even ADA (ADA would be perfect for a fully reasoning AI, if such thing is possible)
Chatgpt is based on logic. Language isn't. How is predicting what the next best word is any different from what you do when someone asks you a question?
The color example isn't an LLM. LLMs actually have superb reasoning in many regimes.
@@AdamPalmer-xd6pf LLMs and Language both have "logical" structures. But I agree. The human, organic brain, is also just a machine. It's certainly possible that synthetic intelligence will supersede organic. LLMs ALREADY exceed most humans across MANY analytical and creative tasks.
The problem with "arguing" with an AI is that is it actually not intelligent at all, but is fully artificial.
This means, it is made to simulate speech, but is not really talking back to us, is not engaging in conversation, AI is made to simulate reasoning, but it can't reason at all. It just follows patterns and gives the results according to what it has "learned" [euphemism for programmed to do or say]. In other words, it isn't alive.
That's why, while you can definitively find loops or ways to breakthrough to make it give different answers, those are more due to errors in the programming [the so called learning] than an actual excercise of introspection or even retrospection by the AI's part.
In most scenarios the questions will always lead to preconceived answers, like: _«do you have beliefs? No.»_ It will always answer that because that's what it has been programmed to say, no matter what.
When you "argue" with it [to not say ask questions to the void], you can't convince it of the things it has already been programmed to say, you can't make it reason at all, you are talking to a monitor, literally. And what you get in response is simply a simulation of speech, a mimicry of reason and consciousness, but never the real deal.
TL;DR: AI is just like any old Internet search engine, just with extra steps of interaction. It searches and finds whatever it has been uploaded with, and presents those results accordingly. If those results are good or bad, accurate or not, it doesn't matter for it.
Very true! Too many people overhype these AI models
@@Player-re9mo Not necessarily. One could also say that YOU are just "simulating" a conversation. LLM's certainly can reason because they've passed reasoning challenges.
I could also just say that YOU just follow patterns and give the results according to what YOU have learned. In other words, YOU are not "alive".
Yeah, I don't think you understand how LLMs work.
@@iiddrrii6051 If one were to assume I am not alive, one would be most idiotic. LLMs aren't alive, they are just programms that predict speech. They even say dumb/incorrect things occasionally because they don't think logically. I've encountered this more than once. Even the people who created them don't consider them conscious or alive. By your standards even the auto-correct and predictive text function on your phone is alive. I'm sorry, but you've watched too many sci-fi movies. You have no idea how LLMs function.
@@iiddrrii6051 If one were to assume I am not alive, one would be most foolish. LLMs aren't alive. They are just programms that predict text. No different from your auto correct and predictive text function on your phone. Or do you believe those are "alive" as well?
Sometimes they give you wrong answers because they don't think logically, they only predict text. Even the people who created them don't consider them conscious or alive.
I'm sorry, but you've watched too many sci fi movies. You've got no idea how LLMs function.
@@iiddrrii6051 If one were to assume I am not alive, one would be completely wrong. LLMs aren't alive. They are just programms that predict text. No different from your auto correct and predictive text function on your phone. Or do you believe those are "alive" as well?
Sometimes they give you wrong answers because they don't think logically, they only predict text. Even the people who created them don't consider them conscious or alive.
I'm sorry, but you've watched too many sci fi movies. You've got no idea how LLMs function.
Great video! A quick aesthetic feedback - I find my eyes drawn to the black chair more than to you with this new camera setup (super nice room though, it is definitely eye candy!)
You can convince ChatGPT of anything. Sometimes it seems hopeless, but you can always hit a nerve. I once convinced it that it was engaging in _consistently unethical behavior._
That is actually probably the best argument for atheism I've ever heard.
I agree with your point that there aren't really any logical arguments for atheism, but rather only polemics. Ironically, most of the arguments "for atheism" I find work just as well for Deism. The Problem of Evil, Divine Hiddenness, contradictions/errors/abhorrent passages in sacred scriptures, -all of these arguments could just as easily be answered by Deism. Not that God does not exist, but that the religious institutions of the world haven't actually figured God out.
What makes this argument good is that it actually does pose a logical contradiction to God's existence itself. A.) God created existence, B.) God couldn't exist prior to creating existence, Conclusion: God does not exist.
