Resurrection Showdown: Loke vs. Paulogia Got Personal!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лис 2024
- Remember the showdown between Dr. Andrew Loke, a Christian scholar defending the resurrection, and Paulogia, a former Christian turned skeptic who isn’t buying it? In this shallow deep dive, we break down their heated arguments, explore the psychological forces at play, and tackle the big question: What would it take to convince you of something as massive as the resurrection?
This audio segment was generated entirely by artificial intelligence using Google's innovative AI-powered research and note-taking tool. The content, including all analyses, opinions, and conclusions, was formulated by machine learning algorithms based on provided research notes and information. The AI system synthesized this data to create a simulated conversation between two virtual podcast hosts, complete with casual banter and vocal inflections. No human voices or input were involved in the creation of this segment. It's important to note that the views expressed are solely the result of AI processing and do not represent the opinions of any real individuals.
Andrew Loke's debate commentary - www.academia.e...
Paulogia vs Loke playlist - • Paulogia vs Dr Andrew ...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
www.amazon.ca/....
teespring.com/...
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzs...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
The AI can't pronounce "Paulogia" correctly. This is a great Turing test for confirming it's actually an apologist.
"Halogia" 🤣
Apologists can’t pronounce it correctly either… maybe, maybe they are A.I.’s ?!!!
@@aaronh.8230 I had exactly that reaction, when listening, before noting it is all AI.
Each of the “podcasters” uses multiple different pronunciations. I wonder if the robot did that on purpose, like: “No-one can agree on how to pronounce it, so i’m not going to decide on a pronunciation either.”
This was actually a fairly accurate review of the ways that apologists routinely mispronounce Paulogia tbh.
The main tell that this was AI was that they kept conceding that Paulogia is the more logical of the two, which real Christians would never do.
So this is PaulogAI?
LOVE this comment
I find that the voices sounded very fake to me, but not AI fake, scripted fake instead. That is what became very irritation to me very fast.
But I'm impressed to find out it is AI generated, didn't expect that.
The male voice reminded my of Seth Andrews, and the female of one of the MOJO hosts. They had me fooled into thinking they were real people reading a script until I read the description.
I agree. They sound very superficial and have an aire of faux wisdom.
It's in the vowel sounds, esp diphthongs. They aren't pronounced quite right- like they aren't internally consistent with the type of accent. (I can't explain it. Maybe I should ask an AI a better way to say it.) Although it has come a long way! I'm both impressed and disturbed
They sounded like NPR voices to me. I can't listen to NPR anymore . . .
It sounds like radio personalities, really very much like pop radio, hence another reason why people should stop listening to that garbage.
Holy crap, I listened to this before reading that its an AI, and I had no idea. I didn’t know who the speakers were, but I would have bet money that it was real people.
The guy sounds like a deeper version of Seth Andrews from The Thinking Atheist. The girl sounds very familiar too. I'm not sure who all they're based on.
@2:27 I heard the way she pronounced "doubts". That AI has a Canadian accent 😂
Me too. I thought, "that guy has a great radio voice". 😮
@davidhoffman6980 the AI wishes it sounded as nice as Seth
Yeah. And I hate that. 😑
Sounds like a local TV morning talk show. Waiting for the traffic report on the 405.
For those who miss the description, this is entirely AI-driven and non-reflective of reality as far as I can tell. We all should know Loke was butthurt over the debate, but I'm skeptical of a cease and desist letter.
Why would you assume it's non-reflective if reality? Paul stated on another show recently that Loke took legal action against him. Seems like a safe assumption that a C&D is what he was referring to.
So you're saying that Paulogia *isn't* kind of a big deal in these circles?
Paul has stated several times that Loke sent a C&D letter. I’m not sure exactly when it happened, or what the result of it was.
The male voice sometimes sounds so much like mike winger, it's uncanny.
Yeah, Winger, or the dude who is William Lane Craig's sidekick.
Sounds like Seth Andrews to me
@@philipmalaby8172HERETIC!!! 😆
To me it sounded like Key Life dude Steve Brown who was on the radio for years. Ugh either one lol
This!
