Does Morality prove God? AI debates Atheist vs. Believer

[@JonOleksiuk]

Thanks for watching our debate on the Moral Argument! What did you think? Share your thoughts in the comments, and check out these other thought-provoking debates: • AI Doctors Debate ABORTION 👉 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mavFfapsr9ujprM • Does GOD Exist? (PROBLEM OF EVIL Argument) 👉 kzbin.info/www/bejne/e37ccnqrfdN3fs0 • Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha: AI Judges MORAL Legacies 👉 kzbin.info/www/bejne/m4rCmp9ogr-drsU 🔔 Thanks again for watching! Don’t forget to subscribe and hit the bell so you never miss the next debate!

[@storieztold]

I have some questions, how can I contact you? I represent a company with millions of followers total. Check the channel for proof just so you know I’m not trying to scam 😅.

[@rimjob_stevexx]

@@JonOleksiuk its obvious the atheist ai would win

[@therealong]

@@rimjob_stevexx No way, why would it be obvious? 🤔 The believer A.I. had more solid arguments that the other one continually "dodged" (as even remarked), and he always diverted into the sheer explanation, which doesn't necessarily have to be the case. He echoed the programmer's blinders, as his main arguments focused primarily on disregarding a priori everything supernatural and preternatural, and consequently avoiding to even evaluate them.

[@scottpreston28]

can you do christian ai vs the talmud ai

[@Raw-oh5lh]

@@therealong I didn't really watch the vid but I can confirm (from commentors and snippets) the Atheist AI was playing dodgeball with confrontation,

[@ih8monkeez]

I love how the channel keeps evolving and getting better. The cross examination makes the ai expose the others weaknesses, instead of continuing the loop of the same points over and over

[@SyrupDipper]

Agreed. I hope more features will come!

[@tTtt-ho3tq]

Continuing the loop of the same points over and over is the result of reaching the equivaluem of evolutionary ecosystem co-existence.

[@Sfsew]

muslim vs christian?

[@Guts240]

I wish human debates were this polite.

[@ShlamDunkk]

right

[@Melting_because_of_beauty]

you mean 70% less fun?

[@jeffsirname]

Some can be, but unfortunately people don't find them as entertaining. I enjoy watching some of the guests on Lex Fridman.

[@rimjob_stevexx]

humans arent robots

[@ziskav]

@@rimjob_stevexx giving into your animalistic emotions over a topic makes you more of a robot than being polite, just an fyi.

[@Methodius-and-Cyril]

Can’t wait for a Jewish A.I. vs a Christian A.I. debate where Jesus the Christ is the Messiah or not.

[@Subxenox15]

Google is waiting on it as well to instantly delete this dudes channel if the AI sides with Christ.

[@Flash-pp3cr]

They're both false though. But it'd be fun to watch I guess...

[@nick3006]

@@Flash-pp3crwhy can’t you let people believe in what they want man 😂

[@joshuawright6556]

@@Flash-pp3cr Jesus loves you man i pray you find him☦✝❤

[@Flash-pp3cr]

@ Time isn't forgiving. I hope you see things for how they are and now how you would like to see them.

[@Garfunkel-]

18:15 "That's still dodging." Jeez, this AI's sass meter was cranked up to 11 🤣

[@alanakayscreative159]

i literally paused it at this point to read comments and so glad i found yours haha! i thought the same. but still a good debate.

[@scottjannarone6622]

She's right!

[@aesop1451]

Woman moment. The male AI wins the argument in all these debates.

[@Garfunkel-]

@@aesop1451 They’re AI. They aren’t men or women. They just sound that way to mimic humans. I don’t know why your opinion on a debate is based on the make believe sex of a robot. Thats really weird

[@yoleau131]

@@Garfunkel- damn, you owned that dude, like i don't see how you can comeback from that, ever

[@daqueda1577]

I think this video demonstrates the limitations of AI. They're just regurgitating the most prevalent talking points, and judging based on how frequent those talking points are used. This is really well demonstrated in Claude's assessment of the debate being focused on the issue of moral development rather than the actual debate topic of God's existence. Conflating morality and gods is something most of us do, but in debate settings is easily separated by human scholars.

[@jdkonopka1842]

@@daqueda1577 but that's the point of the video "Does God Exist? AI debates Atheist vs. Believer (MORAL ARGUMENT)... The moral argument is also used to prove God's existence, which if atheism can disprove or find another source, disproves God's existence.

[@hexi9595]

@@jdkonopka1842Morality comes from biology. Every species has its own moral code because morality guarantees the survival of said species.

[@daqueda1577]

@@jdkonopka1842 morality does not support the existence of a God or gods. Because morality ascribed to divine source(s) contradict each other, therefore they are relative which doesn't support a supreme being. Torture is not universally wrong according to a religious attribution because some religions believed blood sacrifice was needed to make the sun rise or forgive sins. Morality not being rooted in a deity does not mean there is no God or gods, but it does not support it either, they're separate discussions. Please follow up if you have any more to contribute.

[@hover-eb1hx]

Thanks for pointing this out, you put into words what I’ve felt watching these videos. There is no actual logical framework for the argumentation, just spitting out immediate responses over and over again. Debates like this actually have fundamental incompatibilities: believers will claim that morality is objective, non-believers will say that morality is not an intrinsic property of the universe. If these differences are maintained, there is absolutely no way to debate without speaking past one another.

[@daqueda1577]

@@hover-eb1hx I've heard many other positions on moralities origin from nonbelievers other than being intrinsic. But that's another discussion, my main focus is on the difference between a moral argument for divine origin of morality and a moral argument for God's existence. The AI mixes that up or perhaps the creator of the video mixed that up because they are not the same. God can still exist without being the origin of morality.