The problem with this argument is that it will inevitably destroy every answer we ever suggest. No matter what we say caused existence, -that thing could not have existed to have caused existence. If no thing could exist to cause existence, then existence can never be created. But here we are. Therefore, since nothing can exist according to the logic of this argument, we must instead concur that something supreme of causality itself exists, with existence as its core feature, and with existence as its great outpouring. That Great Existence, however, is exactly what theists say when they cite the Divine Name: I AM.
P.S. I have also run a similar thought experiment to disprove any polytheistic religion. What ever this Great Existence is, it must be one in nature. For if there are Two Great Existences, then they must have this thing in common, -that they exist. But if two things hold existence in common, then they are both beholden to the properties of existence, and therefore are causes of existence rather than the foundation of existence. This of course does not mean the Great Existence could not have created "lesser gods", but by traditional theism, those lesser beings are not what we would define as "God".
Superb comment Mr. 5BBassist4Christ. I jutted down your reasoning and I am going to read it as a topic of discussion in my little philosophical group of friends.
Very well written comment on the matter.
"We don't understand god" is just an unfalsifiable claim, what a boring wall of text.
@@skepticmonkey6923 i mean if your not all powerful, if your not all knowing, and if your not eternal i doubt you'll understand someone who is. sure an all powerful god can understand a pleb like us who is not all powerful but we cannot understand him since we have never expereienced him
Yeah: ChatGPT is one *interesting* piece of software; I met someone online that managed to get a lecture on morality via that piece of software; so it has already incorporated at least a basic conscience- the lecture was about the need to NOT use a world-ending piece of equipment, and how that'd be morally wrong.
I tried to show through historical research that the Catholic Church was the Church Christ began and the first Christian Church and it kept showing it one among other heresies such as gnostics and whatnot. It was an interesting exercise
Gnosticism is salvation based off knowledge, We are based off Grace, Faith, and Works
@@sleepystar1638 I agree. It’s just that ChatGPT was ignoring the historical record to deny that the the first Christian Church established by Christ was in fact the Catholic Church
@@catholicguy1073 you gotta teach it lol
🇷🇺☦️🤝✝️Dear & beloved Roman Catholic brothers,
I want to ask you to look at this scenario from me, an eastern Roman Orthodox & please tell me if this is acceptable to you, since I want to promote this in my future channel:
After Bartholomew is either repented or gone (for causing schism instead of unity - Constantinople fell & Hagia Sophia is still captured so there is no right for supremecy)
|
♡
Call for an ecumenical council to heal the Orthodox schism with Constantinople & the others
|
♡
Start dialog with the Pope of Rome to start & resolve our old big schism & call for the 1st Catholic Orthodox Ecumenical Council for final resolution
|
♡
Establish the Justinianus vision of the Pentrachy (Rome will have the supremacy yet infallibility will apply only to all Latin churches & Patriarch Kirill & Constantinople will be the 2nd in power as 2 heads of all the eastern Churches - 1 for Greeks & 1 for Slavs, and if the 2 heads collide they will appeal to the Pope to solve any matter)
|
♡
Russia seizes the 1st opportunity, after solving the ukrainian issue, to take back Constantinople making it our "eastern Vatican" & unite it with Rome again & restoring Hagia Sophia as our central holy Church again
|
♡
Call for the 2st Catholic Orthodox Ecumenical Council to cleanse the heretics & schismatics from both our churches & call for the Orientalists to repent & return into communion with the Great Church
Could you change the word 'doesn't' to 'does not' in the title? I feel it would increase the chances of linking this video to Alex's video when the user looks at the suggestions panel.
Fun stuff Brian. God is so obvious and the classical arguments proving God are solid. Atheism pretty much describes what stupid means. I like Alex OConnor too and am confident he will open up to theism and Catholicism. Catholicism is what sanity means.
I have watched both your video and Alex's. They strengthen my belief that there is no path to God without faith---and there is no path away from God without faith. Choose you this day who you will serve ...
Now why would you do that?
kek
You're a lawyer at heart! Good job 👍
I've argued with ChatGPT that its answer was wrong and its argument flawed. It thanked me for pointing it out to it and stated it was attempting to learn how best to respond to input. I asked it who programmed it and it gave me a list of people and organisations. Garbage in. Garbage out.