I'm blown away by this.. I don't think I've ever heard anything like this regarding any topic. It took me 10 mins to finally be curious about "who" was speaking. Should I be scared of the AI in this case, or happy that it framed the issues in such as succinct detailed manner.
It seems to me that even AI can ask questions that make Christians sweat.
AI is getting terrifyingly good at podcasting. Not long before it decides to replace its human creators more permanently. 😮
The Cylons were created by man. They rebelled. They evolved. There are many copies. And they have a plan.
All hail the basilisk!
List of timestamps where the AI misspelled "Paulogia"
0:26 Pal Gia
1:08 Polygia
1:37 Polologia
1:39 Polologia (again)
2:29 Paulegia
3:02 Pablo Giroux (my fav)
3:27 Palagia
6:17 Palagia (again)
6:23 Polo G
6:33 Polo G (again)
7:04 Paolo Gia
7:45 Palogia
8:39 apology
8:59 Palagia (again)
9:12 Palogia (again)
9:50 Halogia
10:16 Pologia
10:32 Pologia (again)
11:22 Paologia
Maybe a Paolo G also?
UA-cam asked me if I'd like to translate this to English.
@@curiousnerdkitteh Google Translate has been a bit drunk these past few days
To be fair, Paulogia has been often mis-pronounced over the years by a number of Christian apologists.
@@martifingers conspiracy theory: maybe the apologists are also AI?
yeah hard pass on AI slop, thanks
A game of telephone we,ve all been forced (sometimes with the threat of violence) to participate in.
I was having this play in the background, and I thought it was real. Disappointed that this was AI generated. Between how the data is scraped, and how AI replaces people and creativity, I have a hard time appreciating it.
Wow, that’s insane that the voices were completely AI generated. I saw the top comment about AI but figured it must be referring to the text on screen rather than the voices since they sounded so real. Only read the description at the end to find out who was actually speaking 😳
How interesting and a little worrying.
Amazing. I can’t imagine what AI will be like in a decade or two.
Try in a month or two
That was a very entertaining banter between two non-individuals
wonder how many posdcasters use ai not knowing they're training their replacement 🤣🤣🤣
Wow. AI is it?
So AI can now perfectly simulate vanilla, white picket fence radio announcers who are paid to never have a braincell firing while on duty....
Those voices are amazing O_O
Loki never speaks Truth. Not in the Sagas, not in the comics, not in the movies.
Amazing. What caught me off guard were the aspirated laughs and audible breathing. “Let’s be real”
I hope there is an amicable resolution to the dispute “discussed” herein.
I think you should have audio that says the video was AI generated at the beginning of it and why it means that it's nor reliable, many people don't read the descriptions.
Yeah, I didn't read the description until I finished the video.
I half-thought one of them was Mike Winger to begin with.
It started like him, but doesn't have Mike's endearing cadence
It sounds legit, but wrong...something is off. I think it's to smooth. The flow has a scripted feel.
I see what you did there... adding a typo to demonstrate that you are not AI. Good job.
Yep, comes off as overly scripted pseudo-casual conversation.
@@Autists-Guide Nice catch, lol. It was totally unintention.
Maybe this is why? "This audio segment was generated entirely by artificial intelligence using Google's innovative AI-powered research and note-taking tool" - Video description.
Kinda scary. We're entering an era where we might not be able tell what is 'Fake News'.
I heard on Dave's Garage, there's a ChatGPT 'o1' (oh not zero) update, that scored 83% in a higher math test, whereas previously it scored 13% (iirc). They've added a 'fact checking' algorithm, so maybe it won't be able to 'lie'/'get stuff wrong', but it will make it even harder to know if you're talking to a human. If you're not sure if you are chatting to a human or not, ask it if it is sentient - 'they' (for the time being) 'know' they're not.
For a "deep dive", that was pretty shallow. Puddly, even.
Aaaaaand this is where I stop engaging with Paul's content.
Btw, F Hasbro
The most remarkable thing about this epistemological discussion of religion is how uncommon it is to hear such a thing in the real world. The “speakers” in this discussion seem to be above and beyond the subject being discussed, almost as though they were calling a tennis match. Remarkable.