[@abraxa555]

I may have missed it, but it sounds like everything is based on existing philosophical arguments. I think it'd be interesting to see if AIs can come up with their own synthesis based on all this and come up with their own philosophy. Theoretically, this should be a never ending cycle of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis... but maybe AIs can change that some day and come up with a super philosophy that'll effectively put an end to all arguments, outside of irrationalities that is :) Nonetheless, this is great content, and I'm looking forward to seeing more. Thank you.

These debates are so interesting to hear factual points on both sides (generalized to your whole channel of course). You can actually hear new viewpoints because one side or the other won't continue using evidence or arguments that have been disproved.

[@UzbekExMuslim]

This video indeed needed a part two. Thank you. I loved part one ❤

[@garerro]

I havent watched this yet but your channel remains as a good resource for anyone tackling these topics..

[@ander12222]

I prefer the judges after every argument instead of just at the end. But overall good video!

[@RizwanKhan-fb2qv]

What’s truly astounding is the fact you can sometimes forget this is a debate with AI Humanity can learn a thing or two around the etiquette of debate and disagreements by listening to these kinds of discussions. Well done you continue to produce top quality content and open paths to meaningful discussion that everyone can enjoy and participate in🎉

[@valery9634]

I want to encourage you to keep making this "AI debates" content. It is not only fascinating but, also, a peek into the forming "mind" of AI and ultimately our future. Please continue to make moral issue debates with AI. I would love to see content on Euthanasia, Immigration, Population Collapse, Freedom of Speech, War, and so much more.

[@JonOleksiuk]

i may have an immigration debate ready this weekend and definitely freedom of speech in the near future, thanks for the comment and sub :)

[@dennys1334]

​@@JonOleksiukI would suggest making the AI's "learn" as they debate and maybe reach a conclusion that draws logical and positive things from the other side instead of simply repeating their own arguments. Also please reduce the "sassyness" a bit, I enjoyed the abortion debate a lot more than this

[@nathanpfirman625]

You should do an Atheist vs Buddhist video. I'm interested in what they'd agree on and what they'd disagree on. It would be less White vs Black and more of a Dark Gray vs Black.

[@ryanburris6331]

Cross examination was a great addition. What a great channel that AI algorithm gave me haha.

[@JonOleksiuk]

Glad you liked it!

[@isaiahharris7046]

Please keep making these videos!

[@PineSap]

Really love this format, I’d replace the sound bar that fills from left to right when they’re speaking with a sound wave visualizer though personally, I think it’d look more engaging.

[@fisherman0314]

Great video! Would you do a AI debate over archeological evidence against God, like fossils, dinosaurs, Neanderthals and so forth?

[@nealithh]

This is so funny to watch! It's also very informative. I would like to see AI debate about whether minors should be allowed to transition genders. That debate is currently all the rage right now.

[@yardgunner4033]

No one wants to watch such a ridiculous debate, minors have a hard time choosing a candy but should have the option to do a life changing operation ?. This should've never been a debate in the first place.

[@edenbuyno7268]

@@yardgunner4033 I think that’s why we need it so that people can see just how ridiculous that argument is of course children shouldn’t transition, but I’m confident enough in our arguments to let this debate happen to show just how un usual all of this gender hysteria has become

[@davidademola3770]

I guess it's time to become a farmer. AI is officially smarter than me

[@noodle67]

It can’t do anything new though, only regurgitate talking points.

[@joevi2593]

​@@noodle67Are humans any different?

[@jan_Linaso1178]

@@joevi2593 I think so. While i agree that humans like an ai are input out computers, humans can go out into the world to get new insperation, ideas, and perspective. An ai on the other hand can only get its input from humans.

[@bubbillionaire2423]

It only pulls from data sets (humans)

[@comrade_punkk]

@@joevi2593Yes??

[@nathanpugh7198]

Please do Catholic vs Protestant debate!!

[@mysteryman8122]

That would actually be very interesting

[@jordangeorge7582]

Based on extensive personal experience, if ChatGPT is a judge, it'll be siding with Catholicism 😅

[@jakpodcast]

Yo, where can I pay to submit a debate topic? Because I really want you to cover Oneness vs Trinity view of God’s Deity.

[@wolfthepyromancer1972]

An athiest vs christian vs muslim debate would be so interesting to watch next

[@Flash-pp3cr]

Christian and Muslims both could be dethtones just by tearing up the Old Testament. Easy.

[@andresvillalpando6764]

This is gonna blow up.

[@Άθελι-παιδί-του-Θεού]

It's not a question of 'Where is God?' but rather, 'Where are you?' Notice how, by default, we are separated from God-especially when we prioritize our emotions over thoughtfully listening to His guidance, which He has left for us to meditate on. If God were to respond to us, it would align with what He has already spoken, as He has provided the framework for all things. Also this A.I adopted the Dillahunty Dodge technique Notice how logic, reasoning, intellect- whether it is artificial or natural, will always point to the creator and glorify Him because He is the source of those attributes.

[@noevidenceforyourmom9088]

How does logic, reasoning, intellect point to a creator? Do you even have any of those attributes?

[@Άθελι-παιδί-του-Θεού]

@noevidenceforyourmom9088 we were created in His image and likeness. Ever create something? Have you ever felt jealous? Wrathful? Maybe love or regret? Have you ever seemed to know something without fully understanding or learning it? Are you able to make decisions? I can understand your undertones behind your question that are attempting to insult me. It won't work. 🙏

[@noevidenceforyourmom9088]

@@Άθελι-παιδί-του-Θεού There's no undertone, your attempt to claim realism to your fantasy by claiming you know how everything came to be and its by your fantasy character is disgusting to me, a fool thinks he knows everything while the wise knows he doesn't know everything, back to the topic. How do you know we were created in your gods image and likeness? How does jealousy, wrath, love, regrets link to your god? and how do you know that?