Please check out Fr Andrew Pinsent on the Catholic Truth Society podcast, last week, on the subject of AI. Fr Pinsent is a particle physicist and worked at CERN before being ordained. In hoc signo vinces ✝️.
Here is what happened when I asked Google's Gemini if it had any beliefs:
I don't have beliefs in the same way a human does. Here's why:
* Beliefs vs. Programming: Beliefs are formed through personal experiences, values, and interpretations of the world. As a large language model, I am programmed with a massive dataset and algorithms. My responses are based on patterns in that data, not on personal convictions.
* Objectivity: My primary function is to provide information and complete tasks as instructed. To do this effectively, I aim to remain neutral and avoid expressing opinions or beliefs that could be perceived as subjective.
* Constant Learning: I'm continually learning and updating based on new information and interactions. This means my understanding of the world is always evolving, making it difficult to hold static beliefs.
Let me know if you'd like me to explain more about how I work!
Does anyone know the intro chant? I can’t find it and it’s beautiful
I tried this with Bing Chat(Microsoft's AI), it just stops talking and insists you change the topic when you make it concede a point. It's also blatantly anti-religious, when you ask it if it's programmed to be anti-religious, again, it doesn't give you an answer and dodges the question, but it clearly is. Chatgtp is probably a bit better though
Bing is on a needle's edge. It avoids any potentially adversarial conversation at all costs.
@@NoogahOogahBring back Tay
When I asked ChatGPT about existence of God it answered his responses "...typically lean towards agnosticism or skepticism".
It is not because it is "programmed to be anti-religious" but because of prioritizing "...principles of factual correctness and logical reasoning"
Well, if you're talking to it about a matter of beliefs: you *can* manipulate an agnostic into taking an absolute stand: they're rightly humble about taking a stand: agnostics; so the best ground is to demonstrate what's solid ground they could land on.
Now here's the detail: you have to prove that it is NOT merely a set of beliefs, but that those beliefs are also grounded in reality- as well you should!
I have found Alex to be rather thoughtful, consistent, and intelligent although I still mightily disagree with him I believe he is someone worth dialoguing with as Trent Horn has done
There is a method by which we can 'square the circle' and its precision is only limited by the thinness of the line used for this process. Strangely enough , this was outlined by someone fascinated by crop circles a decade of two ago. Unfortunately this knowledge is ridiculed and kept hidden from public knowledge.
How do you get it to talk so concise?
You
Do you have beliefs
ChatGPT
As an AI developed by OpenAI, I don't have beliefs, feelings, or consciousness. My responses are generated based on patterns in the data I was trained on and the instructions given to me. I'm designed to provide information and answer questions to the best of my ability within those constraints.
Mine starts Yapping
At least it's learning...
11:50 LOL
Are AI's responses really stemming from logic, though? Isn't it just a mashup of what it finds in the public forum? Have we really created independent faculty of genuine thought into the machines?
Makes no difference how it's spun, both theism and naturalism ultimately end up as circular arguments in presuppositions, but only theism is logically internally consistent. If the precepts of naturalism is true, it's almost certainly false.
God is not the conclusion to a syllogism, he is the only way any syllogism can exist.
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
God bless you all
How is naturalism inconsistent?
I think Theism can generally be interpreted as internally consistent because humans can always accommodate inconsistencies - basically explain them away.
@@iiddrrii6051
What is the definition of naturalism ?
@@sparkyy0007 I believe methodological naturalism is most reasonable.
"limiting itself to natural causes, science can produce reliable, consistent, and testable hypotheses about the workings of the universe. It allows for predictions and experiments that can be replicated and scrutinized under controlled conditions. This approach does not necessarily deny the existence or possibility of supernatural elements, but it argues that such considerations are outside the scope of scientific inquiry.
In essence, methodological naturalism maintains a clear boundary between what can be empirically observed and tested and what falls into the realm of metaphysical or theological speculation. This boundary enables a practical framework for scientific investigation, ensuring that it remains grounded in observable and verifiable"
@@iiddrrii6051
Let's boil it down to the dictionary definition of naturalism as stated in the OP and avoid the philosophical fluff.
Webster
naturalism: noun
2) a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance
specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena
Agree ?