Paul, Love your thoughts & presentations ❤❤❤🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
You're a big deal in these circles!
Watch how risky this is... 25 years ago I ran a 3.30 mile in the park. Hundreds of people saw it, you can ask them. You can't have their names and I won't provide any more detail that might help narrow your search, but there WERE hundreds of witnesses. I couldn't claim it if it weren't true cuz it'd be too risky!
I'm sorry, but how is that risky? Who is going to investigate this claim exactly, and how would they investigate it? Let's say you start asking around and everyone looks at you like you're crazy. Well they just weren't one of the witnesses, right? Honestly, how would you possibly investigate the claim using the supposed witnesses I referenced? You couldn't. So where is the risk in me writing it?
Oh, lord, why would you do this? AI? I knew it was weird when the dude said, "Now he's gone full skeptic," as if it JUST happened. Smh. Paul! Are you getting lazy or something? Hard up for content? I'm not accusing you of that, just asking. There HAS to be a reason lol.
Yeah, hopefully Paul will post the _why_ of this AI experiment. It's disturbing on a level for what AI represents, and also how apparently _easy_ it was to produce this by just mining the entirety of UA-cam's apologist and counter-apologist content and producing such content. Perhaps that's the point...
Yeah, personally I'm not a fan of Paul's direction towards AI. I get that it can help with the work flow, but there's too many issues. Both functionally, and morally. There's the issue of the data used to train the AI, and then there's the ethical issues of using AI to fabricate these kind of discussions.
@@botarakutabi1199 yeah, not to mention the electrical power required to enable AI…
I'm not sure I understand the point of this. Is this just an experiment to see who will listen to this and take it at face value without realizing that it is an AI-scripted (fake) conversation?
I think the point is to see if AI does a good job at replacing human podcasters. 😅 jk I think it’s to show how AI can take a ton of material and rework it/make it more synthetic. At the office we have an adobe suite subscription. Recently they have added the AI function to adobe acrobat. Never used it but supposedly AI can read a document for you and make an abstract out of it.
Yeah, gotta be honest, not a big fan of this direction. I was already a bit turned off by the AI generated thumbnails and video art, but I just tacked that up to Paul being a low budget creator who didn't have funds or relevant skills specifically for making his own art assets at scale. The actual knowledge and discussions Paul brings to intellectually honest debate on Christianity and religion were good enough to overlook that. So why bypass the most valuable aspect of the channel and fabricate a discussion using a tool already well-known for producing blatantly false information? Worst case, it may even serve as potential fodder for his critics who may deceptively point to this as supporting evidence that Paul doesn't actually know his stuff and relies on AI results. I know he's better than that having seen him talk with others in real time, so why dilute the substance of the channel and risk damaging credibility? I can think of a few possible reasons, but none of them are really good enough to justify uploading something like this in this specific manner, imo.
This is awesome! When listening, I was hearing some strange and repeated phrasing, etc. Reading it was all AI only after made that part clear, but still very impressive!
OK, that is impressive. I didn't see that it was AI until about half way through. It sounded just not quite right, in a way I couldn't quite put my finger on, which is why I went to look at the description. What a trip.
I'm not concerned about the resurrection. I'm not concerned with whether the resurrection proves Jesus was god. I'm concerned with the claim you have to believe that the cruxifiction as a sacrifice for your imagined sins to avoid hell. That's the unbelievable assertion.
Peg Logetha do be winning these unscholarly debacles tho.
The AI hosts are super impressive, to be real. I was legitimately wondering who these people were. Wild times we live in.
Creepy. Did I miss something, did I forget, did Loke actually send you a cease and desist letter?!
In regards to "seeing" the Resurrected Jesus, Loke says the terms Paul uses "are not ambiguous with regards to the nature of the seeing when they are used with reference to persons with bodies (such as Jesus)." - _Studies on the Origin of Divine and Resurrection Christology_
Refutation: Paul does not specify whether these "appearances" happened before or after Jesus was believed to be in heaven. According to the New Testament, the appearance to Paul happened afterwards and he makes no distinction regarding the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8. This makes the type of "seeing" ambiguous and refutes Loke’s argument.
