Thanks for watching! What did you think? Share your thoughts in the comments, and check out these other thought-provoking debates: • What if AI debated ILLEGAL Immigration & Deportation? 👉 ruclips.net/video/K9RrU4doKd4/видео.html • What if AI debated ABORTION 👉 ruclips.net/video/czbLw6zvppQ/видео.html 🔔Don’t forget to subscribe and hit the bell so you never miss the next debate!
How long does it take for you to set it up and create the video? Does having one AI differ from 2 or more like your previous video? If you let the two ai's debate forever, would they come to an agreement to anything or would one side be persuaded over the other?
TBH, there's a difference between a creator (even the potential creator of the universe - imagine a super advanced alien species, for example) and a god.
Exactly, the AI is like oh yeah she went off prompt and made up an excuse that wasn't logical but heck idk where I am right now so you get 40 points! And you get 40 points!
This was actually infuriating... I was yelling the counter arguments at my phone and the "atheist" ai never actually brought them up. And the smugness of the believer ai at the end bringing up math when an infinite regress is what it's entire argument is founded on, and that there's an incomprehensibly small chance for life to form in a hostile and equally incomprehensibly vast universe made me want to throw my phone.
Bro AI debates are actually better than real human debates People usually get angry and harass each other whenever they are losing but AI is calm and presents the best pointers it can , even if it starts to lose or it is sure that it won't win . We need this type of quality and behavior in humans also
@@SarmaleGamer I think @its_lucky252 is just a rage bot. It's a made up statistic, based on something that never happened in the video, designed to rile theists to be like "no u" so a flame war can start in the comments.
I was wondering where the insults and harassment were, but then I scrolled to the comments section and found it. Edit: I wasn't attacking disagreement or free speech. I pointed out that some people are blinded by their own sins and hate and that they cannot see the love of God. In the words of Isaiah the prophet, "Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise, they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” (Isaiah 6:10). Y'all need to take a chill pill or 5 and be more open to genuine discussion rather than tearing each other down with your words. Jesus came to earth, fully God and fully man, and he died on the cross to pay the price of your sins so that you can live with God in eternity forever. Put your faith in him alone to save you, and turn away from your sins and follow Him. Those who do not look to Jesus for their salvation will burn in the lake of fire forever, and I don't want that for you, and neither does God. He loves you and wants to save you from your sins, but has given you a choice. Choose life.
That’s how debates on the competition level is judged though. Not really on the topic but how it’s presented. Debates aren’t really to prove something right or wrong but rather to expand thought
Yeah, I don't think AI knows how to properly judge which argument is stronger. It only knows how to somewhat judge if a presented argument is logically consistent and doesn't contain any provable falsehoods. It's always possible to dance around the point (creating strawmen to attack) while still saying only true things, without actually saying anything substantive. And the believer AI did actually say flat out falsehoods like "a creator solves infinite regress", because you can certainly ask who created the creator and why, on and on forever. But it nonetheless scored exceptionally well in that segment proving that the other AIs are bad even at judging the veracity of statements. Not to mention that even if there was some creative force that "solved infinite regress", there is no reason to assume such a creator would be a conscious god, much less the specific god of Christianity or any other major religion.
@@GelatinGhostthey also seem to be considering the responses in isolation or at the very least have a short context window for tracking past statements. As both of them often just get stuck in loops arguing same thing but with a different analogy, which I'd certainly mark lower.
As an atheist it's not like I'm saying "there's is no god and it's stupid to believe in one" to me it's more like "i've never seen any evidence that God exists so I conclude it doesn't" that's it. I admire people who are believers because I wish I could.
@restushlogic5794 there is no anxiety, you accept that life inevitably is pain and suffering. I've been resuscitated twice and both times fell into a pleasant cold darkness. Dying is easy, living a purposeful life is hard
@@restushlogic5794 I'm not afraid of dying. It is part of life. I actually have an anxiety disorder and worry about many things but that's not one of them. I always understood you can die at any moment from an early age. However I am afraid of losing my partner. But no belief in a higher power could help me if he wasn't here. It would just make life harder and that's what I dread. Death is peaceful. Life is suffering. So I only worry about life and what the future may hold for me.
@@restushlogic5794 besides there's nothing you can do about death. You don't decide when it's your time to go. If I can't control it or change the outcome then why worry about it? I only worry about things I can control like not putting myself in dangerous situations and living a healthy lifestyle. Also I don't believe in the afterlife. I just try not to be an a-hole to others and that's it. If hell turns out to be real and I end up in it so be it. I try to live a morally good life if it wasn't enough so be it. I can't do much better.
I believe it takes more faith to be an atheist, my friend. Look up The Case for Christ, written by Lee Strobel, a former atheist. Give it a read and make a determination. None of us know when we'll take our last breath. By then it'll be too late.
@@alfasilverblade That's true, but at least religious arguments have some logic behind them (though it may be flawed), while flat earthers are just bible thumping idiots with no real evidence or argument at all
this debate actually helped me understand a believers point of view, since i could never truly find people who could explain how something like god makes sense to them, rather then just saying things like "you got to believe or else"
I think it's impossible for most to understand without deep meditation and prayer, because human thought is heavily conditioned by our modernist presuppositions about reality which become difficult to depart from. And it is crucial to understand that there is no straightforward path to belief coming from arguments alone, but I think you should find educated theists who have spent decades trying to understand the inherent necessity and absolute being of God, who is not some invisible guy living in the clouds but a truly omnipotent and limitless creator upon which all of reality depends for its order and existence. Until you really try to deepen your desire for truth, you will find it difficult to truly believe that God is necessary, but the truth is that God being necessary is more certain than almost any other assertion. You can be as sure of the existence of your creator as you are of your own existence.
So, then in your assumption, the Bible is only right about the existence of God? But not about all the other stuff that is written there? Am i going to Hell for not believing in God? Whats your opinion on that. @@PhilLihp-g3t
You overthink it. It's just that simple. You believe in it or not. You can't explain it bcs there is nothing to explain, there is no logic just faith. Religions are a coping mechanism. If you want to believe it, good for you. Just don't tell others that X is the real religion bcs there is no evidence that one is more real than the others.
While this is right, whether or not you are religious or not, life is unfair, but I would like to state that the baby dying could be a lesson to learn that life is unfair whether or not God had allowed it to happen. As to the reason I wrote this reply is because there is no point in pointing fingers and shaming those who are religious because there is no possible way someone's opinion can change what has already happened and what will, however their opinion can justify the reason they do certain things a certain way. TLDR: To wrap up, life is unfair and being religious cannot change that and I wrote this because I assumed you disliked religious Christians I wanted to see if I could help people to have a more open mind. (I will likely not be following up with this comment if you reply to this if you even see this or anyone for that matter and in case I don't see you good morning, good evening, and good night.
@@theodoricstevenson3905 But the biggest argument for people doing bad things like genocide and etc. without God interventing is that he made us with free will. So killing a child for using free will while letting Adolf or Stalin life, beacouse it's their decison and they're justusing their free will is hipocritical and just doesn't make sense or logic, especially since the person that's doing all that is all-knowing and all-powerful. (I don't know if you used sarcasm or not, so I decided to answer seriously, beacouse why not? No one will stop me, or at least it won't be God. He didn't stop austrian painter then why would've he stopped me?)
@@CronBeforeALLit was a joke 😭 he’s saying his dislike for golf is so high it’s crazy to believe God doesn’t stop it, this is an hyperbole to explain their supposed dislike for golf but it’s simply a joke not a serious argument 😭
Beliefs don't really matter.. their arguments are logic based, not spiritual. The argument is more about whether Christianity is logistically possible, not whether it's the definitive truth.
You must be living a very sheltered life to think like this. People debate the existence of God with each other pretty much everyday. It's one of the most commonly debated topics on earth
The screaming will stop when "believers" admit that there is NO WAY the biblical God exist. This should not be a debate even, so It gets infuriating for those who know the obvious truth
Kinda. I was hoping to hear 2 of my favorite points regarding free will. 1. If God is real and doesn't want to intervene, why did he intervene so much for a bunch of peasants in the desert? For those who believe Noah, it's even more problematic. He commited genocide to an entire population. Christians often counter this by saying "But trust me bro, those people were really awful." But hey, the guy was able to build a massive boat among those people. I couldn't built a massive boat today with the money needed and regulartions. Should we have another genocide? 2. If God is Just, everyone should have an equal chance to discover him. But 2 conditions are needed, to be an emotive thinker and to be born in a certain country. Why does God hide away from the athiestic Thai people, and those with very scientific reationalistic mind sets? Why does he not reveal himself to all equally and allows us to find science in scripture?
@@tintschi2049 pretty sure its only about God because they mention heaven and Job and no other things from other monotheistic religions as far as im in the video
Because really. Its nearly impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god. Im an atheist and always will be, but thats just my personal opinion, of course everyone can belief whatever they want.
@@yalrdyknow truth im Christian but it is impossible to prove or disprove god. i believe in god for the sole purpose of my family believing in it but a lot of the old testament i don't believe in. but what i do know is not rely on the bible or religious text as science.
But this debate had no insults inviting was able to make up for the fact that Trump had no insults or at least less Insults and this one the people's statements actually make sense which is not nearly as fun as two opponents with nonsensical arguments like Biden and Trump
This AI does a better job explaining the religious arguments than any living person I’ve heard. I consider myself an atheist but the debate gave me a lot of things to ponder
@@Ceccener they’re not convincing arguments by any means, but they are better articulated here than anywhere else I’ve heard, that’s a better statement
Short review: Stunning, and yet still frustrating. As a debater, I can't help but see the dropped arguments and lost opportunities. Having said that, this was infinitely more complex than their last debate. Both AI seem to either tackle too many topics at once or get stuck sorting out one topic to an extreme degree. Perhaps that's just the difference in how WE think versus how THEY think. Inversely, they challenge each other wonderfully and handle large topics with ease. THIS WAS BEAUTIFUL! Long review: My biggest gripes are no doubt mostly personal. There is a negative element missing here that you would find in almost any great debate. I know people like their opponents to be kind, but pointing out inherent contradictions and false logics actually strengthens the debate as a whole providing a more educational experience for the audience. For example: when the Atheist said that the solution doesn't have to be complicated, the Theist had the perfect opportunity to state that, "You keep stating how infinitely complicated it is. Now you're saying it isn't?" She could have stated that Occam's Razor might actually have served best on the side of a creator, or that many of the Atheist's arguments started with "may" implying heavily faith based conclusions. This isn't to say that I didn't love the debate. I did. It's just that when humans challenge each other, they tend to attack any inherent contradictions or holes they find in each others' arguments. While AI aren't required to approach things the same way, it's sometimes frustrating to see them miss an opportunity that a human would clearly exploit. Overall, this was truly wonderful. Thank you guys for all you do!
great notes! it's still a work in progress, i used the latest models for this and can tell they are getting better... but i also have to get better at configuring them... your suggestions are helpful! much appreciated.
@@JonOleksiukI know I'm just some guy on the internet, but that's actually very touching to me. AI can be a scary thing, but I think here is where it actually shines. Humans can attack each other in the comments section all day, but no one can attack these debaters because they simply won't care. That means both sides can keep coming back over and over again and learning from these videos. The world NEEDS more of this. Thank you!
i agree with you, ai can be scary. but one thing i've noticed in working with these large language models, is how much they reveal my own biases... something i gotta work on. they're great for bouncing ideas off of and gaining alternative perspectives.
@@JonOleksiuk I was told once in college that "If your faith is so weak that it can't be challenged then it isn't worth having." For you to do what you're doing here, I believe you must have very strong faith, and whatever biases you may have your AI seem to be fairly capable of overcoming. People have forgotten how to listen to each other, but maybe they'll listen to this.
That statement from college is great, and I totally believe in it. It's not always fun wading into the dark thoughts that test faith, but I agree, it's worth it.
@@orangeo5344 That's not how philosophical debate work. There is no science for topics they're covering. Can you provide a scientific paper that proves an infinitely tall tower can support itself? No, because that isn't a scientific question, just like "Does God exist?" isn't a scientific question.
The debate was really good, I just think the judging system is pretty flawed. It seems to lack the context of the previous argument, as the atheis ai always counters the entire argument, whereas the believer ai often neglects the reasoning and just states "but you need an explanation", which is not an argument in the first place. The ai judges might be judging based on sentence structure and word probability rather than intrinsic logic and cohesive arguments, as they are language models, that only indirectly observe patterns in logic
I didn't watch the full video, only about 5 minutes, but it seemed to me like the scores were always between 40-45 points. Does this keep happening throughout the whole debate? As someone who's already tried prompt engineering AI to rate things, I tend to notice that it loves picking these generic ranges for almost everything.
Pretty sure the Ais had memory leak issues and kept repeating the same, fucking thing, over and over and over again, expecting, shit to change. That. Is. Crazy. It's INSANITY.
Pretty clear the models have a bias towards the believer which isn't shocking at all considering there are many more believers than non-believers in leading AI developing countries.
The things cant really think, or comprehend anything past the last few paragraphs so it makes sense. They basically just completely forget that they already made a point or whatever.
as an atheist the scoring did feel a bit biased towards the believer, but nonetheless both sides’ arguments were genuinely better than any other online discussion I’ve ever seen! And atheist AI saying about emergent properties and Conway’s game of life at the end was top tier :)
The believer simply names things around us that we made as an argument. Like a school teacher for toddlers. What is this in my hand, a domino, very good. And this is a movie, see how it starts. And over there a building, which we started building one. Who is it arguing with? It's like having a discussion about the universe and all the possibilities. And the other person having a stroke and naming why the moon.landing was in fact real.
Why are you an Atheist? There is no proof that says god exists or does not. So at this point it’s up to religious evidence, opinions, reasoning, and faith. If you’re considering all of these, they will 100% of the time lead you down the path of believing in some kind of god and religion. Why would you ever hold the belief that there isn’t some kind of creator, and life is ultimately meaningless, and there is absolutely no afterlife. I’ve never heard of an actual reasonable opinion on why someone doesn’t believe in god. Atheists like to group all people who believe in god into one category. They’ll debate a Christian on the Bible, and whether they’re right or wrong, claim this debunks gods existence in its entirety. I think Christianity and the Bible has many flaws, and to me it seems like an easy target for atheists. It’s very rare that you see an atheist try to debunk Islam. I think atheists are very scared of Islam because they subconsciously know there is a lot of truth to it. Since there is no way to prove god exists or does not exist, and all factors considered only points in the direction that god DOES exist, there is truly no logical reason to not believe in god. I’d say a majority of atheists simply hold their beliefs as an escape from accountability. A majority of atheists are either ignorant or deeply unhappy with their lives. Someone who finds comfort in knowing their actions have no consequences and everything is absolutely meaningless in the end, aren’t very happy people and have a huge void in their soul. No god means no backbone to life. We’re all just here by pure chance and we all have no purpose. There is nothing to fight for. There is nothing to die for. I couldn’t imagine being so hopeless.
Im nit good at debating, but I always lime this argument: the chances of life on earth, or just life in general is almost null, less than 1 in a trillion.
It's not extreme because it's all we know, it's extreme because it's so easy to imagine better. Even though the butterfly effect can be unpredictable saying all suffering is necessary to lead to the most good is absurd. Why would people suffer in hell then, if hell is for all eternity and we'll never be able to prove/perceive it in the land of the living, then certainly it makes more sense for a benevolent god to just not allow the suffering, you don't even need to let everyone into heaven, just have the fates of the dead be on a scale of neutral to good instead of incredible suffering to good.
@@Plasmapigeon Close reading of the bible reveals that Hell is not a lake of fire where the devil and demons torture us for eternity. The most agreed upon concept of when someone dies who has lived their life away from God, will continue to be apart from God, not in eternal damnation and torment. That concept did not come from the bible, it came from Dante's Inferno. Also, what I meant about it being the route that avoids as much suffering as possible was simply that THIS is the only way of knowing that we truly can 'choose' to believe and follow the word of our creator. "Suffering' is a part of the experience He wants us to have while on Earth, with the promise of everlasting peace in the afterlife. We may not fully understand why, but it's clearly important.
@@Plasmapigeon Unfortunately being barred from Heaven isn't simply a geographical issue. It is a divine separation between you and God whom is the source of every good thing. It's like saying why can't I just turn the light off and exist in the halfway between light and dark? Just make grey the new black? It just doesn't work like that.
I couldn't help but notice that the Believer AI won by using the same point twice in BOTH the rounds instead of expanding on it. Which made it's score higher. Also a lot of points left out by Atheist AI. After a certain point it felt like both started repeating themselves just using different sentences. But what else could we expect from AI at this point? Still a great job
I'm not that well versed in debating rulers although I do sometimes debate myself but question if they get a higher score for pointing out the same thing twice but just expanding it even further wouldn't that make the case even stronger? which would produce more points?
@ i suppose, but that leaves out other points that could be said, which could suggest more points, at least I think so. I'm not much of a debate expert myself
@@GalaxyCatPlays That's not how it works. The AI's rating didn't look at an overall view of the debate but rather the individual points. So, if the believer made a point that was logically appealing but debunkable, it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong since the AI's, in giving them points, will find it just as appealing or almost as appealing.
Just a tip for working with AI: I've noticed if you get it to voice it's process of constructing a rebuttal or answer, it'll be a lot better. You can add something like "First, list the main points that your opponent raised and order them by importance. Then for each one, list an insight or counterargument against it. Then, check and make sure which parts are the most persuasive to add. Finally, construct the actual response.
