A.I. bro busting out French really caught me off guard XD

I love how at 21 minutes Justin just starts taking in the view.

I asked ChatGPT to explain the Trinity, and it kept stating heresies, because the Trinity isn't logical.

@RedKingJ23

Ай бұрын

CHATGPT HAS SPOKEN, Christianity is false.

Strange they didn't include the logic errors to each of those arguments in their AI. (Granted, I think most AI would make a similar error by giving you what they think you want to hear rather than presenting the full story and logically analyzing it, which is _maybe_ a little beyond AI currently.) For example if one is asked for evidence of a god and presents evidence of "a cause", that's a non sequitur. It wasn't what was asked for and/or is a redefinition of god. Another example is "fine tuning" arguments never present evidence a god was the cause, and so it's a gargantuan leap from "why is it this way?" to "a god did it". Additionally we use the word "chance" here to represent an _enormous_ number of possible reasons why it's that way -- "chance" is a bit like someone admitting they don't currently know the reason. (Does that make sense? To the person on the sidewalk where a _literal bowling ball_ falls out of the sky to land near them on the street, that's "random" or "chance". To the guy in the cargo plane who knocked the bowling ball out the rear hatch, it was just the ball acting according to physics. One person had evidence-based knowledge and didn't call it "chance; the other didn't have knowledge and did call it chance)

The old look at a tree argument never dies.

The problem of evil is an argument for God. Evil implies that this is not how the world should be. But evil has always existed, and so how do we know that this is not how the world should be? We can't know unless we know how the world should be, and we can't know how the world should be unless God exists.

God chose me to become the Holiest person on Earth, I was trained directly by Him for 6 months, I was given a greater Mind, Spirit, Heart, I could do things I was under his Will. I am now asking for help, as I am unable to fix this myself, dentists have filed my teeth, I am in pain and misery, Churches did not want to help me

@emmetranous9682

Ай бұрын

If you are the holiest you would offer your suffering up to God as a sacrifice for all sinners and would praise God for the gift of suffering

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:14 *🕊️ Existence of God According to Catholic Church* - The AI apologist explains the Catholic Church's stance on God's existence, emphasizing that it can be known through reason and divine revelation. - Key points: - God's existence can be known through observing the world and divine revelation. - Reference to St. Paul's writings about recognizing God's existence through creation. - Mention of philosophical arguments like design and causality supporting God's existence. 01:38 *🌌 Aquinas' Cosmological Argument (Argument from Contingency)* - Exploring the cosmological argument, specifically Aquinas' version, which argues for a necessary being (God) based on contingent existence. - Key points: - Explanation of the premise that everything in the world is contingent. - Conclusion that there must be a necessary being (God) to explain contingent existence. - Emphasis on this argument as a philosophical demonstration independent of religious text. 03:00 *🎯 Teleological Argument (Argument from Design)* - Presenting the teleological argument, which infers a designer (God) from the order, purpose, and complexity observed in the universe. - Key points: - Observations on the fine-tuning of the universe, implying a purposeful design. - Rejection of chance and necessity as explanations for the observed order. - Emphasis on the argument's reliance on reason and observation, not religious scripture. 11:08 *🔄 Aristotle's Argument for Motion (First Mover)* - Exploring Aristotle's argument for the existence of God based on motion and the concept of a first unmoved mover. - Key points: - Explanation of the hierarchical ordering of movers leading to a prime mover (God). - Highlighting the necessity of a first mover to initiate motion. - Noting the argument's philosophical nature grounded in reason and observation. 14:07 *🌱 Moral Argument for God's Existence* - Discussing the moral argument, which posits that objective moral values necessitate the existence of God. - Key points: - Explanation of moral realism and objective moral truths. - Linking the existence of objective moral values to the necessity of God's existence. - Highlighting the philosophical reasoning behind the argument, independent of specific religious beliefs. 17:42 *⚖️ Response to Problem of Evil* - Addressing the problem of evil and God's existence, focusing on the Catholic perspective of free will and divine providence. - Key points: - Explanation that evil is not a denial of God's goodness but a consequence of free will. - Reference to biblical examples (e.g., Joseph's story) illustrating how God brings good from evil. - Emphasis on the necessity of faith alongside reason to understand God's providence amidst evil. 23:42 *🏛️ Comparing Gods: Christian God vs. Mythological Gods* - Discussion on distinguishing the Christian God from other mythological deities. - Key points: - Arguments like teleological, cosmological, and moral point towards attributes of the Christian God. - Differentiating attributes like all-good, all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful. - These arguments suggest a rational basis for belief in a specific kind of deity over others. 25:01 *🧐 Rational Basis for Belief in God* - Exploring the philosophical arguments (cosmological, teleological, moral) as a rational foundation for belief in God. - Key points: - These arguments demonstrate attributes of a deity akin to the Christian God. - Contrasting these arguments with other mythological claims of gods lacking similar attributes. - Emphasizing the compatibility of these arguments with Christian theology. 25:56 *🧩 Fine-Tuning and Moral Arguments* - Evaluation of modern arguments (fine-tuning, morality) versus classical arguments for God's existence. - Key points: - Reflecting on the emphasis on contemporary arguments in the discussion. - Surprised by the focus on fine-tuning and moral arguments over classical formulations. - Speculation on the future emergence of AI Catholic apologists leveraging more diverse philosophical arguments.