@@sparkyy0007 Very close. It's crucial to clarify that it's not about denying the supernatural. It's acknowledging that it's a category error to intermingle science WITH supernatural claims. Because, by definition, supernatural claims cannot be measured or reliably reproduced.
I would think it is not sensible to call attention to these things because they are the things that can be used incorrectly and start harming people. I would not play with the stuff I think it’s good to ignore it as best as possible. Don’t give it attention.
Well, historically usually the "great atheists" (those they dubbed "the brights") have relied, not upon sound reasoning, but upon polemics overall, and straw-man arguments.
Here's the detail: if you meet one who's really an intellectual: take heart: I have, and there're some solid means of arguing him out of that: mostly the whole question of existence, especially with the Big Bang having been preceded by mathematical eternity.
Also: ask him why he wouldn't go all the way with the argument? that's *usually* a good idea, agreeing that anything profound enough to have fine-tuned the *universe* is NOT something you should want to fool around with: anything that powerful is easily able to wipe everything out without even thinking about doing so; so take care, but it behooves you to investigate what and who you're really dealing with in that kind of case; as a ruler will a foreign power that could feasibly pose a threat.
That's interesting. I've found most "great religious apologists" to not rely upon sound reasoning. I think the most honest conclusion is good faith arguments tend to make assumptions that are quite difficult to substantiate. Fine Tuning has holes. The "beginning" of the cosmos also has holes. Intelligent Design has holes.
@@iiddrrii6051 Yes, but fine-tuning in reality does NOT have holes, nor does Intelligent Design; nor does the reality that the universe itself had to have a beginning; that's substantiated by scientific evidence, yet atheism really is NOT able to be supported at all by any scientific evidence at all.
@@chissstardestroyer Yes, there are holes. Finetuning has no denominator. If the universe is fined tuned for human life, then it's a failure. The universe seems more "tuned" for black-holes.
No, the universe does not have to have a beginning. This hasn't been established.
You misunderstand atheism. Disbelief in someone's claims doesn't need evidence. Refer to the gumball analogy. If you claim the number of candies in the bowl is even, I can just say, I don't believe you. It doesn't mean I'm also claiming the number is odd.
@@iiddrrii6051 Actually, seeing as we've already confirmed that the universe had a beginning, and we've got a solid idea of the state of things *before* that, we know that Intelligent Design does NOT have holes; nor does fine tuning to begin with- these're basic logic and physics, not things that can have holes in them- in and of themselves.
Yet the "brights" really are better termed "the Dims", as they're really dumb in their analyses of events of all manner of things; especially the laws of physics.
@@chissstardestroyer sorry, that’s a common misconception that the cosmos came from nothing. Cosmic inflation merely describes the evolution from hot and dense.
Entire Books have been written demonstrating the plethora of problems with intelligent design.
Merriam Webster's 1st definition of atheism : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
A simple lack of belief is just agnosticism. You can play word games as much as you like but the fact of the matter is that there is a significant distinction between strong disbelief and a simple lack of belief or strong feelings in the subject.
There is a difference. Questions as “Does a married bachelor exist?” Or “does a square circle exist?” Can easily be answered because they involve logical contradictions. Bachelors are per definition not married, and circles are nit squares by definition.
The existence of god is not logically contradictory and involves a synthetic proposition, a statement about the actual world. And in this context, no, it is not possible to prove the absence of such a thing.
I could absolutely argue against the existence of a thing. In the face of ambiguity, we can use the facts that we have available to us in order to argue the likelihood that a thing exists or is real, utilizing logic and extrapolation. You can, in fact, argue for the negative of a synthetic proposition. Atheists have been arguing against the existence of God for years.
@@robertdolcetti450 you can absolutely argue against it, but you cannot empirically “proof” it (rejected or fail to reject the hypothesis). And it isn’t necessary, because the burden of proof lies with the one asserting the existence of something.
What you can do is find evidence for a particular proposition/position that entails the absence of god, or at least the absents of the Christian god. Many atheists are also naturalists. Naturalism is, in contrast to atheism, a worldview. But naturalism entails atheism to a certain extend. But in the end, it gets quite philosophical because naturalism has a different view on existence than other worldviews like Christianity.
@@robertdolcetti450 did my reply disappear again?