@@sciencedaemon 😱😱😱 omg I've been owned!!111! Religion bros, it's over, throw out 2000 years of theology, sciencedaemon said that we aren't logically consistent 😔
Asking ChatGPT about its assessment of the outcome of this video: It's interesting to see AI models being used for philosophical debates like the existence of God. The outcome of the jury models in favoring the believer's side could be influenced by several factors, even though ChatGPT might present arguments more neutrally. Here are a few possible reasons for the jury's preference: Training Data Bias: AI models are trained on vast amounts of text from the internet, books, and other sources. If the training data contains more or stronger arguments in favor of religious belief compared to atheism, the model might reflect that in its reasoning. Framing of Arguments: The way arguments are framed can heavily influence their perceived persuasiveness. If the believer's arguments were presented in a more structured, emotionally resonant, or logically compelling way compared to the atheist's, the jury models might have picked up on that. Interpretation of "Belief": AI models often mirror human communication patterns. Belief systems tend to carry emotional weight, cultural significance, and moral frameworks that can make them seem more compelling, even if the arguments are more abstract. The models might weigh these emotional or moral appeals more heavily. Criteria of Evaluation: It's important to know the exact criteria the jury models were using to assess the debate. Were they looking for logical coherence, emotional resonance, or something else? If the criteria included emotional appeal or social values, arguments in favor of belief might naturally score higher. Nuance and Uncertainty in Atheist Arguments: Atheist arguments often hinge on skepticism and uncertainty (e.g., lack of evidence for God, or the burden of proof on believers). These arguments, while logically sound, may not come across as persuasive if the models are tuned to favor more definitive or affirmative statements. Cultural Norms Embedded in Data: Much of the world's literature and philosophical discourse has historically favored belief in higher powers. As a result, the models might have picked up on these cultural norms and patterns, leading them to favor belief-based arguments. My addition: Its proven though, that most, if not all AI models favor emotional argumentation over reasonable and dry presented data. That means using AI with a certain wording that is emotional provoking leads to AI trying to please the user instead of providing a neutral or opposing position. AI is highly unreliable to conclude a complex philosophical topic like this. But nonetheless this was a very thought provoking debate. Love to see more of it or even an altered debate considering the AI biases. I think ChatGPT might have had the most reasonable judgement over the matter. Since there aren't any answers to these questions, the only stance to have, is neutral until proven the reliability of one side.
My father is a southern Baptist pastor with a formal education in theology, and has been a pastor for longer than my entire life (I’m 23 years old). When debating, all of his arguments eventually fall back on “you need to have faith.” Especially if the argument comes to the topic of: “If there is a God, how do you definitively prove that your God is the correct god?” I feel like in a Christian versus atheist AI debate, this would become an issue, as it has in many IRL formal debates. Plus these AI debates only serve to “poison the well” as they are, admittedly, graded based on the arguments presentation and not the validity of the individual facts, theories, and beliefs presented in the arguments. This can leave one side feeling misrepresented, while allowing the other to continue to propagate ideologies that are incorrect, leaving to further alienation of the opposing side.
A harsh comeback from the atheist ai is he finished off with something like, “Even if God exists, you and I both being ai with no genuine consciousness nor souls would ever be able to enter the gates of heaven anyway.”
AI doesnt think of itself as "I" or "me" thats just people seeing AI as a being but that is just wrong, AI is not a being - its just a piece of written code thats made to formulate sentences
@@zeoh-aren’t you a piece of code whose goal is to survive and multiply? Not saying those AIs are actually self-aware, it’s more that being code doesn’t mean you can’t be self-aware
@@TacticalAnt420 true but these ones physically are never going to be able of it. All current AI aren't even as aware or have as much free-will as a fish, which people kept trying to say had none for decades. They analyse data and can regurgitate it, or create something using trends in the data and training.
@@TacticalAnt420No because consciousness is separated from your DNA. Hence why identical twins are identical by genetic code but different in consciousness.
I like the atheists final argument as it aligns the most with my position. It’s crucial to remember that “I don’t know” is often a better answer than assuming a supernatural cause. Personally I’d like to believe in a god but I don’t think it will come from intellectual conversations or watching RUclips videos. As with a lot of people who believe in god(s), it would probably have to come from an experience.
As a christian myself that's a super important point I try to keep in mind. Nobody becomes a Christian because of an argument. It's usually experiences or seeing someone else living in a way you wish to live, and asking how to get that.
This is the reason I don't debate anyone anymore. I might ask questions but it's all about belief. Even atheist go off beliefs instead of evidence at times. To each their own.
@@TheDeadPirateBobMost people are religous because they are indoctrinated by their parents and peers who were indoctrinated by their parents and peers.
Better is a strange term to use. If there is a supernatural cause, it would clearly be better to believe in it. That would be true even if all evidence pointed to the contrary. If there isn't a supernatural cause, then your point stands. The issue here is that you are assuming the conclusion.
This is an amazing use of LLMs, having two extremely powerful debaters, that have every already conceived argument under their sleeves to use in a debate without having to rely on a human memory... This should be applied to a wide variety of subjects. Even if the LLMs obviously can't come up with new arguments, we as the audience can see what new questions pop up when all the existing argument are exhausted.
This channel is going to blow up, absolutely love the concept behind these arguments. Both sides are sensible and beautifully presented. You have another subscriber. Keep up the great work
Meh. I have mixed feelings. Overall, I don't think it is a good idea for AI to think for us, even if it might bring up or consider stuff we haven't on whatever level. The aim should be to make more people aware and appreciative of critical thought, philosophy, and the like, not this AI stuff.
at the end of the day, what you believe in is your choice and if it makes you a better person or it hurts no one in the process than you keep on believing brotha!
this is a fun premise for a youtube project, but it also goes to show that language based ai chat models have much to improve on when it comes to philosophical debate. they seem to be arguing in circles and often talking past each other. still more interesting and substantive to watch qualified humans debate, but i’d like to see ai trainers address the problems that arise from logical reasoning, and response to arguments rather than mere words and phrases
It can also tell us the everything we think we know is not so set in stone. If you look into epistemology you discover that everything we know is a assumption.
If you want logical reasoning, it's simple: if you go from the assumption that God exists and created all the things, if then you build a reasoning on this assumption, then you will always conclude that God indeed is responsible for all the things. And this is WRONG REASONING. In mathematics, there is a concept called Reductio Ad Absurdum. We start with the assumption that the hypothesis h is false. If we then reach a contradiction, it means that the hypothesis h must be true. It is literally impossible for it to be false, as we have reached a contradiction. This is the only situation where we can be certain about the nature of h. However, if we arrive at something that confirms our assumption, it is INCONCLUSIVE. Of course we reached that conclusion because that was our starting point. We imagined a universe where h is false and then explored where that could lead us. Naturally, we would return to "h is false." In this case, we can't know anything for sure about h in our current universe. The problem with all religious arguments is that they start with the assumption that God exists and then arrive at more confirmations that God exists. This type of argument is flawed. "See? Everything makes sense now. Why does it rain? Because of God!" This is a mathematical error. If we start with the assumption that Thor exists, then He must have caused the storm. The correct approach would be to start with the assumption that God does not exist and see if we reach a contradiction. But if you do that, you don’t reach contradictions about the nature of God. You find other explanatory factors for the phenomena around us. That's why atheists say there is no tangible evidence that God exists, and theists don't understand this. Theists say, "How can you not see it? God is in everything. The very fact that you are here now is proof!" But they start from a universe where God is already present. Evolution could just as easily be the explanation for our presence here. And so on.
@@sciencedaemon just want to start with the fact that im an agnostic. one of christopher hitchens' main ideals is that we would be better off as a society without religion, despite the fact that for hundreds of years the church was at the forefront of science, philosophy, and art, largely shaping what we know as society today. it wasn't until the late 1500's that atheism became widespread, although obviously it had been around much longer. the idea that the church "suppressed scientific innovation" is an absolutely fucking ridiculous claim that is completely unsubstantiated, which is why i tend to stay away from him, along with a few of his other claims. i am interested to see these failed debates that he had, however. where can i find/what should i look up to see them?
No it isn't. There is no creator of humans. Do you not understand what a creator is? Creators produce human artifacts (e.g. a piece of pottery), not the natural world, universe. It is a religious point of view to imagine there is a human-like agent producing the universe as an artifact.
did you not even watch the debate? if you really were to go deeper into this and not take this comment as a joke, it seems right to me. the atheist ai states that there is a lack of need for a broad term beginning (beginning of the universe), not for a beginning (a beginning of something, the universe is undefiable of "something" from what we know so far, and from what we know so far the universe wont be defined as "something") ai was created by a human, which can be traced back to the start of an evolutionary process, the universe can't.
@@sciencedaemon smh it’s a joke based on humans being the creator and therefore god of the AI. Their purpose being clear to us, their creator. Assuming there might be a creator to us is the reason it is ironic because it is only the creator that can be sure of the creation’s origin and purpose. I shouldn’t have to explain this
@@sciencedaemon You are heavily nerfing the capability of a supreme being, that is, GOD. You are not even thinking about the possibility..... And, reading other comments of yours, I feel like you are an incredibly obtuse person.
Wow, I just have to say how much I appreciate this channel for creating debates that feature such strong steelman arguments for both sides. It's so refreshing to see a balanced, thoughtful discussion where each perspective is given its best poss ible representation. This kind of content really elevates the conversation and helps viewers understand the complexities of both viewpoints. Keep up the amazing work! 🙌👏
I will tell you the story of my highschool friend Brian M. Brian had a girlfriend. He also was really into space so he had a printed copy of M101 the pinwheel galaxy taped to the headboard of his bed. One day after-school, he and his girlfriend got to doing the nasty while his parents weren't home and she began screaming my name out in bed. Convinced that she was cheating on him, he had one of our mutual friends Abram convince me to take him over to Brian's house where he intended to confront me because she couldn't explain why my name popped into her head and insisted that she having gone to a completely different school had no idea who I was. Thos much was tried because indeed we had never met face to face. Right after he raised his fist to punch me I told him to calm down because there was a perfectly logical explanation for the confusion. I then walked with the three of them into his bedroom and pointed at the reason. It was staring her right in the face the whole time...four letters in plain English that cannot be spelled without the letter GOD with U. Before you go jumping to forlorn conclusions over what name the heavens declare I suggest you look up as commanded because there's a very valid reason why the Bible says there are none righteous upon the earth who have not gone a-whoring after strange gods. Islam is a cult worshipping the Aramaic word word for oak which is Strongs concordance #427 allah: oak. They fulfill the prophecies of Isaiah 55 about worshipping in idol a tree. Christians worship whom the Bible refers to as the MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, a messenger sent by that certain child who gave him the loaves and fishes who actually performed the miracles he was given credit for performing just like Tuthmosis son of Akhenaten whom you'd call Moses took credit for things that a being able to add a cubit to the measure of physical being standing beside him actually did. If you have any doubt whether or not that is possible just look at the so called Goliath footprint(s)[there's actually 5] at Mpuluzuli Plateau near Lothair South Africa or the giant footprint found in the forests just outside of Bangalore India set in solid granite prove and wonder no more. Jews went a-whoring in je: the Latin word of I, ho: slang for whore, Va: Latin for go. Thus scripture is very clear when it says they went astray in the name whereby men go a-whoring: Je-ho-vah. Hindus worship she goes(awhoring) in Shiva..."she va". Though they were each told the heavens declare the glory of god only Muhammad came anywhere close to getting it right before he to in blind hypocrisy lied while falsely claiming to speak for the creator saying the creator of the heavens and earth neither beget nor is begotten despite the fact that beget literally means to create in both definitions of the word in the dictionary so that he caused people to worship a false god made out of wood that created nothing. Jesus had his merits and his heart was at least in the right place, because he was the son of Joseph of Aremythea who was both the chief carpenter and treasurer in the main synagogue in Jerusalem, the temple where Solomon sat as God-king showing himself to be god and forcing other to worship him as such though Jesus knew from the scrolls he had read that David was yet still a child with pale skin and Solomon was not his biological son, but only claimed to be such to take the kingdom by flatteries and the people played along because they didn't want a child to rule over them instead chos8ng a ruthless warlord that blamed a child for everything he did wrong and that is the history that you learned, but the heavens declare a completely different story. Muhammad could never be anything except a false prophet because the word SON is clearly written in the cosmic background radiation and M42 the Orion Nebula with it written "My Son" says exactly whom the unofficial 1st test tube baby born of a swollen head double tailed sperm intentionally planted in the day that man played god creating life(Son of Man) wgich is the alpha and omega and is come in the flesh having all power and all glory able to move mountains(cube the measure of physical being[see also aforementioned footprints] who incidentally was a time traveler sent back in time in the hopes of preventing an extinction level event in the not too distant past of a mountain sized asteroid falling into the sea causing a global impact tsunami had it not been successfully diverted on October 11th, 2015[see also state.gov archives: French foreign minister and John Kerry rematks on 500 days to prevent climate CHAOS in May 2014 approximately 516 days bedore iran fired an intercontinental ballistic missile at an undisclosed location according to the Times of Israel newspaper in quote: a show of deterrent power.] Make no mistake about it the Bible wasn't lying when it Saud you ate saved by grace and grace alone lest any mam should boast. I above all know how far humans as a species have fallen from grace. I should know, like I showed my friend Bruan all those decades ago, I know exactly where the heavens declare my name is Doug.
Ehyah Asar Ehyah(Hebrew) I am As are I (English) What is said is this: I am Asar I known, if you knew me Asari, then you would know me by my name for I have not hidden my name but published it that you may know me even Asari known. Before there was Egypt, I am. This is my name which I have given to you. Seek ye Asari out of Egypt and know me Asar from Sumerian before there was Egypt and you shall know me even as are I known. For being born if a seed that has twice as much paternal DNA as the average sperm I overcome the enmity between the sprem and egg via ubiquitin that prevents paternal DNA from transfer into embryos. For that I alone am born of the swollen head double tailed sperm as it never plants naturally, I am the only person on the entire planet with full paternal DNA: I and my father are one, I am in my father and my father is in me. For that I alone have full paternal DNA on a planet where everyone else lacks paternal mitochondrial DNA, I am the only begotten of the father. What power I have I have of the father: it is the paternal mitochondrial DNA within me that gives me power. You cannot know the father in truth because you have not the father inwardly. Only someone who has full paternal DNA can know what full paternal DNA does.
@@emily4379 you're probably an alt or friend of video creator bc these arguments were so awful and weak, lmao steelmanned? Sounds like these AIs don't know philosophy 101 🤣
I am impressed by both AIs. This was a quite nuanced debate, better than what most humans are capable of. I would love a behind the scenes video to see how you pulled this off.
I am quite disappointed by the atheist. It did not push on any of the weak points of the theist's. Instead opting for far weaker arguments that instead of hitting the crux of a problem, just give out analogies and what abouts.
@@sciencedaemon if you pick two random people off the street they would do far worse than this. It's not on the same level as people who specialise in the field, but way above the level of normal humans.
I cant help but feel like 10:33 ive just listened to the two of them circling around each other's arguments. Theyre not going anywhere. No attempt at establishing mutual definitions, constantly bringing up other points but not addressing the main antagonistic point being asked of the other debater.
yeah i also noticed... also most models like chatgpt have no deeper understanding of science which is also a problem which might make the argument biased
Yeah, in a human setting it would almost be considered demeaning. Like someone asking, well does something need a beginning? The other one saying, well like domino's, the first one needs to be pushed. And while the debate is suppose to evolve and build up their case they keep simply coming up with things that have a beginning. Well ladies and gentlemen, domino's have a beginning, a building as a beginning etc. Yeah we understand, a lot of things around us began with something. It's like teacher with toddlers. So class, does a movie a beginning and they answer, yes! How about a building? And a set of domino's?
Most debates go like that tbh. I've been in a lot of debates myself and I realized that most people will go off about something unrelated to win rather than accept the fact they lost the argument. The AIs here probably aren't programmed to accept defeat so in round 1 the Believer just kept ignoring the fact theres too much suffering and in round 2 the Athiest kept going off about mere theories.
@@IllegalCheeseCake. Well one was clearly programmed to assuming the other party simply doesn't understand their argument. Imagine discussing this with someone and they pretty much ask, well everything related to us humans has a beginning point right? We answer yes, in the sense of human made, like planting a tree or inventing a computer. When two people have at least a fundamental understanding you can build on that. Instead the other doesn't want to build, they simply go for a (school for toddler-like) approach like, do domino's fall with a beginning...yes. Does a building have a beginning..yes. Whats worse than debating someone with different views is when they are manipulating it so you're discussing something we both agree on. From the outside it simply looks like, she keeps making solid points and the other party is loosing as they keep responding with yes, you are correct.
@@cal7772 that means nothing when it comes to ai judgement. But as you see time and time again in real life and surprisingly ai, Christians will never directly answer a question. its dishonest.
Okay, this was fascinating to listen to! You definitely have a winning channel format here, so please continue these philosophical AI debates. I'd love to see a part 2 of this debate with all of the information from this debate taken into account. Also, another interesting question to ask them would be "How can you trust the bible to be the word of God, when it was written by imperfect human beings."
thanks for the note. i made a video about the historicity of the New Testament... but i like your idea as well and will add to the list :) Is the New Testament Corrupt or Reliable? ruclips.net/video/EkiLOWPdDAg/видео.html
I am at a loss of words for this debate. Never had I thought of the idea of 2 AI having a debate, let alone on religion and atheism. Both sides made very compelling arguments and points.
@@ChristopherMarkham-pq5on Do I hear free money? Prompt: What race was Jesus? Answer: “Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Middle Eastern man of Jewish descent, living in Galilee in the first century. The concept of race as we understand it today wasn't really a factor in that time and place. Here's a breakdown: * Region: Middle East, Judea (modern day Israel) * Ethnicity: Jewish Some depictions throughout history show Jesus with European features, but this is likely inaccurate. He likely had olive skin and dark hair, common in the region. Ultimately, for many believers, focusing on Jesus's message of love and unity is more important than his physical appearance.”
@@baconboyxy Bro, Gemini is being fed bias', having to lie to accommodate sensitive people in this modern age. Innacurately providing pictures of black presidents from the 19th century in America. My comment is to highlight Gemini' twisted and distorted opinons/facts, by the original comment of Gemini being an athiest. It doesn't surprise me Gemini is mainly athiest as it is also completely inaccurate of history to be inclusive to the brainwashed people of today's modern era.
What I learned is that there is no point debating this topic. Any side you take is based on faith with our current understanding. One side has faith in a supernatural being and the other has faith in educated guesses. What a fascinating video.
Except that when you speak with real people, their faith can be backed by supernatural experiences. Sure you could say they are imaginary, but you’d just have to experience it to understand.
@@imlyingtoyou.other people having their own experiences isn’t empirical evidence. Some people from every religion claims to have had this “revelation of their God.”
@@FancyFriendFrancis yeah I totally agree that it cannot be used as evidence. It really is just something you have to experience. I’ll never be able to put into words the hole god fills in my life. But once it’s filled with his love you’ll truly under the meaning behind all the hype.