@welcometoWWW

Ай бұрын

AI Apologist was all I needed to hear

I'd like to ask this because I'm genuinely curious. It seems that in order to prove God's existence, you have to strip away almost everything. He can't be material, or in time, or in space. He can't be composed of parts, or changing, etc. Once you do this, you claim to have this version of God that fits into the necessary slot that explains everything. But then, for this God to be the actual God you believe in, you introduce all these attributes like he's a mind and he's intelligent, he has the ability to create universes, he is a personal God, he intervenes in the world, he sent his son down to earth in human form, he performs miracles, etc. Does any part of go "Is this really the God that I started with?" "Am I justified in imbuing him with all these characteristics that are completely contradictory to the necessary modest conditions that proved his existence in the first place?"

@Thomas-Cahill

28 күн бұрын

No, because I think that every negative claim about God has a positive flip side. Saying God is "outside of time," for example, can be reframed as a positive claim - that God is "timeless." Saying God is "not made out of matter" can be rephrased as saying that God is "immaterial." Etc. As for God being a mind - yeah, I think there's arguments for that positive attribute of God, and I don't see any contradiction between those arguments and the ones for God being immaterial, atemporal, perfectly simple, etc. As for miracles and divine revelation - those claims are separate from any claim I've made on this channel so far. Do I personally accept an asserted revelation claim? Yes, I'm a Catholic. But those kinds of arguments are historical in nature (i.e., trying to prove that there was an actual, specific point in history where God revealed Himself in a more clear way to mankind), so they're not really what I'm up to as much in this channel, at least not yet.

@vex1669

2 күн бұрын

@@Thomas-Cahill "Immaterial" and "timeless" are just words to make the illogical seem less wrong. "Timeless" is in conflict with being a mind. "Immaterial" might not be in direct conflict with being a mind, but we've yet to observe a mind outside of a brain. Being a mind is in conflict with being perfectly simple, though. Being omniscient is in conflict with being perfectly simple as well.

It seems like you were confused that God wasn't a mathematical proof... Everything that we can know about God comes from our senses and so it makes sense that we can never have certainty in the way that we can about math where we get to define everything. We don't get to define things in the world.

1. A.i. exists , created by humans. 2. Humans exist, thus they are created by something ? 3. We will call that Creator something God... We may never understand fully what ot who God is, but we exist, and give thanks for that gift of Existence, living or digital. The Cosmos is our playground to explore.

What do you think is the best argument that Jesus is God?

@Thomas-Cahill

Ай бұрын

Definitely the argument from the historicity of the Resurrection. Philosophy can only tell us that God exists and give us hints about how He relates to the world, it takes the study of history to tell us whether or not He's ever become incarnate in His creation.

I was an atheist, then agnostic. But I did not come to faith trough preaching or arguments but because I experienced the divine Providence in my life.. if there were any argument that made me think was all related with Near Death experiences

Nice to see Atheists in the comments consistently proving all stereotypes about them true

@Ipetam

Ай бұрын

What stereotypes?