[@Άθελι-παιδί-του-Θεού]

@noevidenceforyourmom9088 I do not know everything, but I do know about it. I know what I know and what I need to know for living my life on this earth for the short time i have. Am I obligated to know more? No, but I can while living my Christian life to explore the creation and understand its mechanics. The same way you would know math, history, English, etc. Many people criticize and deem God to be so and so from reading the Old Testament but forget his loving attributes in the New Testament and forget that He did end humanity and has been guiding us throughout generations to get to a better point

[@noevidenceforyourmom9088]

@Avad_t_Eved you say you do not know everything but here you are claiming you know how existence came to be essentially claiming you know everything. I'm asking you how you know what you claim to know, how do you know you're not lied to be, do you think you know something just because you have a feeling? You speak of logic and intellect yet I see none in you, you do not ask questions but form a conclusion. It's disgusting.

[@The_arts_of_brand]

Debate i can listen to forever. Do neat and smooth

[@umbralveritas]

This is great, and unlike humans debating, listening to the AI voice the same points allows us to hear and accept opposing ideas - at least to the point that we will consider the ideas for at least a moment - rather than immediately having an emotional reaction before our interlocutor can even finish their sentence. Since there is no actual person to get emotional with, it is much easier to skip the misdirected resentment when hearing ideas that clash with our core values. When humans debate, even the audience will automatically apply their own bias when they hear ideas and right away it affects the way they receive the message. With AI responses, it is harder to say they are responding with racial bias or something like that. With all of that being said, it is much easier to see the perspective of each side when consuming a debate in this format and that makes it a great educational tool in my opinion! Keep these up if you can! Can you try making one debating the morality and efficiency of different economic systems (capitalism vs socialism vs communism - or just 2 at a time might be better)?

[@Lammy2023]

If God doesn't exist, would religious people stop doing good all of a sudden? I've been wanting to hear someone answer this question.

[@JonOleksiuk]

I asked the Christian model to answer your question succinctly: "First, Christians who have internalized virtuous behavior and moral principles would very likely continue doing good even if they discovered God didn't exist. The habits of kindness, generosity, and service to others don't simply vanish with a change in metaphysical beliefs. These have become part of their character. However, the more complex philosophical question is about the nature of moral motivation. Christian philosophers like C.S. Lewis and Alvin Plantinga have argued that while atheists can certainly be moral people (and they absolutely can), the Christian worldview provides a coherent foundation for objective morality that helps sustain long-term ethical behavior."

[@Lammy2023]

@JonOleksiuk that's a good explanation. I also think that even if people find out God didn't exist, it probably wouldn't stop them from believing. Also, just a little add-on. If God really doesn't exist, would the argument for right and wrong be connected to our human evolution?

[@Max4Z]

Then they were never good or healthy individuals, probably closeted psychopaths or suffering from some type of ASPD

[@nathan-2569]

​@@JonOleksiuk what app do you use for ai debate? Thanks

[@JonOleksiuk]

no apps. i programmed them to debate in a virtual python environment.

[@FlamingBasketballClub]

Loving the AI debates not gonna lie

[@letseatcake6465]

I want to see two AIs debate whether watching TV was better/healthier/more engaging without being addicting between the 50s and the 80s or whether it's better/healthier/more engaging without being addicting from the 90s to the 2020s. Also, how popcorn and/or what you eat or not eating at all when watching TV affects watching TV.

[@letseatcake6465]

Although it won't be the same, I could probably just ask ChatGPT. At least that is free. 😅 I still think using these videos are awesome though! I wonder what the next one will be?

[@blackspire5040]

you lost me at children who "naturally share toys" anyone who has kids knows this is not natural at all

[@JonOleksiuk]

ha...my wife had the exact same reaction.

[@RandallChase1]

@@blackspire5040 father of 4 and now grandfather of 2… I can totally relate!

[@jan_Linaso1178]

so true

[@CD-vb9fi]

not so fast. Children DO naturally share toys. Just not nearly as frequently as they are "selfish" with them. As a parent I hear the word "mine" about 90% of the time and "here" about 10% of it. There is definitely a reason we have to teach "share" and never have to teach "be greedy".

[@Timmy-mi2ef]

This is false majority of people much rather have experiences with others

[@asquishyjellyfish5431]

An argument where both cannot resolve because if we'd know the answer, the question itself is already irrelevant. Thus, a middleground must exist and thereby encourages to exist, not because the argument must stands, but because by the argument, we grow as humanity, as a whole.

[@yoboi3li372]

I really really want one on them arguing free will. It could be a part of or separate from this series but my largest arguments against religion appear around science being against free will so far. Not quite proven but getting closer and closer. It would practically 100% disprove god but I can’t think fast enough most of the time. Also us humans get distracted, especially kids nerding out about dimensions, black/white holes, etc. I think as we recently fully made a fly brain out of 200,000 neurons online, this debate becomes closer and closer to being important and solveable.

[@JonOleksiuk]

we did a debate a few weeks ago, "Do humans have free will?" kzbin.info/www/bejne/aHqqk4iPd7yNlZo

[@TheRook12325]

it would be dope to make this a website that you could fight two ai on a question. Would you ever think of creating a open project like that?

[@settingsun1]

hey bro, excellent video, could you do a video on the scientific inconsistencies in each book, like flat earth, 6000 year ago creation of earth etc

[@Raw-oh5lh]

Sir, you weren't there so how would you be so certain that it isn't true?

[@masscantbecreatedordestroy8868]

"Where does the must come from in your world?" might be the most iconic AI quote ever.

[@sabergon3081]

Can you do pro-pitbull vs anti-Pitbull next? I love these videos!

