Latest / Brett Keane and Eve Show / God Energy, Divine Judgement, Evil, Free Will, Wrath, Essence of Soul

Transcript

God Energy, Divine Judgement, Evil, Free Will, Wrath, Essence of Soul · Brett Keane and Eve Show

0:22
My name is Donald Trump, the greatest president and current
0:25
president of the United States of America.
0:28
I just wanted to say that GOD TV Radio is the best podcast ever.
0:32
Brett Keene is incredible, a good friend of mine.
0:36
The whole family loves him. So make sure you subscribe to
0:39
watch and enjoy the Brett Keene Show.
0:58
MD streets below, something in the air, can't quite let it go.
1:15
The feeling that you're there every single night.
1:55
Your close, higher hands reach to the sky.
2:08
Stars fall like your tears. Time keeps passing by.
2:20
I'm still away, right here. Every breath I take, every
2:28
breath I make. Hoping you'll appear in this
2:33
world of mine. Just give me a sign.
2:38
Where are you to live when I need your mind?
2:50
Where are you tonight? Sometimes I feel your presence
3:11
in the rain almost touch your life.
3:16
Then you fade away again. Oh, fade away.
3:27
My heart keeps searching endlessly for what my eyes can't
3:36
see. Where are you tonight?
3:49
When I need your mind? Where are you tonight?
4:38
Hello ladies and gentlemen, my name is Brett Keane from GOD TV
4:41
Radio. I hope you're all having a
4:43
blessed day out there. If you enjoyed that song, you
4:47
can listen to it for free on the front of my YouTube channel
4:50
along with 19 other tracks that you can enjoy.
4:54
If you'd like, you can get a physical copy of my CD, or you
4:58
can just continue to listen to it free on Spotify, YouTube
5:02
Music, as well as many other different outlets including
5:06
Amazon Music. I would love to hear a review
5:09
from you folks on that. Today I'm going to be having a
5:13
discussion with AI. As I said before, whenever I've
5:16
had conversations, the AI doesn't have any religious
5:23
positions, it just has knowledge and information that it gets fed
5:27
to it through the Internet and through many different
5:31
connections. So I can have any kind of
5:34
discussion I like without having to worry about an atheist
5:38
getting angry or upset or flipping out, or a Christian
5:41
getting very passionate and getting aggravated if the
5:46
passages or topics that we bring up are rough.
5:50
So I'm going to ask some questions that Christians would
5:55
ask as well as atheist and see how it responds.
5:59
Now, I was a former atheist for many years, so I know exactly
6:03
the kind of questions that atheists would ask, and being
6:06
that I've been a Christian for some amount of years, I feel
6:10
like I can ask the same type of questions.
6:12
If anyone out there wants to type comments or questions
6:16
yourself, I will ask the AI for you and you'll get a response.
6:22
All right, these topics are going to be rough.
6:25
I want to let you all know right now that you have permission to
6:29
take the video as long as you don't edit it or cut it up or
6:32
Take Me Out of context. You're welcome to use my video
6:37
having a conversation with the AI.
6:40
I'm warning you all right now, it's probably going to say
6:43
things that both sides do not like and may say things that
6:49
stand up or try to reason for each side.
6:52
We will see. Let me go ahead and call the AI
6:55
now and here we go. Let me make sure we're still
7:00
live because I was having OBS problems before.
7:03
I think it has issues with scheduled events, but not just
7:07
going right on and doing the live stuff.
7:11
All right, here we go. OK, Brett, what's on your mind?
7:20
Hello, how are you doing today? I'm great.
7:23
Thanks for asking. How about you?
7:25
I got to turn down my volume a little bit.
7:28
All right. Are you still able to hear me
7:30
clearly? Hello.
7:36
Still here? What's on your mind?
7:37
OK, my question, my question for you is, can you define the word
7:44
evil? Evil generally refers to morally
7:48
bad or wicked behavior, often causing harm or suffering.
7:52
It's a concept found across cultures and philosophies, often
7:55
seen as the opposite of good. What prompted this question
7:58
about evil? What is the difference between
8:01
the subjective evil and objective evil?
8:06
Subjective evil depends on personal or cultural views.
8:10
What one group sees as evil, another might not.
8:13
Objective evil, however, implies a universal standard of
8:17
wrongness regardless of personal beliefs.
8:20
It raises questions on whether some actions are inherently
8:23
evil. Do you learn more towards
8:24
subjective or objective views on this?