@sillanus1

Ай бұрын

@@Ipetam - Rather than simply not believing in a god/gods, they outright hate religion and for all the wrong reasons. - They look down on religious people - They try to debunk religion despite only having surface level knowledge of any said religion - They exclusively target Christianity rather than religions that actually condone and promote hate/violence, (e.g. Islam) read any comment section having to do with religion on any platform and you'll find countless examples of these

@Ipetam

Ай бұрын

@basedroman I think stereotyping atheists is not going to help stop stereotypes of theists. And I have to say there are so many instances of violence in the Bible... and in America Christians are becoming very hateful and are using their religion as an excuse to be hateful.(ex: against trans people, gays) and historically Christians have used God as an excuse to commit violence and genocide. Also, religious people do look down on the non-religious. They are constantly talking about others sins, how you should repent, how immoral others are etc. while being hypocritical. I'm not denying atheists can be A holes, but its no better on the other side.

@Agooddaytobeasinner

Ай бұрын

And on the other hand Christian comments like yours are just as typical... None of us will agree 100% of the time but coming on here and claiming stereotypes is on the other hand proving to us non believers the typical Christian judgemental stereotype that comes along with Christian self-righteousness and your natural religious narcissism !

THX1138 the movie....just Sayin'

Now make an athiest bot and have them argue forever on live stream

From reviewing PhilPapers surveys of 2009 and 2020, one will find that the majority of academic philosophers are atheists. These people spend their academic career reviewing, and pondering about different metaphysical and philosophical ideas, including the arguments for God, but are not enough to convince the experts in the field. Even if the majority of academic philosophers are wrong, the arguments only lead to deism, not Christianity. Separate arguments are necessary to demonstrate a personal supreme being, additional arguments for the Abrahamic God, and further arguments for the God of Christianity.

@therealong

Ай бұрын

@justincapable Who are "the experts in the field" that can't be easily convinced? The additional or further arguments, as you call them, are implicit in "the gift of Faith", as the old Latin saying "Credendo vides" illustrates. Also the AI Justin always pointed that out: without ultimate Faith, reason alone would remain impaired what any knowledge of God is concerned. In other words: both Faith and Reason are necessary and need to cooperate, although they also need to work each with its own task separately. Have you ever read anything from Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI on this?

@justincapable

Ай бұрын

PhilPapers conducts anonymous surveys of academic philosophers on different categories, one of which is the stance of a supreme being. In both 2009 and 2020, a majority of academic scholars in philosophy consider themselves atheists or agnostics. I would not be able to list every academic philosopher, but I also don't think it is necessary as the philosophical papers are available to read online. If you disagree with their conclusion, submit a paper for review. Why is faith necessary to find truth? In what other context do we use faith to find truth? Is it possible for faith to lead someone to the wrong conclusion? If so, then faith is not a good method for finding truth. Why would I need to read material from Pope Benedict XVI? We first need to establish the existence of a supreme being before suggesting the works of any theologian. Have you read the works of Avicenna and Ibn al-Nafis? Even if a God can be demonstrated, that is deism. More arguments are necessary to demonstrate the Abrahamic God, or specifically the God of Christianity.

@Thomas-Cahill

Ай бұрын

@@justincapable If professional philosophers are disproportionally atheists, that might just mean that atheists are more likely to be interested in becoming professional philosophers, not necessarily that being a professional philosopher makes you become an atheist. I would also add that most academic philosophers don't specialize in or study the arguments for the existence of God in much depth; there's a very-specific subset of philosophers who focus on that field. We can't rely on an argument from consensus one way or another in thinking about the existence of God, we must evaluate the arguments on their own merit. As to your above point about the arguments for the existence of God not demonstrating the truth of Christianity, I agree. Theism does not equal Christianity, it takes additional arguments to arrive at doctrines like the Incarnation, the Resurrection, etc. I disagree, however, with the idea that these arguments only leave you with "deism." The key tenet that separates deism from theism is the idea that God does not intervene in His creation after the initial act of making it, and I would suggest that many of the arguments for God - most notably Aquinas' Five Ways - conclude that there must be a supreme Being which doesn't just create the world in some initial moment but sustains it in every moment it exists. This means that there are some arguments for God (the Argument from Motion, the Argument from Efficient Causality, the Argument from Contingency, etc.) which, if true, show that deism as well as atheism is false - that a God exists who is actively involved in keeping every part of the world in existence at every moment, and is therefore intimately tied to the world's affairs.

NO

@Thomas-Cahill

Ай бұрын

No?

@edus9636

Ай бұрын

The typical answer of a fanatical reactionary against any argument, thank you.

If God's existence was easily provable, we wouldn't have the freedom to be atheists. Nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God to others - only to themselves.

@radish45

Ай бұрын

Well put brother.