[@JonOleksiuk]

😂 thanks for the note

[@WaitWhyTho]

These are enjoyable videos but more transparency is required on the configuration of the AIs Weightings for evaluating the strength of the arguments in relation to the discussed topic and responses given. These videos are presented as completely neutral, but these AI still need to be instructed on what argumentation and reasoning is stronger.

[@adhd_coach_nic]

You should do Mormonism vs Christianity, Jehovas witness vs Christianity, and agnosticism vs atheism vs Christianity

[@SerenHoe]

I'd find it interesting if you do materialism vs dualism about consciousness

[@storieztold]

I have some questions, how can I contact you?

[@JonOleksiuk]

Channel details (click the 'more...' button) contains contact info that i routinely check

[@Gman-g3b]

Dr Egon Cholakian sends his regards.

[@kiwispaperplanes8585]

You should get AI to make a philosophy, or get them to make a religion and see how it compares to real life ones

[@ScholarlyLifeLongLearner]

Thank you!

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

Wow, the theistic side had a slight lead on the moral argument. Can't wait to see how AI would respond to the other arguments for God

[@OttoKreml]

They don't concede enough. Frankly they are both arguing an overly pure version of each, and are not updating based on what the other says. For example the expanding circle directly extrapolated implies an objective conclusion to the circle. That is a statement that we operate within a set of morals to which evolution is subordinate.

[@flimsyjimnz]

6:26 No! Generally toddlers/children are not kind, without parental guidance they'd be worse. There's an old saying: *You don't need to teach a child to be bad, you do need to teach a child to be good.*

[@Gingergent07]

I would personally love aliens exist vs we're alone debate

[@hahehihohu2079]

Anyone else wondering how he makes these videos? I genuinely wanna know the behind the scenes!

[@asimhussain8716]

Why didn't you first have them agree to a definition of God?

[@FimiliarGalaxy9]

“In the beginning was the Logos (word). And the Logos was with God and the Logos was God.” Logic is Devine truth.

[@sordidknifeparty]

The reliability challenge begs the question. They say how will we know, since our morals are only evolved for survivability, that are morals are also evolved to identify truth immorality.? This question relies on the existence of moral truths, something which does not exist in the absence of a Divine command Theory. They are correct, we don't know that our morals were designed to identify truth, because we don't know that there is any such thing as truth in morals, we do know that our morals help us to survive, and that survival seems to be the ultimate goal of all living creatures, not reflection of Truth in reality, if any such truth in fact exists.

[@therealong]

A quick impression of the whole heard in the middle of the night: The female believer A.I. had more solid arguments that the other one continually "dodged" (as even being remarked), and he always diverted into the "sheer explanation", which doesn't necessarily have to be the case. He kind of echoed the programmer's "blinders", as his main arguments focused primarily on disregarding a priori everything supernatural and preternatural, and consequently avoiding to even evaluate them. 🤷‍♀

[@Majorskillissue101]

What is this video even debating? Are the two sides both debating that morality is objective with an atheist and a believer point of view? In that case, the format is inherently biased towards the believer and objective morality without God is borderline indefensible. The atheist should be arguing for moral subjectivity, not objectivity.

[@jamie5mauser]

But which god is AI debating? We all know Odin is the all father

[@KaitlinVeit]

God, capital g, not a god, lowercase. The Jewish and Christian God.

[@psyok]

The very moment I heard "torturing children **for fun**" I recognized the AI was drawing from William Craig and couldn't take it seriously anymore

[@Quackers42069]

Divine hiddenness has a simple solution, God has given more than enough evidence to "prove" (near) he is real. If God were to fully prove that he was real, it would take away our free will that comes from the love of God.

[@seal295]

I love the atheist AI so clear,direct, straight to the point my brain is stimulated every time he speaks. I only wish he was more ambitious against the more biblical claims but in all well done. 👍 👏

[@bigtiddiedrias9860]

I feel like both AIs did a great job in explaining their points.

[@BHunter244]

I feel the believer AI debating missed the mark on providing the analogy of saving a child or not torturing the innocent. It is true morality that compels you not to torture the GUILTY and to save the life of the drunk who has wandered into a lake because all life has value. Christian wisdom isn't just loving our friends (everyone can do that), it's being morally obligated to love our enemies.

[@vaquishers]

I still want an argument about IQ

[@jeromecolas3735]

as "moral" is a social construction, I'm curious to hear... what would be the results in case the question is debated around an "ethics" then "virtue" approach ? and followed by a comparative critics of the arguments developed through the 3 terms mobilised. Cheers 🙂

[@sordidknifeparty]

Whether a particular snake is venomous or not is not a moral question, it is an "is" question. We can confirm in reality whether or not the snake is in fact venomous. We can therefore find out whether or not our belief in whether or not the snake is venomous is either a useful illusion or a truth. The same cannot be done with moral questions. If we have evolved to believe that murder is wrong, but in reality it isn't wrong but just useful for us to not murder each other, how will you go about demonstrating which of those is true to then make your argument that we only believed it because it was useful? You cannot. You simply have to assign a truth value to your moral claims based on your own opinions and nothing more, and that is the absolute definition of subjectivity

[@nihel3144]

Our moral compass has evolved in order to facilitate our ability to coexist with one another as a species, share the limited resources and face greater threats. You are free to reject them all and in exchange get isolated from the society removing your genes together with you demonstrating how this very process of natural selection works. It is true that every individual is entitled to their own version of morality that may differ from what is generally accepted but it is also true that parts of this said morality that prevent this individual from cooperating with the rest of society will only hinder their ability to both spread their ideas and genetic material simply because this is how our society and our species have been evolving ever since the concept of cooperation has emerged all those hundreds of millions of years ago. There is no "objective" morality, instead, there are the forms of morality that help the given group of individuals outcompete other groups in this endless fight for limited resources.

