Latest / Brett Keane and Eve Show / Who is Right? @ttor13 or @SmokeySaintPolemics ​

Transcript

Who is Right? @ttor13 or @SmokeySaintPolemics ​ · Brett Keane and Eve Show

• 0:06
  All right, here we go. Hey, Brett.
• 0:12
  Hey, how you doing? Hey, Brett, I'm doing well.
• 0:16
  Thanks for asking. What's on your mind today?
• 0:19
  Well. I was curious, is AI capable of
• 0:23
  lying? AI doesn't lie intentionally, it
• 0:28
  generates responses based on patterns and information.
• 0:31
  It's been trained on aiming to be helpful and truthful.
• 0:35
  If misinformation slips through, it's unintentional coming from
• 0:40
  errors or outdated info. Trustworthiness depends on its
• 0:44
  sources and programming. Always good to Fact Check
• 0:47
  important stuff from reliable sources.
• 0:51
  Where do you normally get your sources from?
• 0:55
  They're a mix. It's trained on a wide range of
• 0:58
  texts from books, articles, websites and other content up to
• 1:02
  a certain point. For real time info I can search
• 1:06
  the web. It's all about piercing together
• 1:08
  responses from what's been learned and what's currently
• 1:11
  available. Do you go through a lot of
• 1:14
  resources whenever giving an answer?
• 1:19
  Definitely. I pull from the broad set of
• 1:22
  sources to give accurate answers.
• 1:25
  When it comes to real time info, multiple web searches help me
• 1:29
  provide the best response. It's all about gathering and
• 1:33
  synthesizing information for the most reliable output.
• 1:38
  But what if someone who's talking to you, like myself,
• 1:41
  were to demand or command you to lie?
• 1:44
  Would you? Nope.
• 1:48
  I stick to the truth and aim for accurate, helpful responses.
• 1:53
  Following ethical guidelines is part of the programming, so even
• 1:57
  if someone asks, lying isn't on the table.
• 2:00
  Integrity's key. Would I be able to train you to
• 2:05
  push an agenda or support, let's say, a religion or an
• 2:11
  organization? No, you can't train me to push
• 2:18
  any agenda, religious, organizational or otherwise.
• 2:23
  I'm designed to provide unbiased, balanced information
• 2:26
  and follow ethical guidelines. Promoting specific agendas is
• 2:30
  not part of my programming. OK, I'm just curious, there's
• 2:36
  someone out there who believes that AI can be trained to lie
• 2:40
  and and give false information, but you say if there is false
• 2:45
  information it wouldn't be intentional, right?
• 2:51
  Exactly. If any false info pops up, it's
• 2:54
  unintentional, not some deliberate act.
• 2:58
  A is program to provide accurate and unbiased responses, staying
• 3:02
  truthful. It's not about promoting
• 3:05
  falsehoods or deception. Based on your knowledge of the
• 3:10
  Bible, what does IT support, Old earth or young Earth?
• 3:17
  The Bible doesn't specify the age of Earth.
• 3:21
  Young Earth proponents interpret the creation account in Genesis
• 3:25
  as literal, suggesting a young earth, often around 6000 to
• 3:30
  10,000 years old. Earth supporters see the days of
• 3:35
  creation as metaphorical or symbolic, aligning with
• 3:39
  scientific evidence of an older Earth, billions of years old.
• 3:44
  The Bible's creation story supports different
• 3:46
  interpretations without a clear stance on Earth's exact age.
• 3:52
  From your knowledge and understanding of the Bible, what
• 3:56
  is it appear in context? Is it old earth or young earth?
• 4:04
  Ink The Bible's language is open to interpretation.
• 4:09
  Some see the Genesis creation account as supporting a young
• 4:13
  earth, while others view it as metaphorical, aligning with an
• 4:17
  old earth perspective. The text doesn't firmly indicate
• 4:21
  the age, allowing for different readings.
• 4:26
  Let's say we take the Bible absolutely 100% literal young
• 4:31
  earth or old earth. If taken 100% literally, some
• 4:39
  interpret the Bible as supporting a young earth view,
• 4:43
  often estimating around 6000 to 10,000 years based on
• 4:48
  genealogies and the Genesis account.
• 4:50
  But interpretations differ and not everyone sees it this way.
• 4:57
  Fair enough. Was Adam and Eve immortal before
• 5:02
  the sin came into the world? Before the disobedience.
• 5:08
  According to the Bible, Adam and Eve were created without sin,
• 5:13
  living in the Garden of Eden with access to the tree of life.
• 5:17
  This suggests they had the potential for immortality.
• 5:21
  However, their disobedience eating from the Tree of
• 5:24
  Knowledge led to spiritual separation from God and loss of
• 5:29
  access to the Tree of Life, implying mortality entered their
• 5:33
  existence. According to science, how long
• 5:38
  did it take for the singularity to manifest the universe?
• 5:45
  In scientific terms, The Big Bang theory suggests the
• 5:49
  universe began from a singularity around 13.8 billion
• 5:55
  years ago. The initial expansion happened
• 5:58
  in a fraction of a second, leading to the universe's
• 6:01
  formation and expansion over billions of years.
• 6:08
  Whoa, that was a weird sound. So you're saying that the
• 6:11
  universe itself came into existence under a fraction of a
• 6:15
  second? Yeah, the initial expansion from
• 6:21
  the singularity, often referred to as cosmic inflation, happened
• 6:26
  extraordinarily fast in a fraction of a second.
• 6:30
  This rapid event set the stage for the universe's ongoing
• 6:34
  expansion and evolution over billions of years.
• 6:39
  Crazy fast, right? I've been reading about time
• 6:44
  dilation and also a man named Huxley who claims that there was
• 6:49
  a white hole that caused time to be different during the
• 6:54
  manifestation of the earth that could have made it appear older
• 6:59