@Thomas-Cahill

Ай бұрын

I agree the existence of God isn't self-evident/"easily provable," but I don't think that necessarily means that "nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God." Why do you think that it's impossible to prove/disprove that God exists?

@TheGreatJ

Ай бұрын

You absolutely can disprove a God. This is basic logic / philosophy. For something to be impossible it means there is a logical contradiction. IE some attribute where A= not A. And contradictions cannot exist, the only way they can is to change one of those attributes. So for example, we can use things like the logical problem of evil to disprove the Christian God with the attributes of Omnibenevolence, Omnipotence, and Omniscience (all good, all powerful, and knows all knowledge). Under this case you cannot have the world as it is where we have a world with unnecessary suffering and sin that is outside of human will. If you ask a Christian is there free will in heaven, most will say yes. That means there is a logically possible state of affairs where one can have free will but also be in a state with no evil and no suffering. So humans could have been created in a way where we would not choose to do any evil things to each other. So the fact that 'God' created us in this world, and he knew what we would do and he had the power to create us differently, means that he cannot also be omnibenevolent. So one of these premises has to change for God to possibly exist. Else he is disproven.

@StuMas

Ай бұрын

@@Thomas-Cahill As I understand, it would be like trying to prove the existence of say, the colour red, when only blue exists. No matter what you paint, everything still turns out blue. As to why it should be like that..?

@solodrow4004

Ай бұрын

@@Thomas-Cahillit’s simple. Give me undeniable proof god is real. Logically speaking it makes more sense to be agnostic because you cannot prove either side although organized religion itself CAN be disproved and there are MANY examples of it such as the church drawing back on many of their old claims that the Bible supported.

ROFL. Poor christians, they are so desperate for evidence for their imaginary friend. Alas for them, I can ask AI to prove other gods are real too, and it has the same importance: none. AI simply takes what is on the internet and repeats it. So repeated lies are still repeated lies.

@joejoelesh1197

Ай бұрын

I like his ending that the judeo-christian makes more sense than say Odin. The Tri-Omni God makes far less sense. You can explain away evil quite easily with Odin or Zeus. They have limited power, foresight, and they are kind of asses. You don't need to explain away eyeball eating parasites as being a kind and loving thing with them. They may not have the power to stop it, didn't create the word where the parasites live, and they just may not care to help.

@Testimony_Of_JTF

Ай бұрын

How is the question of whether or not theism is true not important?

@Testimony_Of_JTF

Ай бұрын

​@@joejoelesh1197Evil exists (not really) because God is so great He can create good out of evil. Evil men are allowed to exist so that God may be glorified through their damnation.

@velkyn1

Ай бұрын

@@joejoelesh1197Yep, the christian god is utterly incoherent.

Proof of God's existence or nonexistence does not exist. We come to God by faith.

@Thomas-Cahill

Ай бұрын

What do you mean by "faith?"

@unbreakable7633

Ай бұрын

@@Thomas-Cahill Ever read Soren Kierkegaard?

@Thomas-Cahill

Ай бұрын

I can't say I have. Please explain.

@unbreakable7633

Ай бұрын

@@Thomas-Cahill Faith is not based on evidence but on an act of will, a choice. Kierkegaard said that the opposite of faith isn't doubt but despair. In his book Fear and Trembling, he noted that doubt will accompany us always, being human, but that faith being an act of will keeps us from despair. God's existence is a mystery essentially and no proof can be mustered for or against that mystery. You either have faith, which can be acquired thru mystical experiences, or you don't.

@Thomas-Cahill

Ай бұрын

I agree that faith is an act of the will, but I disagree that that means that you can't prove from reason that God exists. As I understand it, "faith" is essentially synonymous with "trust." "Faith in God" is less about faith in the existence of God (which, again, I think can be shown from reason) and instead about faith in the promises of God, or trust that He will do in your life what He promised to do. And, for what it's worth, the view I'm articulating is, from what I understand, closer to the traditional Christian articulation of the role of faith in the God debate.

Can A Good Gid Possibly Exist byvJames Sterba,Dot Dot Dot Infinity Plus God Equals Folly

belief in any god is willingly entering into slavery. Giving up you right to chose your path in life and control your destiny for the will of some imaginary deity.

@Testimony_Of_JTF

Ай бұрын

Being a slave to your desires is not freedom.

@edus9636

Ай бұрын

Remember: religions only try to describe God. God is above them all.