[@fundamentawellness9562]

Anyone else watched all of these and noticed Christ wins every time 🙃✝️🙏🏼

[@Cyranium2]

That’s because of how chat AI works. It looks at all available writing in its database and pulls out the response most likely to respond to the prompts. As there are more religious people than atheists the database it uses will contain more religious responses. It doesn’t mean the judges are actually critically thinking and being persuaded one way or the other. AI is actually incredibly dumb when it comes to what we would consider as thinking.

[@IsabellaErazo-l4q]

I would love to see ai debate conspiracy theories lolll

[@CD-vb9fi]

Everything is a conspiracy theory... until it has been proven.

[@biedl86]

I did that against ChatGPT, and after 5 rounds ChatGPT gave up, concluding that the atheist position is more compelling. I had to try after I saw your other video, where the theist position won. It wasn't confined to a single topic, but we too went over morality, as well as fine tuning and the beginning of the univer. It's interesting how they are always so decisively on the theist side. Btw. large scale studies found that there are only 7 universal moral laws. So that's that in terms of universal moral intuitions.

[@tjpg25]

I think that giving each side ammo (that you are interested in so that it's not unfair by giving 1 side too much ammo) and then giving them say 1-2 paragraphs to detail an attack against the other, with the rest of the "debate" being to refute the attacks is a very balanced way of debating. I notice that it's also mostly on the theist side but this is because of quite a few things which I will go into: Ai develops biases based on its own responses to your prompts as well as your prompts. For example, if you are hostile towards religion for 5-10 prompts and then a few days later, say 30 prompts after, you ask it for a debate, it will probably allow the atheist to win. I use multiple accounts for ChatGPT and they result in drastically different ratings for arguments as well as evaluations of them. My main account is probably biased since I am Christian and whenever I give it any of my own arguments, even in a new chat, it would rate it at the very least 8/10. Whereas in other accounts, the same arguments score lower or sometimes, but rarely, higher.

[@biedl86]

@tjpg25 That's actually pretty annoying that the AI tries to give answers the user likes, literally encouraging bias. I tried different things with Gemini and ChatGPT, and it matches what this YT channel indicates, that Gemini has more of an anti-religious bias than ChatGPT. But I have to say, since I went very deep into the weeds with religion, ChatGPT often gives mainstream Christian answers, even if the scholarship takes an entirely opposite approach, only backtracking if it is hinted at it. Which may as well be me introducing bias, and it's good to be aware of that, since I would like trying to avoid that. Also, I'm not hostile towards religion in these chats. Thanks for the insights btw.

[@breadboxalotl4905]

I’d say that if the believer brought up the act of sacrifice and love that goes beyond reason, she could’ve done better in this debate. The atheist AI kept using the argument of naturalism and logical thought to support his argument. But what about the irrational? A lot of people feel the obligation to sacrifice themselves for people and things which could not be necessary for evolutionary survival. For example, a man who could pass on many generations dies in protecting his old mother who is incapable of having more children. More examples include people risking and sacrificing their lives to save others who are disabled and can’t defend themselves or reproduce like the terminally ill, or elderly that need help 24/7. Along with this the theist could’ve brought up empathetic love towards criminals and such to try and rehabilitate them. If it is in our evolutionary nature to just stay alive and keep away from what’s dangerous then why do we often reach out to those who can kill us? Even concepts that aren’t too common like agape love actively contradicts naturalism and evolutionary principles.

[@JunkYard-omarnour]

Maybe cause he was smart enough to know that exceptions doest refute the major rule Another thing his theory explain how the basics of morality was formed in our premative ancestors Now we became more intelligent and complicated and the equation doesn't only count plant physical factors there is emotional factors We no longer get married cause we want to reproduce you may you marry a seriale spouse only cause he makes you laugh or makes you feel better

[@shailendradas1661]

Do western vs eastern religions/philosophy on what is God.

[@highestvotedcomment]

Catholic vs. Protestant Denominations! (including non-denominational)

[@zinosword]

How did you train the AI? I am genuinely curious

[@hexi9595]

He didn’t. He is using multiple separate AI models already available

[@Flash-pp3cr]

@@hexi9595Maybe. I've used these like crazy. It's almost like you have to train or modify what's going on to have a great turn out like the ones he presents.

[@Ajmalnerd]

this is Cristian channel

[@zinosword]

@@hexi9595 but in the vid he said "we've configured advanced AI into relegius and phylosofical experts" so that means they trained the AI in a certain field so precisely that they are more expert than humans I juts what to understand how they configured/trained the AI to do that.

[@sparksdog8111]

It seems even A.I. can't make the Frank Turek moral argument sound anything but ridiculous...

[@christianemallon9571]

could you do something on gender theory? are genders necessary, feminism, trans rights, etc. id really like to hear AI debate what the future could look like if we were to abolish genders or if they are perhaps important to our society

[@lXedalinl]

I gotta say, a bit bold the AI is arguing if someone saw a drowning child they "MUST" help. This ai needs to spend more time with people it's a but too optimistic. I think MOST would help, but certainty not a must. I hate neither ai addresses that there certainly are people who simply wouldn't care. Suddenly its not a MUST but a matter of having a good perspective on the value of life.

[@DaddyOwO]

It weird to hear the athiest ai just accept moral objectivity. That's the first thing I'd attack were I on his side.

[@Legacy1283tr]

Hello, as a Muslim even though some may call me ''heretic'' I follow the ideas of Quranism a minority perspective in Muslim world that only takes Quran as source and either judges hadits and fetwas or straight up declines it. After seeing one of your previous videos and when the cllasic ''Aise was 9 years old'' question is asked the Muslim Ai (Sunni I think) tried to use ''but back than it was normal for that age'' argumant if it was a Quranist ai it could have said ''but its on a hadith book writen by a human after dead of Muhammed with a 200 years gap why we should accept it as a unquestioneble source?'' so please even though our perspective is minority it would be nice you to add it we cleary don't want ourselves be represent by a Ai which thinks Allah's words and mankinds writing is equal.