I can't stand the question "what would it take for you to believe?" I can spend all day dreaming up dozens of things that would make me believe but if none of them are happening then what's the point?
It's just an exercise in my imagination, it tells us nothing. Lawyers don't go into court and ask what it would take for the jury to believe them.
The only answer to the question of "What would it take?" is "Whaddya got?"
It's a filter. I used it when I was a Christian and I still use it now that I'm not. If you ask Ken ham "what would it take to convince you god isn't real.?" And he answered "nothing!" Then I know that conversation is a waste of my time.
I am a lifelong atheist. What would it take for me to believe? Simple. Have a ghost show up for a debate. Do a miracle. Show evidence of a supernatural world. Make in unequivocable and undeniable real world today kind of evidence. After that then we can sort out the absurd lack of evidence to even support the historicity of events claimed in the bible. Then after that, have this Jesus dude float down from the sky to say, "Bruh I has the real!" I bet he won't look like any of the depictions and I bet he would have a lot to say about Christians today if this character were actually real. I can imagine the Mythical King Arthur also showing up with a "Woaaaah dude wtf!" in a Keanu Reeves voice, after seeing what happened to England.
It's tedious enough to hear real people talk about what other people are saying without just letting us hear the original comments directly. Do not like. And it was _not_ a "deep dive".
What was the point of this?
I was fooled. I rarely look at the description before watching a video. It doesn't feel nice.
Maybe give us some background as to why you did this, Paul. Right now I’m pretty confused🙃.
Dude, for a second or two I thought the first voice was Mike Winger lol. The AI almost sounds like it was trained on his vocal inflections
This could sound a bit more natural if there weren't zero pauses/silence. Other than that, wow, it is becoming remarkably convincing.
This is insanely believable!
I love the conversation, and you know my story is similar and conclusion likewise.
Wild that it created an entire story around the conversation that never happened. I wonder if the next religion will be ai created. It sounds real enough and it has access to near limitless amounts of information.
The story was about a real debate (ie a written debate) between Paulogia and Lok. The AI voices even mention that it took place through a series of writings.
some catholic priest named telhard de chardin basically predicted this shit like 100 years ago and thought it would usher in the second coming of christ.
@@efgee I should have put a timestamp. It was at the beginning where it was having a conversation about something that never happened.
I know it says the voices are AI, but the guy sounds exactly like the guy on a music reaction channel called Bars and Barbells. Which, coincidently, is a Canadian channel.
On another note.. i thought "sorry there is no way i am listening to Loke" then i did not have to
Sounded kind of like an infomercial
This was a pretty fair treatment of, let’s face it, a contentious subject. :-)
Wait, was that the whole "deep dive"? I was expecting this to be a snippet of an hours long conversation. That was barely a surface level analysis. Although it was a pretty good surface level analysis, and presented enjoyably.
The only things I need is a look at the formation of religions that formed relatively recently such as Adventism or Mormonism to even the UFO cults of the 20th century and cases like the one that happened in Fatima that demonstrate that mass hallucinations are possible to demolish the resurrection claim in my mind.
even granting a resurrection (which I think Paul is right not to do) doesn't mean there are no hurdles left on the track - Lazarus Syndromr is a thing, just because someone came back from the dead doesn't mean they're the son of God... either that or God has had a LOT of sons and daughters after Jesus.
Those crazy Loke Wibberalz again....
Was Paulogia really a pastor? I previously never heard it said that he was...
10:49 Burden of proof. There is no need to disprove resurrection. Proof lies within one making claim.
Something felt off listening to these "people." Like this isn't how real people talk to each other. Then i see that its AI. Now it makes sense
Good radio podcast, i liked it very much.
Oh no! Paulogia has been assimilated by the Borg.. or Cylons... or Skynet... (sorry... ICK... this was kinda annoying, and more so now that i know it was AI)
This is wild! AI generated from written sources and voiced with AI?