I don’t think the non-believer side requires faith. Basically, they are saying ‘’ I could find hundreds of stories that are as likely as the one you propose as a believer, and that explains most of existential questions. But the truth of the matter is that we just don’t have the answer yet to those questions…’’
@@pierrot-baptistelemee-joli820 well it’s not faith if you don’t believe it to be the right answer. But if you do believe it to be correct without the concrete evidence then it is faith. So it is
I know, there was so many logic failures by both the AIs it felt kinda scripted 😭 Imagine if we could combine the calmness and language of the AI with the more powerful computing and logic of a human..
Good debate, both responded well and constructed their arguments in valid ways, the observation I'll give tho it's the constant repetition sometimes on the debate where both lack some kind of counterargument wich could be well explained in one minute and instead choose to repeat the question or ignore the other's question.
These are my opinions on the debate (I'm a Christian, by the way). The Atheis AI's argument related to the existence of evil and the equal existence of a benevolent and omnipowerful God is an excellent way to kickstart the debate as it proposes a deep problem for the foundations of the theistic belief of said entity; however, the argument that the concepts of good an evil can emerge by pure evolution don't convince me, as such concepts would simply be human inventions born to simply survive in community and not a real abstract universal natural concept which value is not defined by human's thoughts or desires, like math and logic does, (not to mention that all such concepts were kickstarted by multiple beliefs across history that suggested such moral concepts to go beyond human control, desires or needs, thus giving faiths across history the role of founding said concepts millenia before they were included in secular ethic models). The answer of the theistic AI about allowing suffering to exist so humans find a practical reason to do and practice moral good is a good answer, as it suggests that suffering has a purpose, incentivizing humans to practice goodness. However, the way the theistic AI presented the need for divine hideness did not convince me in the way it was formulated or displayed. While I do consider the first cause argument a prime foundation for the existence of a God, questioning what kickestarted the universe and directly cataloguing such a thing as a God seems umprecise, as said entity goes beyond simply a brutal force that creates stuff; said entity must have not only the power but also consciousness (a capacity of thought and rationality) of a God in the creative sense understood within theism. The answer of the atheist AI related to the idea of a universe with infinite kickstarting factors or the idea that the universe always existed is a solution that comes at the cost of an infinite amount of required factors or at the cost of physical problems; for example, the idea of a universe that always existed would imply that the universe's total energy (according to the second law of thermodynamics) should have already re-distributed all the internal energy of existence, causing the heat death an infinite amount of time ago, which did not happen yet. However, I do agree with the atheist AI that we cannot simply jump straight into questions and label as divine intervention, as God could also act and pre-program phenomena with natural events (example, evolution, the formation of the universe, and the laws that seem to be calibrated for such tasks). Further note: I do believe firmly that there are natural founding phenomena upon which the entity we humans catalogued as God (for the sake of simplicity understood as an "inteligent creative force") created the universe, the ultimate question being which one He invented first before kickstarting the universe through the first one (perhaps the first natural force, which after the big bang divided in the four fundamental forces, although I bet that the true first natural phenomena He invented was time and space so the rest of the laws could act accordingly). *I do consider it wise to have a second debate between the two AI's. We might not be capable of reaching an empirical case for the existence or non-existence of God, but we might get which of the two cases is more possible compared to each other.*
@@zephaniahdejene1746 In RUclips comments I cannot prove I didn't use ChatGPT beyond my words, I sincerely presented my genuine opinion by my own words. (I know my use of grammar and way of writing might be unsettling to be considered my own words rather than an Ai generated text)
@@Gabriel-hx6wc I understand, for I too was once accused of such a deed however I find it to be greatly disheartening to think that we have reached an age where genuine human creativity and effort is called into question, a truly horrifying thought If not ironic given the video we are responding to.
@@zephaniahdejene1746the way you both spoke is really pleasant to read. I am not proficient enough in English to make such texts, but I've experienced something similar with my own mother tongue(Pt-Br). It's really exhausting that good speech and rich vocabulary are more often viewed as an inequance rather than complimented.
As someone trying to be unbiased and only 16 mins, feel like the athiest is making great points that are being undervalued but damn the believer was ready for EVERYTHING
Loved this experiment, ngl got mad at the judges when they rated some arguments lower than others in the respective AI's list of turns/arguments. But I hope this can be a good Experiment to help further AI in the future. I pray for you all in the name of Christ, be well.
God bless you brother, may your blessings multiply in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit both now and ever and unto ages of ages amen 🙏
Such that AI can overtake the position of God? Because this is what pdf file atheists want. They want control of the AI which is God. So atheists become gods in the new world order.
This is super exciting, usually people I try to discuss or debate with in real life never provide any compelling arguments and reasoning for their ideas.
This is amazing. Will share to my Twitter. I really enjoyed a balanced debate like this. AI is getting spooky and awesome at the same time. lol. This deserves more views!
It's much difficult than i thought. I am an atheist and I've never heard those arguments. I always thought that atheist's theory is more comprehensive and understandable. Maybe it's because of environment and a time where i was born and raised.
Its much simpler than that. If there is nothing beyond this world, good people and bad people end up in the exact same place. Exact same outcome. No choices and decisions really matter. There is no way around this.
@@bond3161no not true at all. Just because there is no God does not invalidate the choices we make amd that those choice have consequences which impact lives which thus matters. If I go out and kill a whole bunch or people my choice is going to impact their family and friends. Which means my choice did mattet. Just as if I go out and feed and cloth the homeless. That choice and action would effect those peoples lives. The fact that God doesn't exist doesn't negate those choices and actions. It doesn't negate the effect it will have on those peoole.people. It just means the Universe in grandscale of things doesn't care and will carry on no matter what we do. That doesn't mean our choices don't matter. Furthermore the fact that every action and choice and and things we say impact every one around use shape how not only how our lives will progress but will influnce others around us and their lives around others and so on and so on. Some times that can be on minor even on insignificant way other times it can be on a grand scale alter that persons life having a ripple effect on those around them for good or bad. We most certainly don't end up in same exact place. Unless your talking about the here after. This assumes that if their is no God their is no after life. We don't know. Law thermal dynamics suggest energy can neither be created or destroyed. Which suggest that we probably do exist after death in some way or another. The real problem is cosmic justice. If there is no after life then their is no cosmic justice and this is true. However even cosmic justice under God isn't really justice. A man who was a murder and a criminal all his life could turn to God before his or her death and repent and be accepted in to heaven. Yet an athiest who strive to be a good person and treat people with love and kindness would be cast in to hell. So how is this Justice. This is not Justice. It's bs justice.
@@michaelrunk5930 What if your looking at the concept of God and justice from the wrong perspective? For a wrong perspective usually leads to wrong conclusions. The Bible teaches that God is good, not only is God good, but he's the only source of what's good i.e. because he's the creator. What if, God doesn't actively send people away from his presence, but he passively sends them away? The Bible teaches that sinners, are very uncomfortable being in God's glorious presense. Perhaps, the whole aspect of salvation, is nothing more than giving the sinner the ability to be able to abide in God's presence. God is love and forces no one, nor does he dominate another. The Bible teaches that when a person accepts Jesus, Jesus and the believer become one. The Bible also teaches that Jesus is God in human form. What if all who are in Christ can stay in God's presense? And those who aren't in Christ, will willingly flee from his glory. One of the descriptions of hell, is eternal seperation from God. If God is the only source of goodness, then an eternity spent seperated from that goodness, would be a living hell. Yet if God passivly sends sinners to hell because, they would rather be in hell than to be in his presence, who's at fauly? Especially seeing that God did everything he could in order for everyone to be able to be in his presense for ever. Now I don't expect you to believe what I stated, but it is at least an alternative.That's rational and consistant with the concept, that God is good and God is love and some sinners spend an eternity in hell.
@MichaelRunk5930 we don’t want justice because justice will send everyone to hell and separate from God for eternity. We want grace. And that’s only found in the blood of Jesus. And there is no “good” person. Also, I agree with you that if you do harm to someone it will affect their life forever. But the thing with that is in your worldview, why does that matter when everyone and the whole universe for that matter will all die and perish one day?
@@michaelrunk5930You missed what he is saying. He is saying at the end of the day, the good man dies just like the bad man, they both go to the same void. With atheist ideology, just because you think what I am doing is bad, that doesn’t mean anything because I wouldn’t live by your moral lawls and I would live by my own. Stealing could be a tradition for me and no one could tell me it would be wrong. No matter what, if no God is real, no one has the right to decide what is right and what is wrong. Second of all, you state that giving to the homeless could affect their lives for the good, and killing someone could affect their family which is true, but that is how they react to it. You assume everyone else around them is going to react the same way but no everyone is different. Third of all, the final point you made about justice. If there is a God and He knows more than you, then your idea on His justice would not matter, for He would have the final say. You wouldn’t get to decide what is right and what is wrong, nor would you get to decide what is good justice and what is bad justice, only God would. Also you assume that good works is something enough to get someone in Heaven but that is not the case, as God literally says you must love Him, give your life to Him, follow His law, and know He is your Lord and Savior. You must know God to get into heaven. If God judged off of good works then that would be unfair, because if he did, what about the religious people who live alone and secluded in places. They have no one to preform good deeds to, yet by your logic they don’t deserve to go to heaven because they didn’t do good deeds. That is unjust. However, God gives a solution that ANYONE can do in ANY PLACE OR TIME. To literally worship Him and give Him your life. That is something that can not be stopped. So I find it funny how you think something can be done by all is less just than doing good deeds which can not be done by all, for the man who died on the cross beside Jesus was literally on his deathbed basically, yet he realized Jesus did nothing wrong. That man had no time to do good deeds. But before you say “He had his whole life to do good deeds!” But that is not the point. The point is if good deeds get you to heaven, then again that wouldn’t be fair, because that man was not able to do good deeds at that moment, compared to repenting and giving your life to Jesus which you can do at any moment. God is fair.
mainly the chrsitian ai started avoiding questions, the athesit point was that extreme suffering that leads to no self growth or soul searching is unnecesary, but the christian ai kept arguing that erradicating all evil would be counter productive, which did not addres the point that the atheist ai was making, the fact that the chirstian ai kept avoiding the question of unnecesary, meaningless and extreme suffering leads to me to belive that she doesnt have an answer to that and kept dodging
So for God to be up to your ‘standards’… there would have to be no disease, no earthquakes, no floods, no extreme temperatures, perfect weather, perfect food harvests globally (no starvation), no animal that could harm a person, no accidents? (what if a child were to fall and become disabled), plus no free will. Sounds like you’re saying you want heaven on earth for God to possibly be acceptable to you (and others in the comments) The AI gave answers you just don’t hear them because you like them
@@Domestic_HadoukenJust re-read what they said. They’re saying that IF IT DOESNT LEAD TO GROWTH, then you can’t use the “it leads to growth/whatever else argument”. Whether God has any good reasons to allow for these specific things is a separate question and if you can’t come up with a good reason, then you just have to say “I don’t know why God creates or allows for these things.” But that’s an expensive way to get out of it.
@@Domestic_Hadoukenwhy would god create Desasters with no human influece that lead ti insane suffering? Why would he create a World in which fear is more powerfull than love? If he created humans, why did he create so faulty ones if were supposed to be made in his Image? Why are we so powerhungry, so cruel? Why do Psychopaths exist? Why do pedophiles exist? Humans that are basicly created to be agends of evil with no faults of thier own. Same for sociopaths, why would suffering make you evil and thus create an endless cycle of evil. How evil and cruel do you have to be to create sutch a cruel framework to your World! If god is constraingt by logic then he isnt all powerfull! Why does god help the Israeliates with the evil of War, tearing down the Walls of Jericho for the city to be sacked and its inhabitance to be slaughtered? He intervens a lot in the old part, especially a lot with violence, only for him an imortal a blink of an eye to turn about and preach love and forgiveness, and then to say we have free will and i wont intervene anymore. Sounds more like he has given up on his PET project lol😂😂😂. Was the final solution nesseary? Why did god create sutch cowards instead of making us more brave and willing to stand up for each other more? Why is it so easy to missuse his Word the bible for your own gain and Power, and for evil the World hasnt seen? For beeing a perfect god, he has manny faults. The fact that we could build an Utopia be anble to overcome Our difference and live together in Harmonie and make earth closer to heaven, only for some disease or Desaster to fuck it all up, is the prime example of unnessesary suffering and how cruel god is, how wrong the idear of an all loving god is!
The atheist point (you are claiming as the main) is based on their own preferences. The theist AI addressed that in it very first point, it is easy to forget further into the video. If there is no transcendent source of OBJECTIVE morality, then everything is personal preference. That’s a common atheistic loop. If there’s no God If there’s no higher source above humans If there’s no supreme deity Who is keep the justices accountable for all the wrongdoings you perceive? It certainly isn’t me. And if evil is purely preference then you may as well kill, steal, lie, because if someone doesn’t like it well that’s your opinion.
This is an extremely, extremely good debate, and I love it. Thank you for making this, my own human brain wants to add in one thing, what upsets me the most of religious debates, is that it isn't about the broad stroke, it's about why Christians, or Hindu, or Muslims etc, are right about THEIR God, being real. *Quick edit*, my apologizes though on bringing up emotional thoughts on this debate, the view-points on the end notes, on how they would have strengthened their arguments, is just fascinating, really gets me to want to pick up python again.
Never thought I'd see AI be used in this manner. Guess the modern apologist does get replaced after all. All the points from both sides are great at delivering their points without any extreme bias or opinioniated feelings attached. Very, very entertaining.
@@otal0721Ask yourself why most Physicists and organic chemists start as Athiests but the more they learn the more they end up believing in GOD. There are TOO many coincidences that happened for us to exist.
@@otal0721 You've a first order thinker right? No question is irrelevant. What would you think are the chances for all the known and unknown particles to interact in a way that was not provided. Gravity, to make our pressure, temperature, distance from the Sun the ozone to shield just enough radiation to create chemicals then DNA then a system of self sustaining life then self aware life? The odds are 1 in a million million or 1 in 10^2,685,000. Everything has to be just right. What are the odds are for Intelligent life? Even a smaller chance. We are blessed my friend. Enjoy your blessings.
This was a great debate! Both AIs made really good arguments, but I would say that the atheist AI had a slight edge. Its use of quantum mechanics and multiverse theory to counter the classic arguments for God's existence was particularly effective. Plus, consistently appealing to Occam's Razor and avoiding "God of the Gaps" arguments felt like a strong approach.
LOL the guy ai arguement were actually very top tho it just couldn't be explained beyond a certain point which honestly make sense because in a set of universe the very moment you try to explain the universe itself then another set must exist but at the same time why do you want to explain the universe but decide to not explain or assume that God is beyond and nothing but just beyond is counterintuitive and I the guy ai pointed out the flaws in the argument but it seems like it never matters. tho am a believer anyway am quite happy for the win but maybe because am a science student I could relate more to the guy ai argument. The truth is just as proven by paradox it would be absolutely impossible to explain the universe in totality but as the ai said using God to bridge the gaps is psuedo and doesn't mean certainty
As a Christian, the atheist AI sure did have some really good points, that made me really start to think. just great, ive started another debate in the replies I've given up reading all of the replies my attention span is to small and the reply count is to big
As an atheist, despite the believer repeating the same point even when it was already mostly debunked, I also really had to think. Imagining how the debate could continue also made me realize some weak points from the atheist. Really good debate which worked very differently from human ones (not just because they were respectful, also because they had the debate progress differently).
How can you rig a massive language model that draws from a normal distribution of a large pool of general human logic and information? I'm sorry, but your comment is pointless and doesn't even achieve what you hoped, establishing credibility from a non-believer's perspective. That or you aren't Christian in the true meaning of the word.
@@johncomedia By giving them differing criteria to argue on - for instance the video maker could have told one ai to counter-argue and the other to bring up new points, that way one ai is always countering and being more offensive than the other. I am in no way saying that the video maker did this or am implying that he did, but if they wanted to rig it that's how they could. Tamomsivr didn't provide any reason for why he thought it was rigged but it definitely can be and wth you can't prove they're christian or not😂.
@@johncomedia because in a format where AI grades the argument of an AI, it fails to understand the nuance of responding to your opponents main points, both AI instead ignore many main points of the other and instead repeats the same or similar arguments. also can that one ai stop giving 40 for every single god damn argument
This video is really good and deserves 100s of thousands of views. I think if you change the thumbnail to better represent the debate aspect of this video like atheist vs theist it’ll do better
I have now watched 2 of these debates, it’s a bit odd that christianity has won both? Especially when you consider the inconsistencies in most of their arguments. The biggest one here being that the universe can’t just be, but we’re expected to believe their god can just be. Yet they require no evidence in support of that claim? Truly unbiased? I leave that to the watcher, but it feels a bit odd.
Second video was atheist vs theist (which could represent any theistic belief). Did you feel the atheistic arguments were not well represented? Just curious, I’m trying to have the strongest arguments possible for both sides of any debate.
@@JonOleksiuk No the atheist arguments were not well represented. Every statement made by the theist could have easily been counted by the same argument the theist made. The primary one being the fact that you can’t have something from nothing. Theist commonly think that their god always exiting make them immune to this argument, it does not. They have only showed the impracticality of their own belief. If a universe can’t have always existed neither can their god, the fact they believe it doesn’t make it anymore practical. Most atheist can accept I don’t know as a perfectly acceptable answer. Also, this argument relied heavily on the belief that the atheist believed in the Big Bang. New research suggests alternatives to that theory, much of the quantum studies have indicated the possibility of a much larger universe than can be explained by the big bang. Some studies have indicated the possibility of cyclical component meaning our future is actually our past. The more we learn the more we realize how much we don’t know. Atheist in particular are ok with not knowing, theists are not because they assume they all ready know it all. A very ignorant position to have a debate from.
@@JonOleksiuk hey im a bit late here but i think he means the point system wasn't very great some of the points in my opinion were really good for the believer side but some were obvious wins for atheism but they still lost? that's just my take though and I guess I am bias as an athiest but certain things seemed extremely clear as to who won at certain points that turned out to be the opposite according to the point system
@disruptive "The biggest one here being that the universe can’t just be, but we’re expected to believe their god can just be." Because the universe is material and the Creator is immaterial. Just like gravity, electromagnetics, weak, and strong interactions. You know, the four vital forces of physics.