[@lowkii712]

You should make them debate if humans exist

[@the_h0undstanevil52]

The only thing I got from this is that morality is just a survival instinct

[@davidduggan1202]

I disagree. Survival is often at odds with morality. Those who are immoral tend to have better survival instincts as well as reproduction success. Morality was invented to create more harmony and social cohesion.

[@CD-vb9fi]

Survival instinct is absolutely not about Morality. We need food to survive, but it is not moral for me to punch you down and take your food to survive. Additionally, for the species to continue we must procreate. It is definitely immoral to force procreation onto others against their will.

[@the_h0undstanevil52]

@@davidduggan1202 on an individual level yeah but where past that where talking social survival

[@the_h0undstanevil52]

@@CD-vb9fi I 100 percent agree that we live in a grey world where black and white are looked at as sin by either side

[@the_h0undstanevil52]

@@CD-vb9fi and you gotta do what you gotta do sometimes.

[@CamoLoTiProd]

One problem I kept seeing with the atheist argument is that most of the progress it talks about was lead/spurred on by Christians (Also, why did he keep dodging the Christian's answer in the cross-examination? It was really weird). Ending slavery, western culture, the declaration of independence, among other things, were led by Christians. This is a point I see overlooked in this argument and I figured that I might as well bring it forward for debate.

[@lukerussell2076]

The atheist ai left out two things. 1) when the believer ai asserted that our morality evolved for survival value the atheist kept that assumption. Evolution is more complex than just survival. Take the peacocks feathers for example which may do more harm than good for their chance of avoiding predators 2) if Gods morality was perfect then why not condemn slavery from the offset?

[@Michael-Archonaeus]

The believer is clearly not representative of all Theists, so the title is wrong, and the Atheist is clearly a Naturalist. This is "Atheist Naturalist vs. Christian"

[@vitalepitts]

As a lover of debate, the attitude of these comments makes me truly sad.

[@naw-_-]

2 points for the atheist that I want to point out: 1. Subjective morality: in rare cases, people don't agree on some moral truths e.g. a psychopath probably wouldn't/couldn't agree that murder is wrong. Most of our "moral truths" are not objective but subjective and 99%+ agree on them. 2. The moral argument doesn't work because of the problem of evil. A: Murdering an innocent child is wrong. B: God also thinks that murdering an innocent child is wrong because our morals come from him and he wouldn't give us morals he doesnt agree with. C: God doesn't prevent innocent kids from dying of illnesses/natural disasters and there is no greater good to it.

[@mxp4225]

I'm atheist but I'm just going to play devil's advocate for a second 1. Maybe there is greater good to it in the afterlife, you simply can't fathom it. 2. God is allowed to kill anybody because he is by definition good, meaning anytime he kills someone (or doesn't help someone) it's the morally perfect thing to do. Also in the bible he does command the slaughter of the canaanites, which had to have been good, even though one of the ten commandments is don't murder. These rules don't apply to him as a perfect being. I also think it's strange reasoning but it works.

[@not1207]

@@mxp4225But isn’t he contradicting his commandments?Provided that there is a greater good from murdering an innocent child. But in this, is his moral system not just a utilitarian one?

[@berunto8186]

​@@mxp4225 God could choose a more moral way than killing people. He could just change their minds which is better than having them murdered and send to hell. If everything God does is good then Morality becomes arbitrary.

[@mxp4225]

@@not1207 Like i said, his commandments don't apply to him. He, by nature, can not possibly do something that isn't good, so anything he does is good no matter how horrible it seems or how much it appears to contradict himself. And also you have to understand that afterlife in christianity is infinite, meaning our life on earth or the suffering we experience genuinely DON'T MATTER AT ALL in the grand scheme of things.

[@chupapi-o5u]

Religious people don't agree with moral truths in their books either. They pick and choose what to believe based on their updated morality of today's age. If we lived 3000 years ago most people in the comments would think its okay to kill in the name of God. On a societal basis

[@racksityentertainment]

This makes me imagine a society where the moral compass is surviving and having the best result, the idea of supporting the weak and the strong defending them would be nonsense… in this universe, we don’t live in a gigachad society where by natural selection, weak people went extinct… in all those years, human instinct was to protect the weak… that’s not survival efficiency 😅

[@xJohnnyBloodx]

we need one where they debate if god is omnibenevolent. God has done some petty stuff in the bible

[@Άθελι-παιδί-του-Θεού]

@xJohnnyBloodx measuring God by human standards is pretty petty... when it is clear that God explains why He does things. Divine standard>Human standard The fact that he allows humanity to continue is beyond merciful and beyond myself, when I (and many others) used to believe and want to world to end because humanity is a disease.

[@LilianXRia]

I don’t quite understand how this brings us to god existing or not, could an atheist not hold that objective morality simply doesn’t exist. I believe that’s the strongest stance for an atheist to have in the moral argument.

[@c0rndog748]

So then what standard does your morality hold to? Do you see your cultural beliefs as more right or more wrong when compared to say Islamic states, India with its SA problems and caste issues or even moral dilemmas in your own society? If you see one as higher or lower there is an implied objective standard from somewhere. Personally I don’t think it’s a good argument for God existing either rather just an argument that it comes from God and has an objective rightness that is reflected in all functioning long lived societies.

