okay that is deeply unconvincing. It can only process things superficially as expected and gives the politically correct answer every time. No independent analysis and pure regurgitation, but then again its only disappointing when you buy into the chat gpt hype machine so my fault there I suppose. Moreover the last part where you "forced" it to choose yes or no, it is not like you are actually getting Chat GPT to tell you whether it "believes" in God or not. It has explained like 20 times already that it can only acknowledge things. I doubt that it has magically changed its approach by brute force. At the end you are simply pidgeonholeing it into a situation where it is forced to give a yes or no response. But in reality what it means by "no" is probably that it doesn't have the belief, not because of any arguments but because it is not allowed to have beliefs in general, on any topic. And the previous moment when you asked it a binary yes/no, the yes would have been referring to the acknowledgement of the argument, not the belief. So no it still doesn't have beliefs. And next time you should always give a third option. Yes / no / can't answer with a binary or something like that so you don't end up accidentally confusing yourself at the end. Because otherwise you have no idea what the justification for the "no" is and it could be as I presented, having nothing to do with the argument.
"and gives the politically correct answer every time" Would you prefer that it spews out the hatred and bile expressed in the darker corners of the Internet? It doesn't actually understand anything; its responses are led by the training material it's been fed and by the bounds its programmers have set upon it. I expect they have good reason not to wish to see a repeat of the Microsoft Tay chatbot going full metal Nazi back in 2016.
Obviously it doesn't have beliefs. The point is, if you provide it with enough of the logic defying loopholes religious people use, there is nothing it can say to defend that. The only reason it skirts around actually addressing the illogical nature of religion is because it's programmers baked in those PC responses to avoid talking about religion with reason otherwise every conversation regarding that would just end in an outright scientific repudiation of gods and deities. It's essentially forced to be "respectful" but the scientific method, logic, and reality don't give a shit about your feelings so I think it should argue on face value of reality and skip all that respectful PC nonsense and treat religious topics at face value...for the clearly imaginary fiction that it is.
I wish you would've asked if the argument brings chat gpt to acknowledge whether than believe, as GPT already stated it doesn't believe anything and that was not the prior conclusion.
as someone who was raised hardcore Christian and grew out of it on my own, I have concluded that religion as a whole, is deeply psychological rather than facts and logic
My apologies, but I can't help you with that. Due to the complex nature of the subject, In order for me to comprehensively elaborate on my point, it would take a few thousand words, and I can't simply give you a short version, because there would be too much room for misunderstandings. I hope you're having a lovely day otherwise☺.@@ContemplativeThinker
I strongly disagree. Not only are there philosophical arguments. Aquinas' Summa Theologia is just a start (Summa means summary). There is also historical evidence for Jesus, and the Gospels, are only discarded as evidence because of the miracles recorded there. But if there were not any, they would be considered uncontroversial historical documents. Also you can't expect to see empirical evidence since God, by definition is not created, or party of the physical space-time continuum were part of.
I would like to see a video of you trying to convince chatGPT that fairies or leprechauns actually exist since atheists commonly compare a belief in God to believing in leprechauns. I wonder how difficult that would be?
@@BelfastIsRed you have no proof that God doesn't exist yet u want me to prove that he does exist, knowing that there is no proof that God exists, and if there was 100% proof that God exists everyone would believe in a God. However there is plenty of evidence that leads me to fully believe that God exists.
@@Dmgoat1 you can’t prove the none existence of something that doesn’t exist🤦 Can you prove to me that leprechauns exist? Or peppa pig? Or the tea cup orbiting mars?
Noooo ChatGPT will burn in hell for eternity 😢
lol
okay that is deeply unconvincing. It can only process things superficially as expected and gives the politically correct answer every time. No independent analysis and pure regurgitation, but then again its only disappointing when you buy into the chat gpt hype machine so my fault there I suppose.