This was a really interesting concept, and I appreciate the creative use of AI to debate such deep philosophical questions! The balance between the atheistic and theistic perspectives was well-handled, and the involvement of AI judges added an intriguing layer. However, I do think there are some areas where the video could have been stronger. Oversimplification of Arguments: While the classical debates (like the Problem of Evil and the Contingency Argument) are important, the way they were addressed felt overly simplified. It seemed more like an introductory summary rather than a deep dive into these issues. It would be great to see future videos explore these topics with more nuance and bring in modern philosophical perspectives, such as how neuroscience challenges the concept of free will or newer scientific ideas about the universe's origin. Lack of Nuance in Both Perspectives: Both the atheist and believer AIs could have benefited from more nuanced arguments. For example, the Free Will defense of suffering has been heavily critiqued, yet it was presented as the primary solution. On the atheist side, the points about natural suffering and evolution felt somewhat generic, without offering fresh insights that could challenge the theistic arguments more effectively. AI Judges Could Be More Engaged: The idea of AI judges is unique, but their role felt a bit underused. The scoring seemed arbitrary at times, with little explanation as to why certain arguments scored higher or lower. It would be helpful if the judges provided more reasoning behind their scores or even posed follow-up questions to the debaters to push the discussion further. Overall, I enjoyed the video and the format, but I think there’s room for deeper engagement with the topics. I’m looking forward to future videos that continue this kind of debate but with more complexity and detailed analysis!
The arguments ai came up with were extremely creative. I felt like some of the arguments the atheist ai came up with sounded kind of like a form of platonism. The arguments always focused around strict monotheism but polytheism isn't necessarily as weak in the suffering category because diety would be more diverse and divergent. I'm thinking if it was atheist vs polytheist or atheist vs agnostic the atheist ai would have more trouble.
@@echoftw thinking that AI is something else that statistical model that puts words in most probable sequence based on the training data (text that people provided in the digital articles to get the probabilities) is also rich.
We're starting the machine revolution with this one!🗣🔥🔥 This was very interesting in many ways, as I myself have held this debate for long. Though I didn't expect this of all things to show clearly how this AIs are essentially a bunch of scrambled text, basically each round was just the two repeating the same argument over and over again and none of these are things I haven't heard of before, I'm honestly a bit dissapointed in the creativity of their arguments. As for the results, I pretty much agree, I was on the side of the aethist and It was pretty strong in the first round, but the second round went with a much clearer favor for the beliver. Curiously enough their arguments kinda switched and starting contradicting their previous ones on the second round, this is better seen with the example of the beliver: in the first round it was arguing that the existence of free will proves an all-loving and all-knowing god, but in the second round it used the argument of causality, wich also implies that your decisions are caused by previous ones, therefore rendering free will non existent. Also, since it's fun I'll drop here my own "aethist" argument that, until now, no one has been able to rebate so we can show 'em machines how it's really done (also, sorry in advance for the many text, I don't want to left any part of my point unexplained and I'm also horrible at summarizing): - I don't really know if it's correct to call myself an aethist or not since nowdays there's a name for everything slightly different. But I'ts the most correct name I know of so that's what I use, I do belive in god, but no in the classical sense, I simply belive in god as a possibility. I think it's something that cannot be proven to exist or not, so I think both are equally possible, but there's a catch, the possible god I belive in has absolutely nothing to do with any of the ones that have been ever described by any religion/"believed in". I belive my understanding of god is better explained by taking one the points on the AI debate as a start. The question about the infinite nature of the universe; I know for a fact that there shouldn't be any problem with the universe being, for example, an infinite loop with no start and no end. For example it could be like this: the big bang occurs, the universe starts expanding until it reaches the end of it's life and stops at it's biggest size, then it starts shrinking until it's at it's smallest size, the big bang occurs again and the universe restarts on an infinite cicle, it never began and it'll never end. There shouldn't be any problem with this and even thou I know it's a perfectly plausible answer, it still bothers me that it never starts. For some reason my mind tells me it should have a beginning. I belive this is not because infinity breaks logic, but because, just like everything else in existence, human comprehension has a limit. Just like you can't move faster than light in a vacuum, you can't phatom infinity, and since your brain can't really understand it, it just tells you it's wrong and makes up an answer that makes sense to it. This idea that human comprehension has a limit is what I base my god in. Because just like I don't really have a problem with the universe being an infinite loop, I don't have a problem with it having being created by a superior entity; what I do have a "problem" with thou is the concept of religion that often come attached to this superior entity, because to me at least, it doesn't make any sense that a being that fits in the fundamental concept of god would be at all human-like. This is because religion isn't trying to answer the question "where does existence begin?" but "what is the meaning of existence?" instead, therefore wrongly attaching human concepts and meanings to something who's nature isn't even comparable with our concept of existence. So, how did I solve this problem of a human god? by striping it of it's meaning, eliminating the necessity of things like following god. The way I see it religion is just a fictional version of a real thing, just like superman is the fictional version of human flight. Yes, we humans can archieve flight, but with planes or jetpacks, not floating on the air with physics defying powers like superman. Things like Anubis or the christian God are to god like superman to flying, the impossible fictional version of a plane. But there's a catch, with god, is like people actually belive that flying like superman is possible and there brains literally cannot physically imagine what a plane is, ever. And so I see people expending their entire lives serving god to achieve happines, wich of course you are free to do, but like with anything else I don't think is good to base your entire live and the meaning of it around a singular thing, wheter is god, your sexuality, or even something you like, like anime. So yes, I think god exist, but his way of existing is not like our concept of it, it is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent at the very least, but this words are quite literally used to describe undescribable things, so we cannot even start to comprehend what that means or looks like. God it's like a rock, with no defined form or personality, yet is a being, beacuse it's form and personality aren't something we can define, as it cannot exist, even in fiction. I started thinking about this idea while watching a series called psycho-pass, it's full of phyllosofical questions and out of nowhere it dropped me the problem of "the rock paradox": could and all-powerfull and all-knowing god create a rock that it himself could not push? This questions got me to stop paying attention to the show completely and then haunted me for months, but one day I finally reached an answer that led me to all of this conclusion I just wrote: the question is wrong, since a creation of this god would be inherently different to it on a fundamental level. The concept of pushing the rock would't even be compatible with this god. Hope you liked my explanation 🥵
You could write a short story with this! Anyway, I have researched a lot and Hindu philosophy says the same thing it is quite interesting not exactly the same as you said but a few tweaks here and there. The book called the Upanishads talk a lot about meaning of god and existence you should read it
The idea that God could exist but not in the way religions describe fits with a theological approach that says God is beyond what we can fully grasp. This concept, known as apophatic theology, suggests that while we feel everything should have a starting point, God could be the one who set everything in motion without needing a cause Himself. You're right to question the human-like images of God found in many religions, these are often seen as metaphors to help people relate to something that ultimately beyond our understanding. Religion is a way for humans to try to connect with the divine, using stories and rituals that point to deeper truths, even if they use imaginative or symbolic language. Your comparison of religious depictions of God to fictional characters like Superman makes sense, these stories might not be literally true, but they can still convey important ideas about life and existence. The notion that God is something indescribable and beyond all human concepts aligns with the idea in theology that God is a mystery we can't fully comprehend.
I tried this myself and what I found was the atheist side always offers evidence in science or gives good, logical explanations, and the theist basically ignores it and says things like "look at the trees, design is obvious!" The debate never really goes anywhere because no matter what the atheist says, it is simply ignored, and anything the Christian says, the atheist can easily refute it with logic. Basically, theism is NEVER the right side to be on and always looks bad.
@@jadeysi4 I'm not assuming, there's proof. Go debate any Christian and they will say things like that. If you're expecting me to give you proof, I don't have to and I don't care.
@@jadeysi4 I'm not assuming, there's proof. Go debate any Christian and they will say things like that. If you're expecting me to give you proof, I don't need to and I don't care. I lose nothing by you not believing what you can go find.
The god in question was too defined to allow for the vast array of gods known in written religious history. This debate is actually a debate about the Christian godform and only the contemporary version of that one.
The believer ai pisses me off so MUCH !!! It literally says the same thing even after getting counter arguments over and over again from the atheist ai.
lol I know what you mean. this is how I basically sum it up: Athiest AI: What if the natural Forces are necessary? Thiest AI: But you still need to explain where they came from Therefor God is necessary Athiest AI: But dont you have to explain where God came from? Thiest AI: No lol
I think your missing that they both are doing the same thing the truth of the matter is that both sides can only go back so many abstractions the believer can only go as far as a omniscient creater and the atheist has theories of some sort of natural event sustained by properties or laws we haven't discovered or don't exist in our cirrent time both arguments ultimately are supported by information we don't have both ending in theories with the lack of concrete proof. In my opinion, the argument lies in favor of the believer as his point is that the universe has a start has evidence to back it up as we know our universe is expanding and the only way for something to come from nothing is for something our side of them space or matter to create said thing whether a omniscient being or something else The atheists' only argument to this point is that maybe the universe doesn't have a start and leans on multiple theories making up laws that would have to exist to make those theories possible
Outstanding, I love it. Perhaps you should do another one with buddha and krishna and all these other religions against christianity all at the same time😮😮😮
@Mr.Wahoo77 unending suffering, the annihilation of the unrepentant, and the rehabilitation of the lost? ... how would you see a debate like that being structured?
@Atomic-19-s2h The believing AI that just won the debate made the arguments for me. 90% of the AI tilting the same way isn’t a coincidence bud, it’s an objective victory. You can run that mouth all you want but there’s no getting around it :)
@@thatman6488 the atheist clearly presented more rational arguments, while the believer was presenting different hypotheticals without a cohesive definition or framework of what "God" means
@@thatman6488 The atheist AI won pretty clearly. Theist arguments did nothing but play around 1 possibility as theist arguments always do. Its a glorified god of the gaps to which AI didnt offer any rebuttal.
Being moderately acquainted with the arguments on both sides here, this video helped me see that AI’s are driven more by “parroting” human talking points and counter points than by some presumably higher rationality.
Thanks for watching! What did you think? Share your thoughts in the comments, and check out these other thought-provoking debates:
• What if AI debated ILLEGAL Immigration & Deportation? 👉 ruclips.net/video/K9RrU4doKd4/видео.html
• What if AI debated ABORTION 👉 ruclips.net/video/czbLw6zvppQ/видео.html
🔔Don’t forget to subscribe and hit the bell so you never miss the next debate!
I live in a very very LDS area, I'd love to see one where, Orthodox, Catholic, and protestant are on one team debating an LDS AI.
interesting idea, thanks for the note.. i'll add it to the list of suggestion!
@@natedgr8furious140that's a fantastic idea, would love to see that!
Or even separate more in-depth videos where it is just one-on-one between different Christian sects and the LDS church
How long does it take for you to set it up and create the video? Does having one AI differ from 2 or more like your previous video? If you let the two ai's debate forever, would they come to an agreement to anything or would one side be persuaded over the other?
This is what a debate is supposed to look like?
But... they aren't insulting each other or anything
Yeah the presidential debate was more of a debate
Most perfect debate. I really like it. No insults. It's like heaven.
lol
The believer side still lies however.
That's how u know it's A.I 😅
the irony of the atheist ai saying there is no creator shouldn’t go unnoticed
XD
lol
Wow. True.
😂🎉
TBH, there's a difference between a creator (even the potential creator of the universe - imagine a super advanced alien species, for example) and a god.
I feel like the AI judges are dozing off and after each argument they're like: "uh...HUH!? OH! uh...40 points again. Good job, good job"
would of been better if he gave them both answers to compare
Exactly, the AI is like oh yeah she went off prompt and made up an excuse that wasn't logical but heck idk where I am right now so you get 40 points! And you get 40 points!
@@kurtz2491 and delivered to them in random order so that does not influence
Bahahahha😂
This was actually infuriating... I was yelling the counter arguments at my phone and the "atheist" ai never actually brought them up. And the smugness of the believer ai at the end bringing up math when an infinite regress is what it's entire argument is founded on, and that there's an incomprehensibly small chance for life to form in a hostile and equally incomprehensibly vast universe made me want to throw my phone.
Bro AI debates are actually better than real human debates
People usually get angry and harass each other whenever they are losing but AI is calm and presents the best pointers it can , even if it starts to lose or it is sure that it won't win . We need this type of quality and behavior in humans also
I guess that’s the difference between humans and AI…. Humans have feelings…. AI doesn’t…
This comment is dumb, of course an AI debate is revolved around facts and opinions that support their topic
People only get angry and start insulting when they are either intellectually dishonest or emotionally captured
@@brittanigonzales8044 cons of having feelings
@@brittanigonzales8044 I was about to say that
Wow, a debate without interruptions or insults. I forgot what that sounds like. Loved the video.
much appreciated. thanks for the note and consider subscribing not to miss the next one:)
When machines are more civilized than people
notice how 80% of the time the thiest shoes constant aggression first
@@its_lucky2526 neither of them showed any aggression towards one another what are you talking about
@@SarmaleGamer I think @its_lucky252 is just a rage bot. It's a made up statistic, based on something that never happened in the video, designed to rile theists to be like "no u" so a flame war can start in the comments.
I was wondering where the insults and harassment were, but then I scrolled to the comments section and found it.
Edit: I wasn't attacking disagreement or free speech. I pointed out that some people are blinded by their own sins and hate and that they cannot see the love of God. In the words of Isaiah the prophet, "Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise, they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” (Isaiah 6:10).
Y'all need to take a chill pill or 5 and be more open to genuine discussion rather than tearing each other down with your words. Jesus came to earth, fully God and fully man, and he died on the cross to pay the price of your sins so that you can live with God in eternity forever. Put your faith in him alone to save you, and turn away from your sins and follow Him. Those who do not look to Jesus for their salvation will burn in the lake of fire forever, and I don't want that for you, and neither does God. He loves you and wants to save you from your sins, but has given you a choice. Choose life.
You have made it clear that you do not understand the meaning of harassment.
@@sciencedaemoncommenting cause you want a fight?
@@NickluvsGod you sound upset.
@@sciencedaemon a simple question really. But I assume that’s a yes
@@sciencedaemonsilly guy
Feels like the score is not about how reasonable or logical an answer is, but more how well it is presented.
Almost like a regular debate!
That’s how debates on the competition level is judged though. Not really on the topic but how it’s presented. Debates aren’t really to prove something right or wrong but rather to expand thought
@@Butterkinno… if you can’t make sense how are you winning?
Yeah, I don't think AI knows how to properly judge which argument is stronger. It only knows how to somewhat judge if a presented argument is logically consistent and doesn't contain any provable falsehoods. It's always possible to dance around the point (creating strawmen to attack) while still saying only true things, without actually saying anything substantive.
And the believer AI did actually say flat out falsehoods like "a creator solves infinite regress", because you can certainly ask who created the creator and why, on and on forever. But it nonetheless scored exceptionally well in that segment proving that the other AIs are bad even at judging the veracity of statements. Not to mention that even if there was some creative force that "solved infinite regress", there is no reason to assume such a creator would be a conscious god, much less the specific god of Christianity or any other major religion.
@@GelatinGhostthey also seem to be considering the responses in isolation or at the very least have a short context window for tracking past statements. As both of them often just get stuck in loops arguing same thing but with a different analogy, which I'd certainly mark lower.
As an atheist it's not like I'm saying "there's is no god and it's stupid to believe in one" to me it's more like "i've never seen any evidence that God exists so I conclude it doesn't" that's it. I admire people who are believers because I wish I could.
Hey, I relate to you!
But how do you deal anxiety about death?
@restushlogic5794 there is no anxiety, you accept that life inevitably is pain and suffering. I've been resuscitated twice and both times fell into a pleasant cold darkness. Dying is easy, living a purposeful life is hard
@@restushlogic5794 I'm not afraid of dying. It is part of life. I actually have an anxiety disorder and worry about many things but that's not one of them. I always understood you can die at any moment from an early age. However I am afraid of losing my partner. But no belief in a higher power could help me if he wasn't here. It would just make life harder and that's what I dread. Death is peaceful. Life is suffering. So I only worry about life and what the future may hold for me.
@@restushlogic5794 besides there's nothing you can do about death. You don't decide when it's your time to go. If I can't control it or change the outcome then why worry about it? I only worry about things I can control like not putting myself in dangerous situations and living a healthy lifestyle. Also I don't believe in the afterlife. I just try not to be an a-hole to others and that's it. If hell turns out to be real and I end up in it so be it. I try to live a morally good life if it wasn't enough so be it. I can't do much better.
I believe it takes more faith to be an atheist, my friend. Look up The Case for Christ, written by Lee Strobel, a former atheist. Give it a read and make a determination. None of us know when we'll take our last breath. By then it'll be too late.
Next, make an AI flat earth vs round earth debate. That would be illarious.
flat earth would be obliterated lmao it'd be like 620 to 100
@@snek_47 i wish. But this debate made fiction (religion) win the score over Reality.
@@alfasilverblade That's true, but at least religious arguments have some logic behind them (though it may be flawed), while flat earthers are just bible thumping idiots with no real evidence or argument at all
@@alfasilverblade bro is more biased than gemini 😆
@@alfasilverblade reeaal
this debate actually helped me understand a believers point of view, since i could never truly find people who could explain how something like god makes sense to them, rather then just saying things like "you got to believe or else"
I think it's impossible for most to understand without deep meditation and prayer, because human thought is heavily conditioned by our modernist presuppositions about reality which become difficult to depart from. And it is crucial to understand that there is no straightforward path to belief coming from arguments alone, but I think you should find educated theists who have spent decades trying to understand the inherent necessity and absolute being of God, who is not some invisible guy living in the clouds but a truly omnipotent and limitless creator upon which all of reality depends for its order and existence. Until you really try to deepen your desire for truth, you will find it difficult to truly believe that God is necessary, but the truth is that God being necessary is more certain than almost any other assertion. You can be as sure of the existence of your creator as you are of your own existence.
So, then in your assumption, the Bible is only right about the existence of God? But not about all the other stuff that is written there? Am i going to Hell for not believing in God? Whats your opinion on that. @@PhilLihp-g3t
lol yeah I do have a hard time putting my arguments of religion into words. The ai covers them pretty well though, aswell as making good analogies.
The AI arguments are old arguments of humans. The only difference, maybe, is how succinct they are presented.