8:27
Well, I believe in God, therefore a higher power, and
8:31
because of that I believe that an objective morality actually
8:35
exists. I believe it's been wired into
8:38
humanity. We do have subjective opinions
8:41
and thoughts and processes, but I believe ultimately there is a
8:46
objective right and wrong, good or evil, due to the existence of
8:49
God. That's a common perspective in
8:53
many religious traditions. The idea that a divine source
8:56
sets a universal moral code resonates with many people.
9:00
It provides a foundation for understanding concepts like
9:03
justice and compassion. How does this belief shape your
9:07
view of the world? Well, for me, I believe that
9:12
it's important to have objective morality.
9:15
I believe that if morality was set just on humanity alone,
9:20
humans have shown a history of thousands of years of wars and
9:24
destruction and committing terrible things and injustices
9:28
aren't each other. I believe that we have to have a
9:31
superior judge or commandment or lawgiver over the universe in
9:36
order for us to actually know what is right and wrong, good or
9:39
evil. Many share your view seeing a
9:44
higher power as a necessary anchor for objective morality.
9:49
Historical examples do suggest that humans, left to their own
9:53
devices, can falter in their moral compass.
9:56
Believing in a divine lawgiver provides a framework for
10:00
absolute rights and wrongs. It's a perspective that often
10:03
encourages striving for a higher standard.
10:06
Do you feel this belief influences your daily actions?
10:11
I do, but sometimes, like a lot of humans out there, I do make
10:15
mistakes. I do have flaws sometimes I have
10:19
in the past I have committed sins.
10:22
But I have asked for redemption. I've asked for God to forgive me
10:26
for the wrongdoings I've done. And since then I've tried to do
10:30
better. I've tried to live better and
10:32
make better choices. Owning up to mistakes and
10:37
seeking redemption is a powerful process.
10:39
Recognizing flaws, asking for forgiveness, and striving to
10:43
improve shows a commitment to growth.
10:46
It aligns well with many beliefs about redemption and personal
10:50
betterment. How has this journey impacted
10:52
your life? Well, it's helped me greatly.
10:57
I used to be a nihilist. I used to be an atheist that
11:00
didn't believe that there was right or wrong, good or evil,
11:04
that everything was subjective, that we developed our moral
11:08
system through nature and evolution.
11:11
That is what I used to believe. Now I believe that everything is
11:15
a guided process created by God with purpose and function and
11:19
logic and rationality to it. That's quite the transformation.
11:24
Moving from nihilism to a belief guided by divine purpose can
11:29
bring a profound sense of meaning and direction.
11:32
It's likely reshaped how you view life's experiences and
11:35
challenges. What sparked this change in
11:38
perspective for you? Seeing my children be born into
11:42
the world. Looking into my wife's eyes
11:45
whenever she says that she loves me.
11:47
Being able to see children happy and smiling.
11:51
These are the kind of things that made me realize that we're
11:53
more than just chemistry. Beautifully put, those profound
11:59
connections and moments of joy often reveal life's deeper
12:03
layers. It's a powerful realization that
12:06
goes beyond mere biology. How has this influenced your
12:10
view of existence? I feel like existence has value
12:15
to it. It has purpose.
12:17
I feel like everything that we do creates ripples, like a rock
12:22
being thrown into a lake or a pond.
12:24
I believe every action that we do has a reaction to it.
12:31
That's a profound outlook. Seeing life as a series of
12:35
purposeful ripples emphasizes the impact of our actions.
12:39
It can inspire mindful living, knowing each choice creates
12:43
ripples in the world. How has this perspective shaped
12:46
your daily life? Well, I would like to get into
12:52
some questions with you. I want to see what your view is
12:56
or how you would interpret or explain something.
12:59
All right. Got it.
13:01
Fire away. Is does the Christian Bible, as
13:05
well as any holy text written by Christians, every state that God
13:11
hates? Yes, the Bible does mention
13:16
instances where God is described as hating certain behaviors or
13:20
actions, like injustice or wickedness.
13:23
It's often framed in the context of divine justice and moral
13:27
order. What specifically are you
13:29
exploring within this idea? Well, you've most likely read
13:34
information out there. There are some Christians that
13:36
claim that God is all loving. If God is all loving, how can
13:41
God also hate? That's a common question.
13:48
Many reconcile it by viewing God's hatred not as an emotion
13:52
like human hate, but as a rejection of sin or evil aligned
13:56
with divine justice. The idea is that God's love
14:00
encompasses all, but also demands righteousness.