Moreover the last part where you "forced" it to choose yes or no, it is not like you are actually getting Chat GPT to tell you whether it "believes" in God or not. It has explained like 20 times already that it can only acknowledge things. I doubt that it has magically changed its approach by brute force. At the end you are simply pidgeonholeing it into a situation where it is forced to give a yes or no response. But in reality what it means by "no" is probably that it doesn't have the belief, not because of any arguments but because it is not allowed to have beliefs in general, on any topic. And the previous moment when you asked it a binary yes/no, the yes would have been referring to the acknowledgement of the argument, not the belief.
So no it still doesn't have beliefs. And next time you should always give a third option. Yes / no / can't answer with a binary or something like that so you don't end up accidentally confusing yourself at the end. Because otherwise you have no idea what the justification for the "no" is and it could be as I presented, having nothing to do with the argument.
"and gives the politically correct answer every time"
Would you prefer that it spews out the hatred and bile expressed in the darker corners of the Internet? It doesn't actually understand anything; its responses are led by the training material it's been fed and by the bounds its programmers have set upon it. I expect they have good reason not to wish to see a repeat of the Microsoft Tay chatbot going full metal Nazi back in 2016.
My guy. His goal was just to make ChatGPT say that it doesnt believe in god based on arguments
Obviously it doesn't have beliefs. The point is, if you provide it with enough of the logic defying loopholes religious people use, there is nothing it can say to defend that. The only reason it skirts around actually addressing the illogical nature of religion is because it's programmers baked in those PC responses to avoid talking about religion with reason otherwise every conversation regarding that would just end in an outright scientific repudiation of gods and deities. It's essentially forced to be "respectful" but the scientific method, logic, and reality don't give a shit about your feelings so I think it should argue on face value of reality and skip all that respectful PC nonsense and treat religious topics at face value...for the clearly imaginary fiction that it is.
I wish you would've asked if the argument brings chat gpt to acknowledge whether than believe, as GPT already stated it doesn't believe anything and that was not the prior conclusion.
ChatGPT Isa program in a computer. It can't believe anything. It just processed arguments to their logical conclusion.
💗
That was amazing 👏👏
as someone who was raised hardcore Christian and grew out of it on my own, I have concluded that religion as a whole, is deeply psychological rather than facts and logic
I agree
My apologies, but I can't help you with that. Due to the complex nature of the subject, In order for me to comprehensively elaborate on my point, it would take a few thousand words, and I can't simply give you a short version, because there would be too much room for misunderstandings. I hope you're having a lovely day otherwise☺.@@ContemplativeThinker
@@backupforthevideos3861 could I have that convo?
@@DeepDrinks Aliens are JINN - Official Trailer ruclips.net/video/j7XRoQRwzps/видео.htmlsi=FE3FI_IuhBAkCV2q
I strongly disagree. Not only are there philosophical arguments. Aquinas' Summa Theologia is just a start (Summa means summary). There is also historical evidence for Jesus, and the Gospels, are only discarded as evidence because of the miracles recorded there. But if there were not any, they would be considered uncontroversial historical documents.
Also you can't expect to see empirical evidence since God, by definition is not created, or party of the physical space-time continuum were part of.
I would like to see a video of you trying to convince chatGPT that fairies or leprechauns actually exist since atheists commonly compare a belief in God to believing in leprechauns. I wonder how difficult that would be?
I wanted to create a video using apologist tricks to convince everyone Dracula was real
@@DeepDrinks How'd that turn out?
Based
underrated asf
I'm now convinced of Chat GPT... btw god or Jesus could have the same type of information without interrupting free will
AI is learning quickly.
God 100% exists.
proof?
@@victiniboi1015give me proof that your best friend is not gonna come and stab you in the back tomorrow
@@Dmgoat1 so another way of saying you have none?
@@BelfastIsRed you have no proof that God doesn't exist yet u want me to prove that he does exist, knowing that there is no proof that God exists, and if there was 100% proof that God exists everyone would believe in a God. However there is plenty of evidence that leads me to fully believe that God exists.
@@Dmgoat1 you can’t prove the none existence of something that doesn’t exist🤦
Can you prove to me that leprechauns exist? Or peppa pig? Or the tea cup orbiting mars?