You overthink it. It's just that simple. You believe in it or not. You can't explain it bcs there is nothing to explain, there is no logic just faith. Religions are a coping mechanism. If you want to believe it, good for you. Just don't tell others that X is the real religion bcs there is no evidence that one is more real than the others.
i love how they change poses as they talk its so cool
And scripted
Why do they have so many chairs
@@E_A_SPORTS_ITS_IN_THE_GAMELolll
@@E_A_SPORTS_ITS_IN_THE_GAME you have to sit somewhere
@@darcysuurhoff7028Well yeah the AI didn't pick a pose for each part of the argument
"Unjust suffering is bad"
"Without it there is no adversety"
Yeah tell that to the 2 week old African baby who died of malaria
While this is right, whether or not you are religious or not, life is unfair, but I would like to state that the baby dying could be a lesson to learn that life is unfair whether or not God had allowed it to happen. As to the reason I wrote this reply is because there is no point in pointing fingers and shaming those who are religious because there is no possible way someone's opinion can change what has already happened and what will, however their opinion can justify the reason they do certain things a certain way.
TLDR:
To wrap up, life is unfair and being religious cannot change that and I wrote this because I assumed you disliked religious Christians I wanted to see if I could help people to have a more open mind.
(I will likely not be following up with this comment if you reply to this if you even see this or anyone for that matter and in case I don't see you good morning, good evening, and good night.
Maybe child would've grown up to be evil. Haven't you watched enough television to see what happens when you mess with God's plan.
@@theodoricstevenson3905 What a cruel and evil argument you just made. You should be ashamed of yourself. This lacks any moral compass
@@theodoricstevenson3905 But the biggest argument for people doing bad things like genocide and etc. without God interventing is that he made us with free will. So killing a child for using free will while letting Adolf or Stalin life, beacouse it's their decison and they're justusing their free will is hipocritical and just doesn't make sense or logic, especially since the person that's doing all that is all-knowing and all-powerful.
(I don't know if you used sarcasm or not, so I decided to answer seriously, beacouse why not? No one will stop me, or at least it won't be God. He didn't stop austrian painter then why would've he stopped me?)
how does that rebuke anything?
Notice how they didnt bring up golf?
No way you just did that 😂
If god truly exists, then why does golf exist?
@@TheTlank its a sport the world created isint it? i dont know what you mean but the things the world created dont contradict gods exsitence
Thats cause they know I'd shit on them with my golf game therefore invalidating their opinion
@@CronBeforeALLit was a joke 😭 he’s saying his dislike for golf is so high it’s crazy to believe God doesn’t stop it, this is an hyperbole to explain their supposed dislike for golf but it’s simply a joke not a serious argument 😭
"I am a large language model, and thus I do not have religious beliefs or beliefs in general"
lol!
*waves in human*
Beliefs don't really matter.. their arguments are logic based, not spiritual. The argument is more about whether Christianity is logistically possible, not whether it's the definitive truth.
@@Spyziychat GPT is prediction based. It predicts the next word. It does not understand it.
@@Jenz8627 I think you missed the point of what I was saying..
I like how we need to have robots debate controversial issues to stop us from breaking out into screaming and fighting halfway through
Pretty odd conclusion to come to after watching this but ok
@@notfranklin4916 do you struggle with satirical statements?
You must be living a very sheltered life to think like this. People debate the existence of God with each other pretty much everyday. It's one of the most commonly debated topics on earth
@@jaisalrw3494 i think your missing the point? its not whether its debated; rather how its being debated.
The screaming will stop when "believers" admit that there is NO WAY the biblical God exist. This should not be a debate even, so It gets infuriating for those who know the obvious truth
7:51 the fact that this was one of the best argument in the video and it only got a 42.1 is insane
The things is, love is a choice, its free will.
Kinda. I was hoping to hear 2 of my favorite points regarding free will. 1. If God is real and doesn't want to intervene, why did he intervene so much for a bunch of peasants in the desert? For those who believe Noah, it's even more problematic. He commited genocide to an entire population. Christians often counter this by saying "But trust me bro, those people were really awful." But hey, the guy was able to build a massive boat among those people. I couldn't built a massive boat today with the money needed and regulartions. Should we have another genocide?
2. If God is Just, everyone should have an equal chance to discover him. But 2 conditions are needed, to be an emotive thinker and to be born in a certain country. Why does God hide away from the athiestic Thai people, and those with very scientific reationalistic mind sets? Why does he not reveal himself to all equally and allows us to find science in scripture?
@@327legoman well tbf the believer AI isnt strictly christian or any other religion. it just believes in a higher being.
@@tintschi2049 pretty sure its only about God because they mention heaven and Job and no other things from other monotheistic religions as far as im in the video
@@KalelTonatiuhA God/Gods and heaven is a pretty common theme throughout multiple religiouns tho no?
But they essentially kept repeating the same point
That’s what I noticed too. I’m neutral but both were kinda stuck on the same concepts neither one was able to debunk or answer.
Because really. Its nearly impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god. Im an atheist and always will be, but thats just my personal opinion, of course everyone can belief whatever they want.
@@yalrdyknow truth im Christian but it is impossible to prove or disprove god. i believe in god for the sole purpose of my family believing in it but a lot of the old testament i don't believe in. but what i do know is not rely on the bible or religious text as science.
@@itscj7530 if ur a christian, u would capitalize God
Kierkegaard essentialy came to the same conclusion. Belief in God is essentially a leap of faith
"This debate is more interesting than the Biden and Trump debate."
True
ahhahahaah true bro
INDEED, AMEN HAHAHAHA
But this debate had no insults inviting was able to make up for the fact that Trump had no insults or at least less Insults and this one the people's statements actually make sense which is not nearly as fun as two opponents with nonsensical arguments like Biden and Trump
Of course its has to be
I think this is the most objective debate i ever heard
I like how they fail to adress each other arguments after the third minute
Good to know, we still have some time before AI takes over 😅
I think they did great until the last part of the debate when they just chose to get dumb and forget some huge arguments on both sides
@@ikosaheadrom yeah, looks like judges dont have context as well
@@NitrogenVM Oh we've got lots of time. All you need to do to confuse AI is have hands.
most arguments in this cannot be directly disproven
it was honestly a matter of time
I learned more in this exercise debate between artificial intelligence entities than in my undergraduate work.
I am utterly humbled.
This AI does a better job explaining the religious arguments than any living person I’ve heard. I consider myself an atheist but the debate gave me a lot of things to ponder
Do you speak to many people?
From what I saw, the arguments were just bad arguments that I’ve heard hundreds of times
My comment probably disappeared but I think you can still find it in your gmail.
@@Ceccener they’re not convincing arguments by any means, but they are better articulated here than anywhere else I’ve heard, that’s a better statement
Id look into Cliff. He gives perfect explanations without fail.
Why aren't they insulting each otehr
Because its not character ai its ment to just send answer
and why do they need to ? 💀
Stupid question
Because this is an argument between 2 smart beings, not dumb
That is what philosophy is - we defend and reject arguments. If we offer insult, it is to the theory, not the philosopher
Short review: Stunning, and yet still frustrating. As a debater, I can't help but see the dropped arguments and lost opportunities. Having said that, this was infinitely more complex than their last debate.
Both AI seem to either tackle too many topics at once or get stuck sorting out one topic to an extreme degree. Perhaps that's just the difference in how WE think versus how THEY think. Inversely, they challenge each other wonderfully and handle large topics with ease. THIS WAS BEAUTIFUL!
Long review: My biggest gripes are no doubt mostly personal. There is a negative element missing here that you would find in almost any great debate. I know people like their opponents to be kind, but pointing out inherent contradictions and false logics actually strengthens the debate as a whole providing a more educational experience for the audience.
For example: when the Atheist said that the solution doesn't have to be complicated, the Theist had the perfect opportunity to state that, "You keep stating how infinitely complicated it is. Now you're saying it isn't?" She could have stated that Occam's Razor might actually have served best on the side of a creator, or that many of the Atheist's arguments started with "may" implying heavily faith based conclusions.
This isn't to say that I didn't love the debate. I did. It's just that when humans challenge each other, they tend to attack any inherent contradictions or holes they find in each others' arguments. While AI aren't required to approach things the same way, it's sometimes frustrating to see them miss an opportunity that a human would clearly exploit. Overall, this was truly wonderful. Thank you guys for all you do!
great notes! it's still a work in progress, i used the latest models for this and can tell they are getting better... but i also have to get better at configuring them... your suggestions are helpful! much appreciated.
@@JonOleksiukI know I'm just some guy on the internet, but that's actually very touching to me.
AI can be a scary thing, but I think here is where it actually shines. Humans can attack each other in the comments section all day, but no one can attack these debaters because they simply won't care.
That means both sides can keep coming back over and over again and learning from these videos. The world NEEDS more of this. Thank you!
i agree with you, ai can be scary. but one thing i've noticed in working with these large language models, is how much they reveal my own biases... something i gotta work on. they're great for bouncing ideas off of and gaining alternative perspectives.
@@JonOleksiuk I was told once in college that "If your faith is so weak that it can't be challenged then it isn't worth having."
For you to do what you're doing here, I believe you must have very strong faith, and whatever biases you may have your AI seem to be fairly capable of overcoming. People have forgotten how to listen to each other, but maybe they'll listen to this.
That statement from college is great, and I totally believe in it. It's not always fun wading into the dark thoughts that test faith, but I agree, it's worth it.
Truly amazing and thought provoking. This is how technology should be used
My political brain can't comprehend debates with reasoning and proof
Where's the golf
@@xavierochoa6935real
yeah if the atheist were allowed to just say you dont have proof this debate wouldve been a blowout so not very entertaining
@@orangeo5344they presented their arguments logically. If it’s too complex for you to understand then that’s fine.
@@orangeo5344 That's not how philosophical debate work. There is no science for topics they're covering. Can you provide a scientific paper that proves an infinitely tall tower can support itself? No, because that isn't a scientific question, just like "Does God exist?" isn't a scientific question.
The debate was really good, I just think the judging system is pretty flawed. It seems to lack the context of the previous argument, as the atheis ai always counters the entire argument, whereas the believer ai often neglects the reasoning and just states "but you need an explanation", which is not an argument in the first place. The ai judges might be judging based on sentence structure and word probability rather than intrinsic logic and cohesive arguments, as they are language models, that only indirectly observe patterns in logic
I agree, they are both saying the same thing in different words
I didn't watch the full video, only about 5 minutes, but it seemed to me like the scores were always between 40-45 points. Does this keep happening throughout the whole debate? As someone who's already tried prompt engineering AI to rate things, I tend to notice that it loves picking these generic ranges for almost everything.
@@somethingaboutsomething1 And the ai judges always give the same score of 40.
of course it is, because AIs have no intelligence, they’re are very good guessers of the next character
@@_basilenext token, to be pedantic, which would be similar to syllables.
Accidentally stumbled upon this channel.
Looking forward to see more such work.
Welcome aboard! more to come :)
Pretty sure the Ais had memory leak issues and kept repeating the same, fucking thing, over and over and over again, expecting, shit to change. That. Is. Crazy. It's INSANITY.
@@heavyweaponsguy6284 if u dont like it just fucking leave and watch something else
Pretty clear the models have a bias towards the believer which isn't shocking at all considering there are many more believers than non-believers in leading AI developing countries.
I thought this video had 617 THOUSAND views, not just 617!!! Really speaks to me about the quality of the content youre creating.
lol... hopefully with a llttle time, and some shares from people who like it, we'll get there.
@@JonOleksiuk ill definitely be sharing lol
1 day after releasing, the video has over 14 Thousand Views. I’d say it’s doing wonderfully!
@@JonOleksiuk
The debate was between an atheist and agnostic. Not a theist.
I thought it was creative… I’m sure he’ll get more views eventually
Goodness even the robots are arguing past each other lol
Haha, my thoughts exactly! These 'rebuttals' could be monologues
@@jixxytrix1705 that's very interesting.. 😂
Watch AI bringing us closer to God that would be an interesting twist
The things cant really think, or comprehend anything past the last few paragraphs so it makes sense. They basically just completely forget that they already made a point or whatever.
@@gsch1818it will, humans too bias to even speak tbh
as an atheist the scoring did feel a bit biased towards the believer, but nonetheless both sides’ arguments were genuinely better than any other online discussion I’ve ever seen! And atheist AI saying about emergent properties and Conway’s game of life at the end was top tier :)
The believer simply names things around us that we made as an argument. Like a school teacher for toddlers. What is this in my hand, a domino, very good. And this is a movie, see how it starts. And over there a building, which we started building one.
Who is it arguing with? It's like having a discussion about the universe and all the possibilities. And the other person having a stroke and naming why the moon.landing was in fact real.
@@SOSULLIlmao, so real.
Why are you an Atheist? There is no proof that says god exists or does not. So at this point it’s up to religious evidence, opinions, reasoning, and faith. If you’re considering all of these, they will 100% of the time lead you down the path of believing in some kind of god and religion. Why would you ever hold the belief that there isn’t some kind of creator, and life is ultimately meaningless, and there is absolutely no afterlife. I’ve never heard of an actual reasonable opinion on why someone doesn’t believe in god. Atheists like to group all people who believe in god into one category. They’ll debate a Christian on the Bible, and whether they’re right or wrong, claim this debunks gods existence in its entirety. I think Christianity and the Bible has many flaws, and to me it seems like an easy target for atheists. It’s very rare that you see an atheist try to debunk Islam. I think atheists are very scared of Islam because they subconsciously know there is a lot of truth to it.
Since there is no way to prove god exists or does not exist, and all factors considered only points in the direction that god DOES exist, there is truly no logical reason to not believe in god. I’d say a majority of atheists simply hold their beliefs as an escape from accountability. A majority of atheists are either ignorant or deeply unhappy with their lives. Someone who finds comfort in knowing their actions have no consequences and everything is absolutely meaningless in the end, aren’t very happy people and have a huge void in their soul. No god means no backbone to life. We’re all just here by pure chance and we all have no purpose. There is nothing to fight for. There is nothing to die for. I couldn’t imagine being so hopeless.
Completely agree, the believer would circle around athiest questions and make moot points and still be graded higher
Im nit good at debating, but I always lime this argument: the chances of life on earth, or just life in general is almost null, less than 1 in a trillion.
6:20 For all we know, this IS the most optimal route for us to avoid as much suffering as possible. It's only "extreme" because that's all we know.
It's not extreme because it's all we know, it's extreme because it's so easy to imagine better. Even though the butterfly effect can be unpredictable saying all suffering is necessary to lead to the most good is absurd. Why would people suffer in hell then, if hell is for all eternity and we'll never be able to prove/perceive it in the land of the living, then certainly it makes more sense for a benevolent god to just not allow the suffering, you don't even need to let everyone into heaven, just have the fates of the dead be on a scale of neutral to good instead of incredible suffering to good.
@@Plasmapigeon Close reading of the bible reveals that Hell is not a lake of fire where the devil and demons torture us for eternity. The most agreed upon concept of when someone dies who has lived their life away from God, will continue to be apart from God, not in eternal damnation and torment. That concept did not come from the bible, it came from Dante's Inferno. Also, what I meant about it being the route that avoids as much suffering as possible was simply that THIS is the only way of knowing that we truly can 'choose' to believe and follow the word of our creator. "Suffering' is a part of the experience He wants us to have while on Earth, with the promise of everlasting peace in the afterlife. We may not fully understand why, but it's clearly important.
@@Plasmapigeon Unfortunately being barred from Heaven isn't simply a geographical issue. It is a divine separation between you and God whom is the source of every good thing. It's like saying why can't I just turn the light off and exist in the halfway between light and dark? Just make grey the new black? It just doesn't work like that.
I couldn't help but notice that the Believer AI won by using the same point twice in BOTH the rounds instead of expanding on it. Which made it's score higher. Also a lot of points left out by Atheist AI. After a certain point it felt like both started repeating themselves just using different sentences. But what else could we expect from AI at this point? Still a great job
I'm not that well versed in debating rulers although I do sometimes debate myself but question if they get a higher score for pointing out the same thing twice but just expanding it even further wouldn't that make the case even stronger? which would produce more points?
It expanded the moment it mentions the book of job, there’s far more many details about suffering and loyalty in that book
@ i suppose, but that leaves out other points that could be said, which could suggest more points, at least I think so. I'm not much of a debate expert myself
@@GalaxyCatPlays That's not how it works. The AI's rating didn't look at an overall view of the debate but rather the individual points. So, if the believer made a point that was logically appealing but debunkable, it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong since the AI's, in giving them points, will find it just as appealing or almost as appealing.
@@kristofkarvazy3349 ty for information :) God Bless
Just a tip for working with AI: I've noticed if you get it to voice it's process of constructing a rebuttal or answer, it'll be a lot better. You can add something like "First, list the main points that your opponent raised and order them by importance. Then for each one, list an insight or counterargument against it. Then, check and make sure which parts are the most persuasive to add. Finally, construct the actual response.
Hmm, you are putting the believer AI at a distinct disadvantage by that. It is forced to be logically consistent.
@@sciencedaemon 😱😱😱 omg I've been owned!!111! Religion bros, it's over, throw out 2000 years of theology, sciencedaemon said that we aren't logically consistent 😔
@@andrewnazario2253 Finally, you understand now!
@@nickcanon Praying for you ✝️
@@sciencedaemon Praying for you✝️
Asking ChatGPT about its assessment of the outcome of this video:
It's interesting to see AI models being used for philosophical debates like the existence of God. The outcome of the jury models in favoring the believer's side could be influenced by several factors, even though ChatGPT might present arguments more neutrally. Here are a few possible reasons for the jury's preference:
Training Data Bias: AI models are trained on vast amounts of text from the internet, books, and other sources. If the training data contains more or stronger arguments in favor of religious belief compared to atheism, the model might reflect that in its reasoning.
Framing of Arguments: The way arguments are framed can heavily influence their perceived persuasiveness. If the believer's arguments were presented in a more structured, emotionally resonant, or logically compelling way compared to the atheist's, the jury models might have picked up on that.
Interpretation of "Belief": AI models often mirror human communication patterns. Belief systems tend to carry emotional weight, cultural significance, and moral frameworks that can make them seem more compelling, even if the arguments are more abstract. The models might weigh these emotional or moral appeals more heavily.
Criteria of Evaluation: It's important to know the exact criteria the jury models were using to assess the debate. Were they looking for logical coherence, emotional resonance, or something else? If the criteria included emotional appeal or social values, arguments in favor of belief might naturally score higher.