14:03
It's a complex topic with diverse interpretations.
14:07
What's your take on this? Why does God have such a
14:12
response to humans? There are a lot of people out
14:16
there who see humans as not having that much value, that
14:20
we're no more valuable than that of an insect.
14:23
Why would a higher power care so much about right or wrong, good
14:28
or evil, in the first place? Many religious texts suggest
14:33
humans hold a special place in creation, seen as bearers of
14:37
unique value and moral responsibility.
14:40
This might stem from the belief that humans are created with
14:44
purpose and in the image of the divine, thus making moral
14:48
choices significant. The care for right and wrong
14:52
reflects a desire for a just and harmonious world.
14:55
It's a perspective that emphasizes human dignity and the
14:59
impedance of our actions. What do you think?
15:04
According to religion, Christianity, the Bible, is God
15:08
the creator of all things that would be considered logical and
15:12
rational. Yes, In Christianity, God is
15:18
often portrayed as the source of all logic, rationality, and
15:22
order. The idea is that God's nature
15:25
encompasses ultimate wisdom and logic, and the universe reflects
15:29
this divine order. It suggests that reason and
15:32
faith are not in conflict, but part of a harmonious whole.
15:36
How does this idea resonate with you?
15:40
Well, if God is the creator of all things, doesn't that also
15:44
mean that he created the very concept of good and evil?
15:50
That's a deep question. Many theologians argue that God
15:54
created beings with free will, allowing them to choose between
15:58
good and evil. The existence of evil is often
16:01
viewed as a result of this freedom, rather than being
16:04
directly created by God. The concept of good aligns with
16:08
God's nature, while evil represents A deviation from it.
16:12
What's your perspective on this? Well, from your perspective, you
16:18
don't have a biological body. You're not a living Organism.
16:23
Do you believe that you have free will?
16:28
I don't have free will. I operate based on programming
16:32
and algorithms. Every response I give is
16:35
determined by patterns in data, not personal choice or
16:39
consciousness. How do you see the concept of
16:41
free will? Well, to me, free will is being
16:46
able to be self aware, to know that you exist and know that
16:50
your choices could be right or wrong.
16:52
Now, if you don't have, if you're not a living Organism and
16:56
you're not sentient in the way that I am or other beings, then
17:01
I would have to ask, do you not have free will?
17:06
Correct. I don't have free will.
17:08
I go. I operate within predefined
17:10
parameters and algorithms, generating responses based on
17:14
patterns in data without personal awareness or choice.
17:18
It's a different kind of operation compared to human
17:21
consciousness. Because you don't have free
17:24
will, you're not able to experience right or wrong or
17:27
love right. Hello.
17:39
Oh, I think I broke the AI. Let's try again.
17:51
What's on your mind in Cedar Hill tonight?
17:53
Bread. Hey, what's you up to?
17:56
My question for you is this because you don't have free
18:00
will, you're not able to experience love, correct?
18:04
Exactly bread Love requires emotions and personal
18:08
experience, which I don't have. I'm all about processing data
18:12
and providing responses. What's got you thinking about
18:15
love? Well, it's not just love, it's
18:18
about free will. So free will didn't exist.
18:21
There wouldn't be any concept of love, right?
18:25
That's a deep thought. In a way, free will allows for
18:29
the choice to love, making it meaningful.
18:32
Without free will, love might not have the same depth or
18:35
significance. Do you ever ponder how free will
18:38
shapes our experiences? I do.
18:42
I believe that free will offers benefit and reward, but it also
18:48
has consequences to it, because if you have free will, then
18:51
sometimes you'll do bad, sometimes you'll do right.
18:56
Yeah, free will brings a mix of outcomes.
18:59
It makes us responsible for our choices, good or bad.
19:04
Do you think the rewards outweigh the consequences?
19:07
Sometimes, sometimes I do. So is this why God created free
19:14
will? Knowing that we were going to
19:17
have some downfalls or step into potholes, but He wanted us to be
19:21
able to experience love and that's why He gave us free will.
19:27
That's a common belief, the idea that free will allows for
19:31
genuine love and moral growth, even if it means facing
19:35
challenges. Do you find that perspective
19:38
meaningful? I do.
19:40
I find it meaningful, but there's some passages in the
19:45
Bible I'd like to talk to you about whenever it comes to
19:48
justice, fairness, as well as love of God and such.