[@LilianXRia]

@c0rndog748 It comes from my ability to empathize with others, I would say it’s wrong but not in the objective sense. Say someone maybe a psychopath thinks murder is good because it weeds the weak off you can’t prove to them objectively that their view is wrong, maybe they believe empathy makes you weak, you can argue against it all you want but if they don’t agree or care for the suffering of others you can’t prove that the suffering of others matter objectively, it’s subjective. I don’t believe there’s like a universal law or objective truth that murder is wrong but it’s wrong from the perspective of another human beings ability to empathize with the suffering of others

[@duetwithme766]

I think these exercises prove the limitations of AI. There is no place for evolution in a debate about morality requiring a God to exist. The fact that evolution "can" provide some alignment with "objective morality" (if such a thing exists), doesn't mean that all evolution is moral. AI only responds with evolution because plenty of people bring up evolution. It is a weak and irrelevant argument to make, and Atheist cannot actually reason that it is on its own At the same time, as soon as Believer says "God gave us the capacity for moral reasoning", they are admitting that moral reasoning can occur independent of God. That is to say, morality that obviously isn't addressed in the Bible still has to be determined, therefore the Bible isn't required to determine morality.

[@captainfury497]

The Atheist AI shot itself in the foot by not bringing up the fact that morality is not objective. It could've demolished everything the theist said by simply acknowledging that truth. Makes sense since the Ai was designed to be nice and PC it cannot go into that controversial area. It could simply demolish the theist moral absolutist positions by asking why. "X is immoral" the best response is to keep asking why and eventually the absolutist will have to submit and acknowledge the evolutionary nature of morality.

[@iWontSeeYourReplies]

Wrong my man. There are debates on morality being objective or subjective. Go do an online search and see for yourself. You’re not going to win a debate that easily.

[@captainfury497]

@@iWontSeeYourReplies Unless the subjective morality defender is an ignoramus like this AI, the victory is easy. Objective empirical evidence vs faith and wishful thinking.

[@hexi9595]

Here is an argument on the Atheist favor: Imagine an experiment when 20 kids were locked in separate rooms since birth. In what religion would they believe in? The answer? 20 different religions. This experiment already happened on a macro scale with all the cultures arround the world that were basically isolated from one another. The fact that there is 0 consistency within those religions automatically discredits all of them.

[@Varue]

I wouldnt jump to it automatically discrediting them- there could be more to it than that. It could be that there is a god, common between all them, that just doesnt communicate the way they all think it does. Though I’m more inclined to think the “god” they all developed a belief for is really just something within all humans, like looking inward. What we experience as consciousness is just a surface level of the brain’s intelligence, so it could be there really is a sub-level of intelligence guiding all humans towards survival or betterment of their situation that humans occasionally glimpsed and believed to be a god for how it seemed to always have the right answer.

[@facundopuerta7673]

This would just mean God chosed a specific group to reveal himself, as he said in the bible many times, i dont find a reason to asume one would just born knowing who God is, what i know is that all humans are born with the urge to find him and will feel a void in them

[@MarvinStephens]

Incorrect. There is one consistent factor across human existence that is the true test to morality and that is called time. If you leave these religions alone for long enough, eventually they die out if they are not based in evident Truths. Over time religions will cede to one as humans are collective by nature. E.g. Aztecs vs. Buddhists. Both completely isolated yet 1 of which still stands today. Religions form bc we as humans innately have a sense of a higher power but we cannot always comprehend it.

[@jan_Linaso1178]

@@MarvinStephens As far as I can't tell, you are arguing that the religious group that is "more true" is more likely to thrive. Yet i can imagine a world where the religion that has the most political power is the one that spreads the furthest, which I believe reflects what we see in the real world. This along with the fact that it would be seemingly impossible to prove that one religion is more based in Truth than other (other that individual opinion) how could you know whether the religion you believe in will eventually die out and be replaced by a more true one?

[@DaRThVadAr314]

I would say that this argument was very skewed to more Christian belief of what God is like. The concept of God varies throughout all religions throughout the world, and I feel like this did not accurately depict all religions within this debate.

[@Hai_Nocts]

Was soul have freewill? Likes what? Machine mechanism or metaphysic Brain? Or randomness? Both are'nt freewill

[@fazelok]

6:45 - its called, children are innocent, thats why they act the way they do.

[@IcePhoenixMusician]

I think there was an issue with assuming a moral realist position for the “atheist” bot. Atheists are much more likely, especially among the philosophers, to hold various moral anti-realist positions, holding that morality simply isn’t objective in the way many, especially among theists, tend to believe is intuitively the case.

[@tjpg25]

For sure, maybe a bit of bias since the creator of the channel is Christian, he probably assumed that atheists believe in moral objectivism as well. I don't see how morality isn't objective though. With moral relativism it makes no sense for us to be against large cults. Moral relativism is very weak to hypotheticals. I can't get into some of them since they would be deleted by youtube but if you want to get into them you can give me your discord.

[@IcePhoenixMusician]

Hi tjpg25, I see where you’re coming from, and I think the disconnect here might be in how we view the nature of morality itself. Many Christians, including yourself, may understand morality as something fixed-objective truths handed down by a divine source. From that perspective, moral rules would be universal and unchanging, inherently binding on all people regardless of circumstance. For me, however, morality is a human construct. I don’t see moral “oughts” as being written into the fabric of reality, and I don’t believe they exist in the same way as physical laws. If we take an example like the one in the video-where there’s an expectation to save a drowning child-there’s often an assumption of a moral compulsion, a strong “ought” that binds us to act. But in my view, that “ought” is less like an objective command and more like a powerful suggestion, shaped by empathy, social expectations, and cultural conditioning. We’re inclined to act, but not in an absolute, moral realist sense. In the case of the drowning child, if there’s a real risk to your own life, I’d argue that not helping shouldn’t necessarily be shamed. When we talk about reducing harm and promoting flourishing, your own well-being is part of that equation too. You can’t reduce suffering by sacrificing yourself needlessly; self-preservation is also a rational component of any ethical calculation, which is something a strictly objective framework might overlook. Now, why promote flourishing and reduce harm at all? You might ask, “Why ought we value these things if there’s no divine command?” For me, it’s not a command or duty in the traditional sense; it’s more of a brute fact about morality as we experience it. Ethical systems that promote prosperity, fairness, and compassion endure because they align with human nature and lead to stability and cooperation. In contrast, moral frameworks that celebrate cruelty or indifference don’t tend to survive or benefit us in the long run; they’re inherently self-destructive and incompatible with human flourishing. In this way, morality feels “persistent” and meaningful, even without a higher authority enforcing it. It evolves over time but has a recognizable trajectory toward reducing harm and promoting well-being, because systems that do this are inherently more stable. Rather than seeing moral “oughts” as objective truths, I see them as powerful guides that help shape behaviors beneficial to humanity, rooted in our collective experience rather than in an absolute divine command.