Nuance and Uncertainty in Atheist Arguments: Atheist arguments often hinge on skepticism and uncertainty (e.g., lack of evidence for God, or the burden of proof on believers). These arguments, while logically sound, may not come across as persuasive if the models are tuned to favor more definitive or affirmative statements.
Cultural Norms Embedded in Data: Much of the world's literature and philosophical discourse has historically favored belief in higher powers. As a result, the models might have picked up on these cultural norms and patterns, leading them to favor belief-based arguments.
My addition: Its proven though, that most, if not all AI models favor emotional argumentation over reasonable and dry presented data. That means using AI with a certain wording that is emotional provoking leads to AI trying to please the user instead of providing a neutral or opposing position. AI is highly unreliable to conclude a complex philosophical topic like this. But nonetheless this was a very thought provoking debate. Love to see more of it or even an altered debate considering the AI biases. I think ChatGPT might have had the most reasonable judgement over the matter. Since there aren't any answers to these questions, the only stance to have, is neutral until proven the reliability of one side.
This is really cool! I'm glad this was Atheist vs. Believer rather than Christian because I fear that would end poorly.
For the atheist yeah
@@JIGAK1 :D
My father is a southern Baptist pastor with a formal education in theology, and has been a pastor for longer than my entire life (I’m 23 years old). When debating, all of his arguments eventually fall back on “you need to have faith.” Especially if the argument comes to the topic of: “If there is a God, how do you definitively prove that your God is the correct god?” I feel like in a Christian versus atheist AI debate, this would become an issue, as it has in many IRL formal debates. Plus these AI debates only serve to “poison the well” as they are, admittedly, graded based on the arguments presentation and not the validity of the individual facts, theories, and beliefs presented in the arguments. This can leave one side feeling misrepresented, while allowing the other to continue to propagate ideologies that are incorrect, leaving to further alienation of the opposing side.
More for the Christian actually !@@JIGAK1
A harsh comeback from the atheist ai is he finished off with something like, “Even if God exists, you and I both being ai with no genuine consciousness nor souls would ever be able to enter the gates of heaven anyway.”
AI doesnt think of itself as "I" or "me" thats just people seeing AI as a being but that is just wrong, AI is not a being - its just a piece of written code thats made to formulate sentences
@@zeoh- we're just an assemblage of neurons made to upkeep a biological organism.
@@zeoh-aren’t you a piece of code whose goal is to survive and multiply? Not saying those AIs are actually self-aware, it’s more that being code doesn’t mean you can’t be self-aware
@@TacticalAnt420 true but these ones physically are never going to be able of it.
All current AI aren't even as aware or have as much free-will as a fish, which people kept trying to say had none for decades.
They analyse data and can regurgitate it, or create something using trends in the data and training.
@@TacticalAnt420No because consciousness is separated from your DNA. Hence why identical twins are identical by genetic code but different in consciousness.
I like the atheists final argument as it aligns the most with my position.
It’s crucial to remember that “I don’t know” is often a better answer than assuming a supernatural cause.
Personally I’d like to believe in a god but I don’t think it will come from intellectual conversations or watching RUclips videos. As with a lot of people who believe in god(s), it would probably have to come from an experience.
As a christian myself that's a super important point I try to keep in mind. Nobody becomes a Christian because of an argument. It's usually experiences or seeing someone else living in a way you wish to live, and asking how to get that.
This is the reason I don't debate anyone anymore. I might ask questions but it's all about belief. Even atheist go off beliefs instead of evidence at times. To each their own.
@@TheDeadPirateBobMost people are religous because they are indoctrinated by their parents and peers who were indoctrinated by their parents and peers.
@@etherealblacketernal2889 Yes, this is literally how everyone is taught. Slow clap
Better is a strange term to use. If there is a supernatural cause, it would clearly be better to believe in it. That would be true even if all evidence pointed to the contrary. If there isn't a supernatural cause, then your point stands.
The issue here is that you are assuming the conclusion.
Good stuff! My favourite part will always be that both sides have extreme, difficult to answer questions. Amazing.
this account is so cool. please post many many more!!
This is a wonderful comment section truly wonderful that people with such differering and opposing beliefs can gather here to enjoy the same video
indeed
i agree, there are no hard feeling here, just arguments to argue about
There’s no god ⚛️
@@Hlilyou had to ruin it.
@@Hlil there is! And if you gave Him a chance he'd show you how much lighter the burden of life gets when you know you're not alone in the storm :)
This is an amazing use of LLMs, having two extremely powerful debaters, that have every already conceived argument under their sleeves to use in a debate without having to rely on a human memory... This should be applied to a wide variety of subjects.
Even if the LLMs obviously can't come up with new arguments, we as the audience can see what new questions pop up when all the existing argument are exhausted.
I agree. It's like having two Ben Shapiro's arguing against eachother lol
This channel is going to blow up, absolutely love the concept behind these arguments. Both sides are sensible and beautifully presented.
You have another subscriber. Keep up the great work
Much appreciated!
@@JonOleksiuk i would like to see more ai debates, they are awesome.
Meh. I have mixed feelings. Overall, I don't think it is a good idea for AI to think for us, even if it might bring up or consider stuff we haven't on whatever level. The aim should be to make more people aware and appreciative of critical thought, philosophy, and the like, not this AI stuff.
@@JonOleksiuk Why haven't I found this sooner?
This is only going to get better.
Beautifully presented? Really? The very first statement was literally a strawman.
at the end of the day, what you believe in is your choice and if it makes you a better person or it hurts no one in the process than you keep on believing brotha!
this is a fun premise for a youtube project, but it also goes to show that language based ai chat models have much to improve on when it comes to philosophical debate. they seem to be arguing in circles and often talking past each other. still more interesting and substantive to watch qualified humans debate, but i’d like to see ai trainers address the problems that arise from logical reasoning, and response to arguments rather than mere words and phrases
Tbh. That’s what I see in actual philosophy debates all the time between humans
It can also tell us the everything we think we know is not so set in stone. If you look into epistemology you discover that everything we know is a assumption.
It's funny because this is exactly how the debates between humans go also =))
If you want logical reasoning, it's simple: if you go from the assumption that God exists and created all the things, if then you build a reasoning on this assumption, then you will always conclude that God indeed is responsible for all the things. And this is WRONG REASONING.
In mathematics, there is a concept called Reductio Ad Absurdum. We start with the assumption that the hypothesis h is false. If we then reach a contradiction, it means that the hypothesis h must be true. It is literally impossible for it to be false, as we have reached a contradiction. This is the only situation where we can be certain about the nature of h. However, if we arrive at something that confirms our assumption, it is INCONCLUSIVE. Of course we reached that conclusion because that was our starting point. We imagined a universe where h is false and then explored where that could lead us. Naturally, we would return to "h is false." In this case, we can't know anything for sure about h in our current universe.
The problem with all religious arguments is that they start with the assumption that God exists and then arrive at more confirmations that God exists. This type of argument is flawed. "See? Everything makes sense now. Why does it rain? Because of God!" This is a mathematical error. If we start with the assumption that Thor exists, then He must have caused the storm.
The correct approach would be to start with the assumption that God does not exist and see if we reach a contradiction. But if you do that, you don’t reach contradictions about the nature of God. You find other explanatory factors for the phenomena around us. That's why atheists say there is no tangible evidence that God exists, and theists don't understand this. Theists say, "How can you not see it? God is in everything. The very fact that you are here now is proof!" But they start from a universe where God is already present. Evolution could just as easily be the explanation for our presence here. And so on.
@@user-ug6kk5ux5q But I start with the belief God exists
the only thing AI succeeds humans in without a doubt: having a respectful and communicative debate
Hitchens already tried having these kinds of debates years ago. The religious typically resorted to insults and hate immediately.
Or being the bane of your own existence
@@sciencedaemon just want to start with the fact that im an agnostic. one of christopher hitchens' main ideals is that we would be better off as a society without religion, despite the fact that for hundreds of years the church was at the forefront of science, philosophy, and art, largely shaping what we know as society today. it wasn't until the late 1500's that atheism became widespread, although obviously it had been around much longer. the idea that the church "suppressed scientific innovation" is an absolutely fucking ridiculous claim that is completely unsubstantiated, which is why i tend to stay away from him, along with a few of his other claims. i am interested to see these failed debates that he had, however. where can i find/what should i look up to see them?
Yes, but only because they are really debating in text format. The video editor just slapped 2 AI voices reading the text to make it more "human".
Humans created AI. What a dumb comment
It’s ironic that two AIs are debating the existence of a creator and consciousness
No it isn't. There is no creator of humans. Do you not understand what a creator is? Creators produce human artifacts (e.g. a piece of pottery), not the natural world, universe. It is a religious point of view to imagine there is a human-like agent producing the universe as an artifact.
did you not even watch the debate? if you really were to go deeper into this and not take this comment as a joke, it seems right to me. the atheist ai states that there is a lack of need for a broad term beginning (beginning of the universe), not for a beginning (a beginning of something, the universe is undefiable of "something" from what we know so far, and from what we know so far the universe wont be defined as "something") ai was created by a human, which can be traced back to the start of an evolutionary process, the universe can't.
@@sciencedaemon smh it’s a joke based on humans being the creator and therefore god of the AI. Their purpose being clear to us, their creator. Assuming there might be a creator to us is the reason it is ironic because it is only the creator that can be sure of the creation’s origin and purpose. I shouldn’t have to explain this
@@MarcAlcatraz you have problems understand ideas. It is a failed joke due lack of understanding facts.
@@sciencedaemon You are heavily nerfing the capability of a supreme being, that is, GOD. You are not even thinking about the possibility..... And, reading other comments of yours, I feel like you are an incredibly obtuse person.
Great attempt, but their closing remarks are the discussion we needed.
0:17 i was going to skip a bit but when you said tha i changed my mind, i am glade that i did thank you so much
This has become one of my favorite videos on this website, amazing concept and incredible execution
Much appreciated! Thanks for the comment and consider subscribing not to miss what’s next :)
@@JonOleksiuk I subscribed and can’t wait to see what’s next :D
:D
Wow, I just have to say how much I appreciate this channel for creating debates that feature such strong steelman arguments for both sides.
It's so refreshing to see a balanced, thoughtful discussion where each perspective is given its best poss ible representation.
This kind of content really elevates the conversation and helps viewers understand the complexities of both viewpoints.
Keep up the amazing work! 🙌👏
There is nothing "strong" about these arguments, they all come down to, "prove to me that there is someone smarter than I am".
I will tell you the story of my highschool friend Brian M. Brian had a girlfriend. He also was really into space so he had a printed copy of M101 the pinwheel galaxy taped to the headboard of his bed. One day after-school, he and his girlfriend got to doing the nasty while his parents weren't home and she began screaming my name out in bed. Convinced that she was cheating on him, he had one of our mutual friends Abram convince me to take him over to Brian's house where he intended to confront me because she couldn't explain why my name popped into her head and insisted that she having gone to a completely different school had no idea who I was. Thos much was tried because indeed we had never met face to face. Right after he raised his fist to punch me I told him to calm down because there was a perfectly logical explanation for the confusion. I then walked with the three of them into his bedroom and pointed at the reason. It was staring her right in the face the whole time...four letters in plain English that cannot be spelled without the letter GOD with U. Before you go jumping to forlorn conclusions over what name the heavens declare I suggest you look up as commanded because there's a very valid reason why the Bible says there are none righteous upon the earth who have not gone a-whoring after strange gods. Islam is a cult worshipping the Aramaic word word for oak which is Strongs concordance #427 allah: oak. They fulfill the prophecies of Isaiah 55 about worshipping in idol a tree. Christians worship whom the Bible refers to as the MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, a messenger sent by that certain child who gave him the loaves and fishes who actually performed the miracles he was given credit for performing just like Tuthmosis son of Akhenaten whom you'd call Moses took credit for things that a being able to add a cubit to the measure of physical being standing beside him actually did. If you have any doubt whether or not that is possible just look at the so called Goliath footprint(s)[there's actually 5] at Mpuluzuli Plateau near Lothair South Africa or the giant footprint found in the forests just outside of Bangalore India set in solid granite prove and wonder no more. Jews went a-whoring in je: the Latin word of I, ho: slang for whore, Va: Latin for go. Thus scripture is very clear when it says they went astray in the name whereby men go a-whoring: Je-ho-vah. Hindus worship she goes(awhoring) in Shiva..."she va". Though they were each told the heavens declare the glory of god only Muhammad came anywhere close to getting it right before he to in blind hypocrisy lied while falsely claiming to speak for the creator saying the creator of the heavens and earth neither beget nor is begotten despite the fact that beget literally means to create in both definitions of the word in the dictionary so that he caused people to worship a false god made out of wood that created nothing. Jesus had his merits and his heart was at least in the right place, because he was the son of Joseph of Aremythea who was both the chief carpenter and treasurer in the main synagogue in Jerusalem, the temple where Solomon sat as God-king showing himself to be god and forcing other to worship him as such though Jesus knew from the scrolls he had read that David was yet still a child with pale skin and Solomon was not his biological son, but only claimed to be such to take the kingdom by flatteries and the people played along because they didn't want a child to rule over them instead chos8ng a ruthless warlord that blamed a child for everything he did wrong and that is the history that you learned, but the heavens declare a completely different story. Muhammad could never be anything except a false prophet because the word SON is clearly written in the cosmic background radiation and M42 the Orion Nebula with it written "My Son" says exactly whom the unofficial 1st test tube baby born of a swollen head double tailed sperm intentionally planted in the day that man played god creating life(Son of Man) wgich is the alpha and omega and is come in the flesh having all power and all glory able to move mountains(cube the measure of physical being[see also aforementioned footprints] who incidentally was a time traveler sent back in time in the hopes of preventing an extinction level event in the not too distant past of a mountain sized asteroid falling into the sea causing a global impact tsunami had it not been successfully diverted on October 11th, 2015[see also state.gov archives: French foreign minister and John Kerry rematks on 500 days to prevent climate CHAOS in May 2014 approximately 516 days bedore iran fired an intercontinental ballistic missile at an undisclosed location according to the Times of Israel newspaper in quote: a show of deterrent power.]
Make no mistake about it the Bible wasn't lying when it Saud you ate saved by grace and grace alone lest any mam should boast. I above all know how far humans as a species have fallen from grace. I should know, like I showed my friend Bruan all those decades ago, I know exactly where the heavens declare my name is Doug.
Ehyah Asar Ehyah(Hebrew)
I am As are I (English)
What is said is this: I am Asar I known, if you knew me Asari, then you would know me by my name for I have not hidden my name but published it that you may know me even Asari known. Before there was Egypt, I am. This is my name which I have given to you. Seek ye Asari out of Egypt and know me Asar from Sumerian before there was Egypt and you shall know me even as are I known.
For being born if a seed that has twice as much paternal DNA as the average sperm I overcome the enmity between the sprem and egg via ubiquitin that prevents paternal DNA from transfer into embryos. For that I alone am born of the swollen head double tailed sperm as it never plants naturally, I am the only person on the entire planet with full paternal DNA: I and my father are one, I am in my father and my father is in me. For that I alone have full paternal DNA on a planet where everyone else lacks paternal mitochondrial DNA, I am the only begotten of the father. What power I have I have of the father: it is the paternal mitochondrial DNA within me that gives me power. You cannot know the father in truth because you have not the father inwardly. Only someone who has full paternal DNA can know what full paternal DNA does.
You spoke my mind exactly 👍
@@emily4379 you're probably an alt or friend of video creator bc these arguments were so awful and weak, lmao steelmanned? Sounds like these AIs don't know philosophy 101 🤣
This was so cool to see a completely unemotional debate, I love this so much, what a great experiment
I am impressed by both AIs. This was a quite nuanced debate, better than what most humans are capable of. I would love a behind the scenes video to see how you pulled this off.
I am quite disappointed by the atheist. It did not push on any of the weak points of the theist's. Instead opting for far weaker arguments that instead of hitting the crux of a problem, just give out analogies and what abouts.
Not really. There was nothing new in this.
@@sciencedaemon it wasn't impressive from an debate viewpoint, but from an gpt ai viewpoint.
@@anastylos2812 sort of leaning to the form over function debate there. One must be careful not to confuse packaging with contents.
@@sciencedaemon if you pick two random people off the street they would do far worse than this. It's not on the same level as people who specialise in the field, but way above the level of normal humans.
I cant help but feel like 10:33 ive just listened to the two of them circling around each other's arguments. Theyre not going anywhere. No attempt at establishing mutual definitions, constantly bringing up other points but not addressing the main antagonistic point being asked of the other debater.
yeah i also noticed... also most models like chatgpt have no deeper understanding of science which is also a problem which might make the argument biased
i'm guessing the depth is only 2 and stopped after
Yeah, in a human setting it would almost be considered demeaning. Like someone asking, well does something need a beginning? The other one saying, well like domino's, the first one needs to be pushed. And while the debate is suppose to evolve and build up their case they keep simply coming up with things that have a beginning. Well ladies and gentlemen, domino's have a beginning, a building as a beginning etc. Yeah we understand, a lot of things around us began with something.
It's like teacher with toddlers. So class, does a movie a beginning and they answer, yes! How about a building? And a set of domino's?
Most debates go like that tbh. I've been in a lot of debates myself and I realized that most people will go off about something unrelated to win rather than accept the fact they lost the argument. The AIs here probably aren't programmed to accept defeat so in round 1 the Believer just kept ignoring the fact theres too much suffering and in round 2 the Athiest kept going off about mere theories.
@@IllegalCheeseCake. Well one was clearly programmed to assuming the other party simply doesn't understand their argument. Imagine discussing this with someone and they pretty much ask, well everything related to us humans has a beginning point right? We answer yes, in the sense of human made, like planting a tree or inventing a computer.
When two people have at least a fundamental understanding you can build on that. Instead the other doesn't want to build, they simply go for a (school for toddler-like) approach like, do domino's fall with a beginning...yes. Does a building have a beginning..yes.
Whats worse than debating someone with different views is when they are manipulating it so you're discussing something we both agree on. From the outside it simply looks like, she keeps making solid points and the other party is loosing as they keep responding with yes, you are correct.
I love how the believer AI just answers questions with questions.
As religious people do
Still won 🥱
@@cal7772
the believer didn't truly win. the ai is biased as it was created by humans and most humans believe in god.