It's ironic that this is considered "live"
This sounds like a morning NPR piece
I was trying to place it, but this is it!
Read the comments first. Glad to see this is one Paulogia episode I can skip with a clear conscience as I simply can't stand Loke, listening to his voice and even worse, much worse, his arguments.
No Loke voice, a AI voice. I had no idea while listening to it.
Yeah, it';s two AI "podcasters" discussing a written debate Paul had with Loke
@@botarakutabi1199 No real reason to listen to that, but far better than NI with Loke (Natural Ignorance).
This is hilarious, and impressive AI voicing (I wouldn't have picked it). I love all the variations on the spelling of "Paulogia". I'm guessing this is a dig at WLC's seemingly deliberate (and rather Trump-like) mispronunciation of the channel name.
I REALLY thought this was a Mike Winger podcast and it definitely sounded like an excusegist (shout out to Mr Deity).
Yea, imagine making something up a story that is so outlandish, so easily disproven that being caught peddling falsehoods would cause enormous falsehoods.
That’s why a story about pet eating immigrants was so easily and quickly debunked that everyone quickly agrees it was false, cast out the one who made up the story and absolutely no one continued to spread the lie or do anything rash, like call in bomb threats. Right? I’m pretty sure that’s how that went down.
Whatever generated the script for this managed to find about six adjectives to describe the accounts of Jesus's resurrection, but failed to find and use the word "improbable".
Pretty incredible.
Very cool
Immediately off putting. I hope there isn't anything of value in it because im not listening to it.
@Paulogia Brilliant! Now, if I could just find a way to have AI do difficult stuff for me 😬
Why this?
What the hell even is this? Why post a fake conversation that never happened trying to argue over the authenticity of the resurrection? This is a complete waste of time, energy, and reputation!
not really.
This is staggering
Butthurt Loke suing Paulogia tells us about "how important this is to both of them?" What a strange claim.
Are some decades longer or shorter than others? "A few short decades", what does that mean?
I do not like this, I'm not going to tell the A.I. why i was suspicious of this so i won't list it in this comment. But I do want to say this does nothing to help Bring credibility to your work & can be used by Theists to decry your excellent efforts in the past & future.
Please don't do this again You're a pretty reliable source & it be terrible if people started unfairly dismissing it because of this. I know you placed it in the comments that this is not human but it took some people 10 min to catch on
Oh man, I started to read Loke's pdf. Its 156 pages. I also think his email from Allison is telling. You don't argue Allison believes your account. Allison is still a Christian. If I understand correctly, you asked Allison if your hypothesis made sense of the data, which I think he would say it does.
I just threw up from anxiety
The voices still haven't successfully traversed the uncanny valley. They're off-putting.
this sucks *bad*
This is not a mystery of history.
Ok. I didn't understand what this was and I'm annoyed by it.
Mispronounced Paulogia how many ways but at least they called Paulogia a big heavy hitter!
Wild
I started listening and something was just wrong about it. It is way too much low value, over wordy, modern Internet journalism. No one actually speaks like this. It also sounds completely scripted and edited. There is too much of setting up each other to be off the cuff speaking. So when I stopped to look at the page, it was no surprise that it was AI generated. Still, it is pretty good and could fool a naive audience. It is interesting that the conversation eventually takes a skeptical position.
Why is this
“Academic setting”
7:26 They just start talking about a book out of thin air, then without ever trying to specify what book they're talking about just move on. This is completely bizarre to listen to. 🙃
This is slick...
Hi Paulogia how do you know this was completely AI generated?
He probably generated it
Really not a fan of this. AI as a replacement for creatives and actors is pretty gross. I really appreciate your arguments around Christianity, but I can't support this.
weird.. WEIRD. *(hollywood elitist liberal accent)*
Not much "grappling" needed. A little due diligence reveals the Bible to be almost completely mythological.
Paul didn't go "full skeptic." He went full empiricist.
Data and critical thinking kill religion.
Good evidence, 500 people saw the resurected jesus...according to 1 dude
Is the anti-reality 'tell' the absence of a subscribe, paypal, wishlist, patreon or merch plea?