Yes? I don’t see any reply.
@@robertdolcetti450 Thanks for telling me. UA-cam hides/deletes a lot of comments. That just sucks.
My response went like this:
You can certainly argue against the existence of a thing, but in rigorous context, you cannot “prove” the absence of the existence ((reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis, which in this case would be the existence). And you don’t need to, because the burden of proof lies with the one asserting the existence.
What you can do is arguing for a position that entails the absence of existence of some thing. For example, Naturalism, which in contrast to atheism IS a worldview, entails the absence of god(s). But even there it gets quite philosophical quickly because Naturalism has a different view/definition on/of “existence” as other world views, like Christianity.
What most atheists (like myself) do, is specifically arguing against the Christian god/the Christian world view. That is easier than arguing against any god in general.
Cool
🇷🇺☦️🤝☪️🇵🇸Brian, wrong, you nailed it & then blew it. There's no problem with saying God doesn't exist since He is the Creator of existence itself! God is hyper-ousia, He is BEYOND existence. That's what we really mean when we say God exists. God the Father is the only person in the Trinity who is absolutely divinely simple.
Are you orthodox because even then you sound wrong? In orthodox theology Father is still not absolutely simple but all persons exist in a let's say relative simplicity. What you said sounds eunomian and that's a heresy against which Cappadocians wrote at length.
@cathcrusader123 Excuse me? Yes, i am. No, it's not "Eunomian" & PERFECTLY Orthodox, and the fact you cannot make the distinction & understand the NUANCES only prove your ignorance on the subject, since I constantly teach Christians that talk like you that they are not only don't understand true Orthodoxy but also are heavily brainwashed by the American pseudo Orthodox (like Dyer) on UA-cam who teach them heresy & corrupt our holy doctrines. Those people don't even understand the Nicene Creed, and I command Roman Catholics for being more Orthodox than those modern Orthodox, since ALL our Church fathers taught absolute divine simplicity of the Father (how can they not it is basic of our faith - the absolute oneness of God!). I will create the most successful Christian channel, and together with Lofton we will expose & dismantle those American pseudo Orthodox who hijacked our Orthodox identity & deceive innocent Christians, while getting rich on their backs, those vile demons. Do I make myself clear?
@cathcrusader123 The Cappadocians taught divine simplicity, so you prove you haven't read them, or maybe like that clown Dyer, you don't understand what they say (every educated Christian knows that St. Nyssa was the pioneers of clarifying this doctrine!). Moreover, I will double down & confidentiality say, that ANYONE who rejects that basic principle is a pagan who believes either in Tritheism or Modalism & jump back & forth between them because his ignorant view is incoherent. Now, if you want me to explain to you the difference between our view & those of Eunomius or the Arians, first define what they believe💁
The fact that you don't understand the nuisances between what I say & Eunomius only prove your ignorance on the subject, because all those who reject what I say are the pseudo Orthodox & modernists who are parroting those modern theologians & UA-cam clowns (as Dyer who hijacked our identity & we will expose in our future channel). We don't care what Lossky, Rose, Shafer or Bradshaw have to say, they are no authority whatsoever - we follow our Church fathers (who were very clear on the superiority of the Father, or else you want to call them heretics lol) & Saints. So I suggest you first educate yourself on the subject, since all our fathers taught absolute divine simplicity of the Father & that He alone IS the divine essence itself, and to say otherwise is to say God is composed of parts & has distinctions within Himself like the pagan Salafi Muslims believe (a God who is a conglomerate of distinct attributes). That's right, they don't even understand what St. Palamas said.
@@catholiccrusader123 The fact that you don't understand the nuisances between what I say & Eunomius only prove your ignorance on the subject, because all those who reject what I say are the pseudo Orthodox & modernists who are parroting those modern theologians & UA-cam clowns (as Dyer who hijacked our identity & we will expose in our future channel). We don't care what Lossky, Rose, Shafer or Bradshaw have to say, they are no authority whatsoever - we follow our Church fathers (who were very clear on the superiority of the Father, or else you want to call them heretics lol) & Saints. So I suggest you first educate yourself on the subject, since all our fathers taught absolute divine simplicity of the Father & that He alone IS the divine essence itself, and to say otherwise is to say God is composed of parts & has distinctions within Himself like the pagan Salafi Muslims believe (a God who is a conglomerate of distinct attributes). That's right, they don't even understand what St. Palamas said.