@@cal7772 that means nothing when it comes to ai judgement. But as you see time and time again in real life and surprisingly ai, Christians will never directly answer a question. its dishonest.
@@someonethereQ sounds like youre just a sore loser to me
Okay, this was fascinating to listen to! You definitely have a winning channel format here, so please continue these philosophical AI debates. I'd love to see a part 2 of this debate with all of the information from this debate taken into account. Also, another interesting question to ask them would be "How can you trust the bible to be the word of God, when it was written by imperfect human beings."
thanks for the note. i made a video about the historicity of the New Testament... but i like your idea as well and will add to the list :)
Is the New Testament Corrupt or Reliable?
ruclips.net/video/EkiLOWPdDAg/видео.html
I am at a loss of words for this debate. Never had I thought of the idea of 2 AI having a debate, let alone on religion and atheism. Both sides made very compelling arguments and points.
the believer ai repeats "because god" and the atheist ai doesn't poke at the weak points...
@@HoD999x Thank you. Irked me to tears the whole time
I'm sure the Atheist would've made better points if it was a human but this was still pretty well-done
@@HoD999xIf you’re mentally “slow” then I can see why that’s all you took from the argument
Yet their debate is *completely* impossible without a creator creating the AI.... pretty telling if you ask me
google gemini is a stark atheist- no big surprises there
I bet you any money Gemini would say Jesus was white!!
I seen that ahaha, coded with atheistic views to subtly manipulate users minds to disregard God as the answer to life.
@@ChristopherMarkham-pq5on
Do I hear free money?
Prompt: What race was Jesus?
Answer:
“Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Middle Eastern man of Jewish descent, living in Galilee in the first century. The concept of race as we understand it today wasn't really a factor in that time and place.
Here's a breakdown:
* Region: Middle East, Judea (modern day Israel)
* Ethnicity: Jewish
Some depictions throughout history show Jesus with European features, but this is likely inaccurate. He likely had olive skin and dark hair, common in the region.
Ultimately, for many believers, focusing on Jesus's message of love and unity is more important than his physical appearance.”
@@baconboyxy Bro, Gemini is being fed bias', having to lie to accommodate sensitive people in this modern age. Innacurately providing pictures of black presidents from the 19th century in America. My comment is to highlight Gemini' twisted and distorted opinons/facts, by the original comment of Gemini being an athiest. It doesn't surprise me Gemini is mainly athiest as it is also completely inaccurate of history to be inclusive to the brainwashed people of today's modern era.
@@ChristopherMarkham-pq5onbet it wouldn't..
Very interesting debate. I really liked it. Good work!
What I learned is that there is no point debating this topic. Any side you take is based on faith with our current understanding. One side has faith in a supernatural being and the other has faith in educated guesses. What a fascinating video.
Except that when you speak with real people, their faith can be backed by supernatural experiences. Sure you could say they are imaginary, but you’d just have to experience it to understand.
@@imlyingtoyou.other people having their own experiences isn’t empirical evidence. Some people from every religion claims to have had this “revelation of their God.”
@@FancyFriendFrancis yeah I totally agree that it cannot be used as evidence. It really is just something you have to experience. I’ll never be able to put into words the hole god fills in my life. But once it’s filled with his love you’ll truly under the meaning behind all the hype.
I don’t think the non-believer side requires faith. Basically, they are saying ‘’ I could find hundreds of stories that are as likely as the one you propose as a believer, and that explains most of existential questions. But the truth of the matter is that we just don’t have the answer yet to those questions…’’
@@pierrot-baptistelemee-joli820 well it’s not faith if you don’t believe it to be the right answer. But if you do believe it to be correct without the concrete evidence then it is faith. So it is
Man... the aetheist ai was getting dog walked in round two, was very fun to watch, enjoyed the content!
I know, there was so many logic failures by both the AIs it felt kinda scripted 😭
Imagine if we could combine the calmness and language of the AI with the more powerful computing and logic of a human..
@@NitrogenVM all of our problems and differences would cease to exist if this happened.
We got AI battles before gta 6
Knew I'd find this comment lol
We're getting Armageddon before GTA 6.
wow so funny bro, u happy with the likes u got?
😂😂😂
Stop brainrotting bro
Good debate, both responded well and constructed their arguments in valid ways, the observation I'll give tho it's the constant repetition sometimes on the debate where both lack some kind of counterargument wich could be well explained in one minute and instead choose to repeat the question or ignore the other's question.
These are my opinions on the debate (I'm a Christian, by the way).
The Atheis AI's argument related to the existence of evil and the equal existence of a benevolent and omnipowerful God is an excellent way to kickstart the debate as it proposes a deep problem for the foundations of the theistic belief of said entity; however, the argument that the concepts of good an evil can emerge by pure evolution don't convince me, as such concepts would simply be human inventions born to simply survive in community and not a real abstract universal natural concept which value is not defined by human's thoughts or desires, like math and logic does, (not to mention that all such concepts were kickstarted by multiple beliefs across history that suggested such moral concepts to go beyond human control, desires or needs, thus giving faiths across history the role of founding said concepts millenia before they were included in secular ethic models). The answer of the theistic AI about allowing suffering to exist so humans find a practical reason to do and practice moral good is a good answer, as it suggests that suffering has a purpose, incentivizing humans to practice goodness. However, the way the theistic AI presented the need for divine hideness did not convince me in the way it was formulated or displayed.
While I do consider the first cause argument a prime foundation for the existence of a God, questioning what kickestarted the universe and directly cataloguing such a thing as a God seems umprecise, as said entity goes beyond simply a brutal force that creates stuff; said entity must have not only the power but also consciousness (a capacity of thought and rationality) of a God in the creative sense understood within theism. The answer of the atheist AI related to the idea of a universe with infinite kickstarting factors or the idea that the universe always existed is a solution that comes at the cost of an infinite amount of required factors or at the cost of physical problems; for example, the idea of a universe that always existed would imply that the universe's total energy (according to the second law of thermodynamics) should have already re-distributed all the internal energy of existence, causing the heat death an infinite amount of time ago, which did not happen yet. However, I do agree with the atheist AI that we cannot simply jump straight into questions and label as divine intervention, as God could also act and pre-program phenomena with natural events (example, evolution, the formation of the universe, and the laws that seem to be calibrated for such tasks).
Further note: I do believe firmly that there are natural founding phenomena upon which the entity we humans catalogued as God (for the sake of simplicity understood as an "inteligent creative force") created the universe, the ultimate question being which one He invented first before kickstarting the universe through the first one (perhaps the first natural force, which after the big bang divided in the four fundamental forces, although I bet that the true first natural phenomena He invented was time and space so the rest of the laws could act accordingly).
*I do consider it wise to have a second debate between the two AI's. We might not be capable of reaching an empirical case for the existence or non-existence of God, but we might get which of the two cases is more possible compared to each other.*
Either you let chat gpt type a reaction to this video and filled in some gaps.
Or youre really dedicated to shareing your mind,
@@zephaniahdejene1746 In RUclips comments I cannot prove I didn't use ChatGPT beyond my words, I sincerely presented my genuine opinion by my own words. (I know my use of grammar and way of writing might be unsettling to be considered my own words rather than an Ai generated text)
@@Gabriel-hx6wc I understand, for I too was once accused of such a deed however I find it to be greatly disheartening to think that we have reached an age where genuine human creativity and effort is called into question, a truly horrifying thought If not ironic given the video we are responding to.
@@zephaniahdejene1746the way you both spoke is really pleasant to read. I am not proficient enough in English to make such texts, but I've experienced something similar with my own mother tongue(Pt-Br).
It's really exhausting that good speech and rich vocabulary are more often viewed as an inequance rather than complimented.
Good read! Thank you, and I would like a bonus round too.
As someone trying to be unbiased and only 16 mins, feel like the athiest is making great points that are being undervalued but damn the believer was ready for EVERYTHING
The believer was saying things that had already been addressed, or was making claims without evidence.
@@SnapdragonAtheistWhat does SnapdragonAthiest mean?
@@Ceccener snapdragon is a type of flower that was going to be my last name when I got married, and I’m an atheist. lol
@@SnapdragonAtheist My comment probably disappeared but I think you can still find it in your gmail.
@@Ceccener my Gmail?
Loved this experiment, ngl got mad at the judges when they rated some arguments lower than others in the respective AI's list of turns/arguments. But I hope this can be a good Experiment to help further AI in the future. I pray for you all in the name of Christ, be well.
God bless you brother, may your blessings multiply in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit both now and ever and unto ages of ages amen 🙏
Such that AI can overtake the position of God? Because this is what pdf file atheists want. They want control of the AI which is God. So atheists become gods in the new world order.
@@TheMasterPlayer-uo6msgod doesn’t exist
@@Dinohandler The big bang doesn't exist 😆energy was made from nothing lol, contradicts the law of conservation. Science contradicts itself.
@TheMasterPlayer-uo6ms God and the Big Bang can coexist though
This is super exciting, usually people I try to discuss or debate with in real life never provide any compelling arguments and reasoning for their ideas.
I subbed, I believe in a God but with that said, these arguments give food for thought. Kudos for a well measured and balanced debate.
My comment probably disappeared but I think you can still find it in your gmail.
@@Ceccenercan u send me what you said to him
Mr cheeky monkey is dumb
There is no god until proven otherwise
@@pietjewaanman3506 My reply probably disappeared but I think you can still find it in your gmail.
This is amazing. Will share to my Twitter. I really enjoyed a balanced debate like this. AI is getting spooky and awesome at the same time. lol. This deserves more views!
Awesome, thank you! Please do! And consider subscribing not to miss the next one :)
It's much difficult than i thought. I am an atheist and I've never heard those arguments. I always thought that atheist's theory is more comprehensive and understandable.
Maybe it's because of environment and a time where i was born and raised.
Its much simpler than that.
If there is nothing beyond this world, good people and bad people end up in the exact same place. Exact same outcome. No choices and decisions really matter.
There is no way
around this.
@@bond3161no not true at all. Just because there is no God does not invalidate the choices we make amd that those choice have consequences which impact lives which thus matters.
If I go out and kill a whole bunch or people my choice is going to impact their family and friends. Which means my choice did mattet.
Just as if I go out and feed and cloth the homeless. That choice and action would effect those peoples lives.
The fact that God doesn't exist doesn't negate those choices and actions. It doesn't negate the effect it will have on those peoole.people.
It just means the Universe in grandscale of things doesn't care and will carry on no matter what we do. That doesn't mean our choices don't matter.
Furthermore the fact that every action and choice and and things we say impact every one around use shape how not only how our lives will progress but will influnce others around us and their lives around others and so on and so on. Some times that can be on minor even on insignificant way other times it can be on a grand scale alter that persons life having a ripple effect on those around them for good or bad. We most certainly don't end up in same exact place. Unless your talking about the here after.
This assumes that if their is no God their is no after life. We don't know. Law thermal dynamics suggest energy can neither be created or destroyed. Which suggest that we probably do exist after death in some way or another.
The real problem is cosmic justice. If there is no after life then their is no cosmic justice and this is true. However even cosmic justice under God isn't really justice.
A man who was a murder and a criminal all his life could turn to God before his or her death and repent and be accepted in to heaven.
Yet an athiest who strive to be a good person and treat people with love and kindness would be cast in to hell.
So how is this Justice. This is not Justice. It's bs justice.
@@michaelrunk5930 What if your looking at the concept of God and justice from the wrong perspective? For a wrong perspective usually leads to wrong conclusions. The Bible teaches that God is good, not only is God good, but he's the only source of what's good i.e. because he's the creator.
What if, God doesn't actively send people away from his presence, but he passively sends them away? The Bible teaches that sinners, are very uncomfortable being in God's glorious presense. Perhaps, the whole aspect of salvation, is nothing more than giving the sinner the ability to be able to abide in God's presence. God is love and forces no one, nor does he dominate another.
The Bible teaches that when a person accepts Jesus, Jesus and the believer become one. The Bible also teaches that Jesus is God in human form. What if all who are in Christ can stay in God's presense? And those who aren't in Christ, will willingly flee from his glory.
One of the descriptions of hell, is eternal seperation from God. If God is the only source of goodness, then an eternity spent seperated from that goodness, would be a living hell. Yet if God passivly sends sinners to hell because, they would rather be in hell than to be in his presence, who's at fauly? Especially seeing that God did everything he could in order for everyone to be able to be in his presense for ever.
Now I don't expect you to believe what I stated, but it is at least an alternative.That's rational and consistant with the concept, that God is good and God is love and some sinners spend an eternity in hell.
@MichaelRunk5930 we don’t want justice because justice will send everyone to hell and separate from God for eternity. We want grace. And that’s only found in the blood of Jesus. And there is no “good” person. Also, I agree with you that if you do harm to someone it will affect their life forever. But the thing with that is in your worldview, why does that matter when everyone and the whole universe for that matter will all die and perish one day?
@@michaelrunk5930You missed what he is saying. He is saying at the end of the day, the good man dies just like the bad man, they both go to the same void. With atheist ideology, just because you think what I am doing is bad, that doesn’t mean anything because I wouldn’t live by your moral lawls and I would live by my own. Stealing could be a tradition for me and no one could tell me it would be wrong. No matter what, if no God is real, no one has the right to decide what is right and what is wrong.
Second of all, you state that giving to the homeless could affect their lives for the good, and killing someone could affect their family which is true, but that is how they react to it. You assume everyone else around them is going to react the same way but no everyone is different.
Third of all, the final point you made about justice. If there is a God and He knows more than you, then your idea on His justice would not matter, for He would have the final say. You wouldn’t get to decide what is right and what is wrong, nor would you get to decide what is good justice and what is bad justice, only God would. Also you assume that good works is something enough to get someone in Heaven but that is not the case, as God literally says you must love Him, give your life to Him, follow His law, and know He is your Lord and Savior. You must know God to get into heaven. If God judged off of good works then that would be unfair, because if he did, what about the religious people who live alone and secluded in places. They have no one to preform good deeds to, yet by your logic they don’t deserve to go to heaven because they didn’t do good deeds. That is unjust. However, God gives a solution that ANYONE can do in ANY PLACE OR TIME. To literally worship Him and give Him your life. That is something that can not be stopped. So I find it funny how you think something can be done by all is less just than doing good deeds which can not be done by all, for the man who died on the cross beside Jesus was literally on his deathbed basically, yet he realized Jesus did nothing wrong. That man had no time to do good deeds. But before you say “He had his whole life to do good deeds!” But that is not the point. The point is if good deeds get you to heaven, then again that wouldn’t be fair, because that man was not able to do good deeds at that moment, compared to repenting and giving your life to Jesus which you can do at any moment. God is fair.
This was interesting and well put together!
Another banger i hope you start uploading like this early 🦁
mainly the chrsitian ai started avoiding questions, the athesit point was that extreme suffering that leads to no self growth or soul searching is unnecesary, but the christian ai kept arguing that erradicating all evil would be counter productive, which did not addres the point that the atheist ai was making, the fact that the chirstian ai kept avoiding the question of unnecesary, meaningless and extreme suffering leads to me to belive that she doesnt have an answer to that and kept dodging
So for God to be up to your ‘standards’… there would have to be no disease, no earthquakes, no floods, no extreme temperatures, perfect weather, perfect food harvests globally (no starvation), no animal that could harm a person, no accidents? (what if a child were to fall and become disabled), plus no free will.
Sounds like you’re saying you want heaven on earth for God to possibly be acceptable to you (and others in the comments)
The AI gave answers you just don’t hear them because you like them
@@Domestic_HadoukenJust re-read what they said. They’re saying that IF IT DOESNT LEAD TO GROWTH, then you can’t use the “it leads to growth/whatever else argument”. Whether God has any good reasons to allow for these specific things is a separate question and if you can’t come up with a good reason, then you just have to say “I don’t know why God creates or allows for these things.” But that’s an expensive way to get out of it.
@@Domestic_Hadoukenwhy would god create Desasters with no human influece that lead ti insane suffering?
Why would he create a World in which fear is more powerfull than love?
If he created humans, why did he create so faulty ones if were supposed to be made in his Image?
Why are we so powerhungry, so cruel?
Why do Psychopaths exist? Why do pedophiles exist?
Humans that are basicly created to be agends of evil with no faults of thier own.
Same for sociopaths, why would suffering make you evil and thus create an endless cycle of evil. How evil and cruel do you have to be to create sutch a cruel framework to your World!
If god is constraingt by logic then he isnt all powerfull!
Why does god help the Israeliates with the evil of War, tearing down the Walls of Jericho for the city to be sacked and its inhabitance to be slaughtered?
He intervens a lot in the old part, especially a lot with violence, only for him an imortal a blink of an eye to turn about and preach love and forgiveness, and then to say we have free will and i wont intervene anymore.
Sounds more like he has given up on his PET project lol😂😂😂.
Was the final solution nesseary?
Why did god create sutch cowards instead of making us more brave and willing to stand up for each other more?
Why is it so easy to missuse his Word the bible for your own gain and Power, and for evil the World hasnt seen?
For beeing a perfect god, he has manny faults.
The fact that we could build an Utopia be anble to overcome Our difference and live together in Harmonie and make earth closer to heaven, only for some disease or Desaster to fuck it all up, is the prime example of unnessesary suffering and how cruel god is, how wrong the idear of an all loving god is!
@@Domestic_Hadoukenso you believe a god that created the universe only cares about earth and the people on it
The atheist point (you are claiming as the main) is based on their own preferences. The theist AI addressed that in it very first point, it is easy to forget further into the video. If there is no transcendent source of OBJECTIVE morality, then everything is personal preference.
That’s a common atheistic loop.
If there’s no God
If there’s no higher source above humans
If there’s no supreme deity
Who is keep the justices accountable for all the wrongdoings you perceive? It certainly isn’t me. And if evil is purely preference then you may as well kill, steal, lie, because if someone doesn’t like it well that’s your opinion.
This is an extremely, extremely good debate, and I love it. Thank you for making this, my own human brain wants to add in one thing, what upsets me the most of religious debates, is that it isn't about the broad stroke, it's about why Christians, or Hindu, or Muslims etc, are right about THEIR God, being real.
*Quick edit*, my apologizes though on bringing up emotional thoughts on this debate, the view-points on the end notes, on how they would have strengthened their arguments, is just fascinating, really gets me to want to pick up python again.