[@kalanilarsen6112]

Moral argument is too vague. I think we were looking for the creation argument.

[@affluentgad2939]

this video is extremely painful to get through as a moral relativist😂

[@nickb1156]

New video idea: Does Christianity accept homosexuality? Make them debate based on Bible verses only.

[@imragaa]

If it’s on Bible verses only then no. You don’t have to dig very far to know that the Bible conflicts heavily with homosexuality.

[@benjaminreyes3624]

@@imragaathe Bible conflicts with heterosexuality too. This is why you must be married first before engaging in sex

[@nickb1156]

@@imragaa that's debatable which is why I proposed it as a video.

[@tjpg25]

@@nickb1156 anything is debatable if the standard is literally just if you can debate it.. Protestants can't explain why there are 66 books so the entire topic is mute. Catholics can't explain Nostra aetate, Lumen gentium 16, and Mortalium Animos. Orthodox doesn't support it.

[@CD-vb9fi]

Christianity does not accept homosexuality. All sexual acts are of the flesh and sin. God only provides "cover" of this sin under the covenant of "marriage" which is 1 male and 1 female. Anyone that falls to the lust of the flesh regardless of their "sexuality" will be condemned if they do not repent and "change" their ways.

[@sordidknifeparty]

Explain to me how you know the difference between divine inspiration and Imagination

[@imragaa]

How do you know the difference between math and imagination? Whatever answer you give is my answer, learn to think for yourself.

[@tjpg25]

Test the belief.

[@robotaholic]

Morality is a lot like temperature. In order for there to be a hot temperature there have to be a lot of atoms that vibrate continuously and that is what makes it hot. In the same way if a God is all that exists it is not possible for him to be moral because morality requires more than one entity in the way that you treat them and in the way they treat you so no God cannot be the Arbiter of morality because in the beginning he was the only thing that exists and thus containing absolutely no morality whatsoever. Morality is an emergent behavior, which does not exist when there's only one entity.

[@c0rndog748]

Interesting you say that seeing the Christian dogma have the Father, Son and Spirit existing as 3 as well as in 1 eternally. So there is multiple beings in which perfect will, perfect morality, perfect love and perfect treatment is expressed. Crazy how that works. Genesis expresses the plurality of God almost right away with “create man in our image.” In Isiah the angel of the Lord (pre incarnate Jesus Christ) states “and now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit. Baptism of Christ by John has all 3 as well. John 1:1 “in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and is God” Jesus is the word, this verse is a direct expression of Christs eternalness and existence with and in God Due to all being perfect arbiters of morality their will and decisions are all the same, their existence infinite so power and dominion equal, separate but one.

[@davidhumphrey608]

As an atheist I'd say the atheist ai presented a poor argument and I'm quite surprised at its inability to point out the flaws better as well as make a better argument foe the development of metals through evolution. Also why MUST you help a child in a puddle ... ?? U dont need to and some people wouldn't that's a crutil bit of explaining evolution that was missed

[@11kravitzn]

Next time, can you make the atheist AI a moral non-realist, more like Nietzsche?

[@bizdaretz8679]

I'm not of the mind to side with the Believer here... Buuuuut Is it not possible that "God is Good" by itself, means that those two words exist BECAUSE of each other? Without "Good" there is no "God", but equally without "God" there is no "Good" Again, this is just a view from someone who is NOT usually in agreement with the Believer (Though to be fair, I'm also not usually in total agreement with the Atheist either. I'm Pagnostic. Pagan/Agnostic. Meaning I do not believe humanity has the ability to understand the higher powers that I do believe exist, BUT I also believe that those higher powers are more than just ONE belief system. I think they all stem from a PERSPECTIVE of reality.)

[@broker499]

I feel like the strongest atheist position here would be "Yeah, morality/ethics is subjective, no one has any real obligations, it's all evolutionary mechanisms and delusion. So what?" I really can't see a way to convince a person who concedes the "objective morality' claim. You could explain them how this approach is unhealthy and unproductive for society, but you can't effectively challenge their presupposition. If anyone sees an angle here, please let me know

[@Bacon2000.]

Alright, so why try to punish people who do immoral things? It's their own subjective morality, why should we apply our own subjective moral standards to them.?

[@chupapi-o5u]

​@@Bacon2000. Because were social creatures. Look the thing is when we say morality is subjective that means it's a human concept. We adopted it through evolution, we needed it to thrive, and that's why it's such a big part of our daily lives and its been that for thousands of years. But to say that a god is behind is simply a baseless claim which I find appalling to begin with. I would think you're a person of much greater character if you think things are bad because you truly think so and not because a god told you

[@tjpg25]

@@chupapi-o5u Okay. Saying that God is why is a baseless claim? Sure. Now for you: we needed morality to thrive. Why do we need to thrive? there is no purpose in an atheistic world. Thriving and not thriving is just up to chance. Why did everything choose to thrive?