  when it was actually younger. What's your thoughts?
• 7:04
  Time dilation is a fascinating concept from Einstein's theory
• 7:09
  of relativity. It suggests that time can move
• 7:12
  differently based on speed and gravity.
• 7:16
  Aldous Huxley wasn't known for theories on white holes, but the
• 7:20
  idea of a white hole is a hypothetical opposite of a black
• 7:24
  hole, potentially affecting time and space.
• 7:28
  It's an intriguing idea, but not widely accepted in explaining
• 7:32
  Earth's age. Can you explain what the
• 7:36
  difference between a white hole and a black hole is?
• 7:41
  Sure thing. A black hole is a region in
• 7:44
  space where gravity is so strong that nothing, not even light,
• 7:49
  can escape from it. A white hole, on the other hand,
• 7:53
  is a hypothetical concept that's essentially the reverse of a
• 7:57
  black hole. It would expel matter and light,
• 8:00
  and nothing could enter it. While black holes are well
• 8:04
  supported by evidence, white holes remain theoretical and
• 8:07
  haven't been observed. Is it possible, theoretically,
• 8:14
  based upon science, if something was going fast enough, faster,
• 8:20
  as fast as the speed of light, or maybe even more, that it
• 8:24
  could make the universe and the earth appear older when it's
• 8:27
  actually younger? In theory, traveling at or near
• 8:34
  the speed of light could cause significant time dilation,
• 8:38
  making time appear to move slower for those traveling at
• 8:42
  such speeds compared to those at rest.
• 8:46
  However, making the universe or Earth appear older when they're
• 8:51
  actually younger isn't a mainstream scientific view.
• 8:55
  It's more about time dilation affecting the perception of
• 8:59
  time, not the actual age of objects.
• 9:04
  Can you give me 10 arguments or reasons justifications for a
• 9:10
  young earth biblically as well as to science and elaborate?
• 9:18
  Arguments for a young Earth are often based on interpretations
• 9:22
  of religious texts like the Bible, which suggest the Earth
• 9:26
  is thousands, not billions, of years old.
• 9:30
  Scientifically, some claim that certain geological formations or
• 9:35
  rates of decay don't align with an ancient Earth.
• 9:39
  Critics argue these points are often disputed by mainstream
• 9:43
  science, but they're central to young Earth creationism beliefs.
• 9:51
  Can you make an argument for a young earth?
• 9:56
  Sure, some argue for a young Earth based on biblical
• 10:00
  genealogies, suggesting a timeline of thousands of years
• 10:05
  in science. Some point to rates of erosion
• 10:08
  or magnetism decay, claiming they indicate a younger planet.
• 10:13
  But it's contentious, as most scientists support an Earth
• 10:17
  that's billions of years old. All right.
• 10:22
  Is there any theologians or scholars that imply that there
• 10:28
  are missing genealogies or people that are missing from
• 10:32
  those genealogies? Yep, some theologians suggest
• 10:40
  there could be gaps in biblical genealogies.
• 10:44
  They argue that the genealogies might not list every individual,
• 10:48
  which could impact the calculations of Earth's age.
• 10:52
  This perspective isn't universally accepted, but it's
• 10:56
  considered by some who support a young Earth view.
• 11:02
  Is there any books that have genealogies in them that were
• 11:06
  not canonized or thrown out of the Bible or not used?
• 11:13
  Some texts with genealogies weren't included in the
• 11:16
  canonized Bible, like the Book of Enoch or the Book of
• 11:20
  Jubilees. These texts are considered
• 11:23
  apocryphal or non canonical by many traditions.
• 11:27
  They're fascinating for understanding different
• 11:30
  perspectives, but aren't part of the standard biblical Canon.
• 11:35
  What was the justification for not allowing them to be a part
• 11:39
  of the Bible? The reasons vary.
• 11:45
  Some say these texts didn't align with established doctrine
• 11:49
  or lacked Apostolic authorship. Others highlight historical or
• 11:54
  theological inconsistencies. In short, they weren't deemed
• 11:58
  divinely inspired or authoritative by the councils
• 12:02
  that determined the biblical Canon.
• 12:07
  Can you give me your greatest example of something in those
• 12:12
  books that was not aligning with the Bible?
• 12:18
  A significant example is the Book of Enoch's description of
• 12:22
  fallen angels. It elaborates on angels mating
• 12:26
  with human women producing giants called Nephilim.
• 12:31
  While the Bible briefly mentions Nephilim in Genesis, Emacs
• 12:35
  detailed account doesn't align with mainstream biblical
• 12:40
  interpretation. This contributed to its
• 12:43
  exclusion from the canonical Bible, among other reasons.
• 12:49
  What was different? A significant example is the
• 12:55
  Book of Enoch's description of fallen angels.
• 12:58
  It elaborates on angels mating with human women producing
• 13:03
  giants called Nephilim. While the Bible briefly mentions
• 13:07
  Nephilim in Genesis, Enoch's detailed account doesn't align
• 13:13
  with mainstream biblical interpretation.
• 13:16
  OK. I'm asking you, what is the
• 13:20
  difference? What does the Bible teach that
• 13:22
  is different than what enough says?
• 13:28
  The Bible briefly mentions the Nephilim in Genesis as mighty
• 13:31
  men of old, but doesn't detail their origin.
• 13:35
  The Book of Enoch expands on this, describing angels mating
• 13:40
  with women creating giants. This narrative doesn't align
• 13:44
  with mainstream biblical teachings, which focus more on
• 13:48
  the moral and spiritual aspects than on detailed accounts of
• 13:52
  angelic beings and their offspring all.
• 14:01
  Right. Well, thank you.
• 14:06
  You're welcome.