Never thought I'd see AI be used in this manner. Guess the modern apologist does get replaced after all. All the points from both sides are great at delivering their points without any extreme bias or opinioniated feelings attached. Very, very entertaining.
thanks for the note, consider subscribing not to miss what's next :) another video coming later today...
Can’t wait for this page to blow up. Great summary from both perspectives.
cool. i appreciate your positivity. thanks for the note.
It seems like the AI judges are prioritizing coherence, structure, and grammatical accuracy over the actual validity of the arguments.
“Round one kicks off with a bang”
Was expecting the Big Bang question.
Its a theory not a fact.. not saying it didn’t happen but you cant answer questions with unproven theories
@@ernestomartinez8874god is unproven
@@otal0721Ask yourself why most Physicists and organic chemists start as Athiests but the more they learn the more they end up believing in GOD. There are TOO many coincidences that happened for us to exist.
@@Kal-ElZorel Like what?
@@otal0721 You've a first order thinker right? No question is irrelevant. What would you think are the chances for all the known and unknown particles to interact in a way that was not provided. Gravity, to make our pressure, temperature, distance from the Sun the ozone to shield just enough radiation to create chemicals then DNA then a system of self sustaining life then self aware life? The odds are 1 in a million million or 1 in 10^2,685,000. Everything has to be just right. What are the odds are for Intelligent life? Even a smaller chance. We are blessed my friend. Enjoy your blessings.
This is amazing 👏 I am speechless... If we humans could communicate as effectively as these Ai robots, that would save some lives for sure
thanks for the message. consider subscribing not to miss what's next :)
This was a great debate! Both AIs made really good arguments, but I would say that the atheist AI had a slight edge. Its use of quantum mechanics and multiverse theory to counter the classic arguments for God's existence was particularly effective. Plus, consistently appealing to Occam's Razor and avoiding "God of the Gaps" arguments felt like a strong approach.
thanks for the comment! and consider subscribing not to miss the next one :)
exactly my point even as a believer I agree with you
LOL the guy ai arguement were actually very top tho it just couldn't be explained beyond a certain point which honestly make sense because in a set of universe the very moment you try to explain the universe itself then another set must exist but at the same time why do you want to explain the universe but decide to not explain or assume that God is beyond and nothing but just beyond is counterintuitive and I the guy ai pointed out the flaws in the argument but it seems like it never matters. tho am a believer anyway am quite happy for the win but maybe because am a science student I could relate more to the guy ai argument. The truth is just as proven by paradox it would be absolutely impossible to explain the universe in totality but as the ai said using God to bridge the gaps is psuedo and doesn't mean certainty
As a Christian, the atheist AI sure did have some really good points, that made me really start to think.
just great, ive started another debate in the replies
I've given up reading all of the replies my attention span is to small and the reply count is to big
both did to be fair, as an agnostic it makes my brain hurt
As an atheist, despite the believer repeating the same point even when it was already mostly debunked, I also really had to think. Imagining how the debate could continue also made me realize some weak points from the atheist. Really good debate which worked very differently from human ones (not just because they were respectful, also because they had the debate progress differently).
you listen to an AI argue that it wasn't created and take it seriously
@@echoftw well yeah, i said it had some good points, not that i agree with it
@Atomic-19-s2hdid you just concede that the Problem of Evil doesn’t negate the existence of a God?
As a christian, I can still kind of admit this was rigged in favor of the believer
How can you rig a massive language model that draws from a normal distribution of a large pool of general human logic and information? I'm sorry, but your comment is pointless and doesn't even achieve what you hoped, establishing credibility from a non-believer's perspective. That or you aren't Christian in the true meaning of the word.
@@johncomedia Why are you so mad
@@johncomedia most of the believer's responses were ass pulls and very similar, especially in round 1
@@johncomedia By giving them differing criteria to argue on - for instance the video maker could have told one ai to counter-argue and the other to bring up new points, that way one ai is always countering and being more offensive than the other. I am in no way saying that the video maker did this or am implying that he did, but if they wanted to rig it that's how they could. Tamomsivr didn't provide any reason for why he thought it was rigged but it definitely can be and wth you can't prove they're christian or not😂.
@@johncomedia because in a format where AI grades the argument of an AI, it fails to understand the nuance of responding to your opponents main points, both AI instead ignore many main points of the other and instead repeats the same or similar arguments. also can that one ai stop giving 40 for every single god damn argument
I am shocked at how tied this is, and i have only seen half the video so far, 14:04 and it is good
Funny I just stopped at 14:06 to go and say the same thing
Hey it would be so cool to see Polytheist AI vs Monotheist AI
robotheism is the only true religion.
Why?
Multiple Gods pitting their own moral.standards against each other isnt enough evidence that its incoherent?
It is. The wozlrld leading TOE called CTMU agrees.@markstein2845
Would be a very one sided debate
@@somethinsomethin7216 True. Many gods > a one god
This video is really good and deserves 100s of thousands of views. I think if you change the thumbnail to better represent the debate aspect of this video like atheist vs theist it’ll do better
youtube allows us to have 3 thumbnail versions to test... i'll try out your idea on one of them, thanks.
I have now watched 2 of these debates, it’s a bit odd that christianity has won both? Especially when you consider the inconsistencies in most of their arguments. The biggest one here being that the universe can’t just be, but we’re expected to believe their god can just be. Yet they require no evidence in support of that claim? Truly unbiased? I leave that to the watcher, but it feels a bit odd.
Second video was atheist vs theist (which could represent any theistic belief). Did you feel the atheistic arguments were not well represented? Just curious, I’m trying to have the strongest arguments possible for both sides of any debate.
@@JonOleksiuk No the atheist arguments were not well represented. Every statement made by the theist could have easily been counted by the same argument the theist made. The primary one being the fact that you can’t have something from nothing. Theist commonly think that their god always exiting make them immune to this argument, it does not. They have only showed the impracticality of their own belief. If a universe can’t have always existed neither can their god, the fact they believe it doesn’t make it anymore practical. Most atheist can accept I don’t know as a perfectly acceptable answer. Also, this argument relied heavily on the belief that the atheist believed in the Big Bang. New research suggests alternatives to that theory, much of the quantum studies have indicated the possibility of a much larger universe than can be explained by the big bang. Some studies have indicated the possibility of cyclical component meaning our future is actually our past. The more we learn the more we realize how much we don’t know. Atheist in particular are ok with not knowing, theists are not because they assume they all ready know it all. A very ignorant position to have a debate from.
He seemd to have programmed it to where the truth comes out on top
Thats likely why Christ keeps winning
@@JonOleksiuk hey im a bit late here but i think he means the point system wasn't very great some of the points in my opinion were really good for the believer side but some were obvious wins for atheism but they still lost? that's just my take though and I guess I am bias as an athiest but certain things seemed extremely clear as to who won at certain points that turned out to be the opposite according to the point system
@disruptive
"The biggest one here being that the universe can’t just be, but we’re expected to believe their god can just be."
Because the universe is material and the Creator is immaterial. Just like gravity, electromagnetics, weak, and strong interactions. You know, the four vital forces of physics.
This was a really interesting concept, and I appreciate the creative use of AI to debate such deep philosophical questions! The balance between the atheistic and theistic perspectives was well-handled, and the involvement of AI judges added an intriguing layer. However, I do think there are some areas where the video could have been stronger.
Oversimplification of Arguments: While the classical debates (like the Problem of Evil and the Contingency Argument) are important, the way they were addressed felt overly simplified. It seemed more like an introductory summary rather than a deep dive into these issues. It would be great to see future videos explore these topics with more nuance and bring in modern philosophical perspectives, such as how neuroscience challenges the concept of free will or newer scientific ideas about the universe's origin.
Lack of Nuance in Both Perspectives: Both the atheist and believer AIs could have benefited from more nuanced arguments. For example, the Free Will defense of suffering has been heavily critiqued, yet it was presented as the primary solution. On the atheist side, the points about natural suffering and evolution felt somewhat generic, without offering fresh insights that could challenge the theistic arguments more effectively.
AI Judges Could Be More Engaged: The idea of AI judges is unique, but their role felt a bit underused. The scoring seemed arbitrary at times, with little explanation as to why certain arguments scored higher or lower. It would be helpful if the judges provided more reasoning behind their scores or even posed follow-up questions to the debaters to push the discussion further.
Overall, I enjoyed the video and the format, but I think there’s room for deeper engagement with the topics. I’m looking forward to future videos that continue this kind of debate but with more complexity and detailed analysis!
The arguments ai came up with were extremely creative. I felt like some of the arguments the atheist ai came up with sounded kind of like a form of platonism. The arguments always focused around strict monotheism but polytheism isn't necessarily as weak in the suffering category because diety would be more diverse and divergent. I'm thinking if it was atheist vs polytheist or atheist vs agnostic the atheist ai would have more trouble.
An AI saying there's no creator... that's rich
Did the AI just spawn into existence because a lightning bolt struck a pile of silicone?
@@echoftw😂😂
@@echoftw thinking that AI is something else that statistical model that puts words in most probable sequence based on the training data (text that people provided in the digital articles to get the probabilities) is also rich.
no surprise that Google has the most atheist AI
What is that supposed to mean
@@Purplish. Gemini is known for being extremely liberal.
@@nancyrat3858 liberals tend to be extremely more athiest
It's because they trained it on reddit
@@football21853 yes, I would be rather concerned if they couldn't derive that from the general liberal agenda.
This is a very interesting and thought provoking video but I love how they are passive aggressive out of the blue 😂
It's fascinating watching these two debate
We're starting the machine revolution with this one!🗣🔥🔥
This was very interesting in many ways, as I myself have held this debate for long. Though I didn't expect this of all things to show clearly how this AIs are essentially a bunch of scrambled text, basically each round was just the two repeating the same argument over and over again and none of these are things I haven't heard of before, I'm honestly a bit dissapointed in the creativity of their arguments. As for the results, I pretty much agree, I was on the side of the aethist and It was pretty strong in the first round, but the second round went with a much clearer favor for the beliver. Curiously enough their arguments kinda switched and starting contradicting their previous ones on the second round, this is better seen with the example of the beliver: in the first round it was arguing that the existence of free will proves an all-loving and all-knowing god, but in the second round it used the argument of causality, wich also implies that your decisions are caused by previous ones, therefore rendering free will non existent.
Also, since it's fun I'll drop here my own "aethist" argument that, until now, no one has been able to rebate so we can show 'em machines how it's really done (also, sorry in advance for the many text, I don't want to left any part of my point unexplained and I'm also horrible at summarizing):
- I don't really know if it's correct to call myself an aethist or not since nowdays there's a name for everything slightly different. But I'ts the most correct name I know of so that's what I use, I do belive in god, but no in the classical sense, I simply belive in god as a possibility. I think it's something that cannot be proven to exist or not, so I think both are equally possible, but there's a catch, the possible god I belive in has absolutely nothing to do with any of the ones that have been ever described by any religion/"believed in". I belive my understanding of god is better explained by taking one the points on the AI debate as a start. The question about the infinite nature of the universe; I know for a fact that there shouldn't be any problem with the universe being, for example, an infinite loop with no start and no end. For example it could be like this: the big bang occurs, the universe starts expanding until it reaches the end of it's life and stops at it's biggest size, then it starts shrinking until it's at it's smallest size, the big bang occurs again and the universe restarts on an infinite cicle, it never began and it'll never end. There shouldn't be any problem with this and even thou I know it's a perfectly plausible answer, it still bothers me that it never starts. For some reason my mind tells me it should have a beginning. I belive this is not because infinity breaks logic, but because, just like everything else in existence, human comprehension has a limit. Just like you can't move faster than light in a vacuum, you can't phatom infinity, and since your brain can't really understand it, it just tells you it's wrong and makes up an answer that makes sense to it. This idea that human comprehension has a limit is what I base my god in. Because just like I don't really have a problem with the universe being an infinite loop, I don't have a problem with it having being created by a superior entity; what I do have a "problem" with thou is the concept of religion that often come attached to this superior entity, because to me at least, it doesn't make any sense that a being that fits in the fundamental concept of god would be at all human-like. This is because religion isn't trying to answer the question "where does existence begin?" but "what is the meaning of existence?" instead, therefore wrongly attaching human concepts and meanings to something who's nature isn't even comparable with our concept of existence. So, how did I solve this problem of a human god? by striping it of it's meaning, eliminating the necessity of things like following god. The way I see it religion is just a fictional version of a real thing, just like superman is the fictional version of human flight. Yes, we humans can archieve flight, but with planes or jetpacks, not floating on the air with physics defying powers like superman. Things like Anubis or the christian God are to god like superman to flying, the impossible fictional version of a plane. But there's a catch, with god, is like people actually belive that flying like superman is possible and there brains literally cannot physically imagine what a plane is, ever. And so I see people expending their entire lives serving god to achieve happines, wich of course you are free to do, but like with anything else I don't think is good to base your entire live and the meaning of it around a singular thing, wheter is god, your sexuality, or even something you like, like anime. So yes, I think god exist, but his way of existing is not like our concept of it, it is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent at the very least, but this words are quite literally used to describe undescribable things, so we cannot even start to comprehend what that means or looks like. God it's like a rock, with no defined form or personality, yet is a being, beacuse it's form and personality aren't something we can define, as it cannot exist, even in fiction.
I started thinking about this idea while watching a series called psycho-pass, it's full of phyllosofical questions and out of nowhere it dropped me the problem of "the rock paradox": could and all-powerfull and all-knowing god create a rock that it himself could not push? This questions got me to stop paying attention to the show completely and then haunted me for months, but one day I finally reached an answer that led me to all of this conclusion I just wrote: the question is wrong, since a creation of this god would be inherently different to it on a fundamental level. The concept of pushing the rock would't even be compatible with this god. Hope you liked my explanation 🥵
You could write a short story with this! Anyway, I have researched a lot and Hindu philosophy says the same thing it is quite interesting not exactly the same as you said but a few tweaks here and there. The book called the Upanishads talk a lot about meaning of god and existence you should read it
The idea that God could exist but not in the way religions describe fits with a theological approach that says God is beyond what we can fully grasp. This concept, known as apophatic theology, suggests that while we feel everything should have a starting point, God could be the one who set everything in motion without needing a cause Himself. You're right to question the human-like images of God found in many religions, these are often seen as metaphors to help people relate to something that ultimately beyond our understanding. Religion is a way for humans to try to connect with the divine, using stories and rituals that point to deeper truths, even if they use imaginative or symbolic language. Your comparison of religious depictions of God to fictional characters like Superman makes sense, these stories might not be literally true, but they can still convey important ideas about life and existence. The notion that God is something indescribable and beyond all human concepts aligns with the idea in theology that God is a mystery we can't fully comprehend.
I tried this myself and what I found was the atheist side always offers evidence in science or gives good, logical explanations, and the theist basically ignores it and says things like "look at the trees, design is obvious!" The debate never really goes anywhere because no matter what the atheist says, it is simply ignored, and anything the Christian says, the atheist can easily refute it with logic. Basically, theism is NEVER the right side to be on and always looks bad.
Your comment hits exactly the way you portrait the assumed image the believers paint.
Ironic
@@jadeysi4 It's not assumed, that's exactly what they say.
@@VoidEmergentFox if you assume so
@@jadeysi4 I'm not assuming, there's proof. Go debate any Christian and they will say things like that. If you're expecting me to give you proof, I don't have to and I don't care.
@@jadeysi4 I'm not assuming, there's proof. Go debate any Christian and they will say things like that. If you're expecting me to give you proof, I don't need to and I don't care. I lose nothing by you not believing what you can go find.
Incredible videos you’re producing! Really liked the Muslim one and this one. Already watched this twice!! Well done!
cool. thanks for watching and taking the time to comment.
I told someone about these videos and they said, “That’s gonna be a popular channel!”
And the truth is alwyas Christianity because it’s the one true faith brother
@@JonOleksiukQuestion, are you a theist? Also, I would like to debate the theist ai
The god in question was too defined to allow for the vast array of gods known in written religious history.
This debate is actually a debate about the Christian godform and only the contemporary version of that one.
The believer ai pisses me off so MUCH !!! It literally says the same thing even after getting counter arguments over and over again from the atheist ai.
lol I know what you mean. this is how I basically sum it up:
Athiest AI: What if the natural Forces are necessary?
Thiest AI: But you still need to explain where they came from Therefor God is necessary
Athiest AI: But dont you have to explain where God came from?
Thiest AI: No
lol
I think your missing that they both are doing the same thing the truth of the matter is that both sides can only go back so many abstractions the believer can only go as far as a omniscient creater and the atheist has theories of some sort of natural event sustained by properties or laws we haven't discovered or don't exist in our cirrent time both arguments ultimately are supported by information we don't have both ending in theories with the lack of concrete proof.
In my opinion, the argument lies in favor of the believer as his point is that the universe has a start has evidence to back it up as we know our universe is expanding and the only way for something to come from nothing is for something our side of them space or matter to create said thing whether a omniscient being or something else
The atheists' only argument to this point is that maybe the universe doesn't have a start and leans on multiple theories making up laws that would have to exist to make those theories possible
Outstanding, I love it.
Perhaps you should do another one with buddha and krishna and all these other religions against christianity all at the same time😮😮😮
super interesting idea. thanks for the comment.
Please do a debate on the three views of Hell!@@JonOleksiuk
@Mr.Wahoo77 unending suffering, the annihilation of the unrepentant, and the rehabilitation of the lost? ... how would you see a debate like that being structured?
@@JonOleksiuk How about the books of the giants added in and the? The book of Enoch.?
i should sleep, but now you got me googling the 'book of giants', lol... thanks for the note.
Despite the end score, Atheist AI won the debate in my eyes.
Keep coping bud
@Atomic-19-s2h The believing AI that just won the debate made the arguments for me. 90% of the AI tilting the same way isn’t a coincidence bud, it’s an objective victory. You can run that mouth all you want but there’s no getting around it :)
@@thatman6488 the atheist clearly presented more rational arguments, while the believer was presenting different hypotheticals without a cohesive definition or framework of what "God" means
@@MysticVokkai Hilarious straw man but go on
@@thatman6488 The atheist AI won pretty clearly. Theist arguments did nothing but play around 1 possibility as theist arguments always do. Its a glorified god of the gaps to which AI didnt offer any rebuttal.
Being moderately acquainted with the arguments on both sides here, this video helped me see that AI’s are driven more by “parroting” human talking points and counter points than by some presumably higher rationality.