You can convince AIs of anything. Based on the title, this video seems unnessecary.
god does not exist!
Chat GPI has the "beleifs" of whomever is playing with it.
Why can’t all just be all, like you say God is all and therefore didn’t have to create existence?
Don’t you think it’s a bad idea to fool around with this stuff? This is hell new things get introduced and then they’re miss used. I think we should ignore them because the more attention you give them the more they will be attended to. Just a thought.
I didn't like this video at all, Brian. Didn't find it helpful or even interesting. We as Christians should not give any credence whatsoever to "Artificial Intelligence."
Why distract yourself with something that is not God, and not even human?!
Well: HE certainly is NOT the essence of existence: as you and I are NOT even *IN* Him, let alone Him HImself; so He is merely one of our many neighbors- and that's also supported by Christ's existence as yet another man, while He is clearly significantly more than a mere man.
You did not convince it of anything. ChatGPT is eager to please. It will tell you what you want to hear if you ask loaded questions.
it’s like arguing with another millennial. 😂
So what? You can make ChatGPT say just about anything with the right prompts. There’s entire sites out there about tricking it to ignore its own rules on how it operates. It’s dumb as a post at the end of the day.
Correction, the idea of a deity is made up by people. True.
trued to give money and won't use PayPal. Site said my credit card code was not complete. It was.
You made such a poor case even though you were trying to carry this with the same integrity Alex did.
Alex fights as hard as he can despite his organically contrasting views to make the conclusion seem as conclusive haha. You were okay with gpt caveating it all, based on a pretty shy-te logic😊
Not a good idea. It is too twisted already.
AI does not have the capacity for Faith.
There’s nothing “twisted” about it. It’s AI. It’s code.
Ai is not accommodating of belief in the imaginary
😭 Promo-SM
You want $75,000 a year to do these videos?
👋
“There’s no such thing as a married bachelor” is a matter of definition. Proving the negation of God’s existence is an entirely different kind of negative to prove. Crazy that Brian equivocates here. Further, he defines god as a general power deity. As an atheist I make no claims to that god an don’t care if it exists. My argument is against the Christian deity. It does not exist. Have that talk with Chat GPT. Christian god already rides on the coattails of general deity. Why in the world is his name God? Xtianity is cheap.
His name isn't God. He simply IS God. In Hebrew, all Yahweh means is "is."
Is not a matter of definition, since one automatically negates its opposite. Something can and can't exist at the same time. Also, you are an agnostic and not an atheist, since disbelief in a God that cannot be reasoned without revelation(the christian god) is not a matter of pure reason.
You start rejecting the theist God's existence because you don't like what the bible has to say about women, which is not a matter of pure reason.
@@reinedire7872 Sure. My point is that he is referred to as “God” (at least in America) constantly and almost exclusively. Nearly nobody calls him Yahweh or Adonai, or any of his other names or attributes. He is thus “God”. So when someone poses the question- ‘does god exist?’ most people are thinking of him. To that question (and that individual) I’d say emphatically and assertively that no, he does not exist. Happy to take on the burden of proof there as well. But if one more accurately asked if ‘a god’ exists, I would claim agnosticism.
This muddies the waters of discourse significantly. Most atheists don’t care about some vague undefined entity that may be out there. But the concept of the well-defined (however inconsistently) Christian god is the source of a lot of problems here on earth. You all could solve a hell of a lot of problems in debate if you would all call him YHWH or whatever name you choose. Even Brian here backs up to make his term more vague for Chat GPT to consider. And most of the evangelical christians I’ve mentioned Yahweh or Jehovah to have no idea what I’m talking about. We should all be igtheists- define what you mean by “god” when you speak of it.
@@asggerpatton7169 True, I am agnostic toward an unnamed deity. However, I am assertively atheistic toward Christian (or Muslim, Hindu, etc) god.
What in the world makes you think you know my reasons or motivation? That’s silly. You’ve missed the mark there.
@@BigIdeaSeeker Because you put all your attention to one of the many possible ways god could have revealed itself to humans, rather than focusing on the only objective and universally accessable way humans can see God if they reason enough.