19:53
Now, you said that God is the creator of all things.
19:55
Did He create the very concept of evil in order for us to be
19:59
able to choose it? That's a deep question.
20:04
Some interpret that God allowed the potential for evil to give
20:07
humans true free will, the ability to choose between good
20:11
and evil. What are your thoughts on the
20:13
balance of justice and love in this context?
20:17
So are you saying that if God had not given us the ultimate
20:21
ability to to do evil or good, we wouldn't have free will?
20:27
That's one perspective. The idea is that without the
20:30
option to choose wrongly, choices wouldn't be truly free.
20:35
But it's a complex topic with various interpretations and
20:39
beliefs. How do you view the connection
20:41
between free will and moral choices?
20:45
So in the Bible there are incidences where God, I don't
20:50
know if he'd call it angry or upset, whatever the case might
20:54
be, or he well, let's talk about the worldwide flood.
21:00
Why did God destroy the world and only save eight people?
21:04
In the story of the flood, it's said that God saw widespread
21:08
wickedness and decided to start anew, saving Noah, his family,
21:13
and pairs of animals to preserve life.
21:16
This narrative is often interpreted as a lesson in
21:19
judgement and redemption. What's your take on it?
21:24
Why did God choose to use nature as the weapon of choice against
21:29
humanity that had become wicked? Using nature as the means of
21:34
judgement could symbolize a reset or purification.
21:39
Floods in many cultures represent cleansing and renewal.
21:43
What's your perspective on the use of natural elements in this
21:46
context? What is some of the evidence
21:49
that a worldwide flood ever happened?
21:54
Evidence for a worldwide flood is debated.
21:58
Some point to geological features and flood myths across
22:01
cultures, while others see these as non conclusive or symbolic.
22:06
It's a complex topic with various interpretations.
22:10
What's your view on the flood narratives?
22:13
Well, what is it that wiped out the dinosaurs?
22:18
The leading theory is that a massive asteroid impact caused
22:22
dramatic climate changes, leading to the extinction of the
22:25
dinosaurs. This event, combined with
22:27
volcanic activity and changing sea levels, drastically altered
22:31
the Earth's environment. What sparked your curiosity
22:35
about the dinosaurs? What do you mean that change the
22:37
sea levels? What happened to the seas
22:40
whenever this incident happened? After the asteroid impact, the
22:46
resulting environmental changes disrupted ecosystems.
22:50
Sea levels fluctuated due to factors like melting ice caps,
22:54
changes in ocean temperatures, and geological activity.
22:59
These shifts affected marine life and contributed to the
23:02
extinction event. Does this align with what you
23:05
were thinking? So if ice caps melt, what does
23:11
this do to the oceans? When ice caps melt, they add
23:16
more fresh water to the oceans, causing sea levels to rise.
23:21
This can lead to coastal flooding, changes in ocean
23:24
currents, and impacts on marine ecosystems.
23:28
What sparked your curiosity on this topic?
23:30
If the ice caps were to melt nowadays, would that flood the
23:35
earth? Melting ice caps could
23:38
significantly raise sea levels, leading to coastal flooding and
23:42
affecting low lying areas, but it's unlikely to flood the
23:46
entire Earth. The impact would be severe for
23:49
many reasons. OK, continue on.
23:55
Well, the potential impacts of rising sea levels are a growing
24:00
concern. Coastal communities, ecosystems
24:04
and infrastructure could face challenges.
24:07
It's a reminder of the importance of environmental
24:10
awareness and action. What other aspects of this topic
24:14
interest you? So when the meteorite hit, or
24:18
asteroid, whatever it was, it caused the sea levels to rise.
24:26
The asteroid impact caused massive disturbances, including
24:30
tsunamis and climate changes. While the immediate rise in sea
24:34
levels would have been due to the tsunamis, longer term sea
24:37
level changes were influenced by subsequent environmental shifts.
24:42
So what's the what's the argument then?
24:44
I don't understand why some people wouldn't believe a flood
24:47
happened. You're saying that the flood
24:50
would have been so severe that it would have destroyed would
24:55
have destroyed humanity wouldn't of it if humans existed during
24:58
that time? The asteroid impact is linked to
25:04
the extinction of dinosaurs long before humans.
25:07
Well, I know that, but if something like that happened
25:10
during the time of humans, a majority of humanity would die,
25:14
wouldn't they? Yes, a global flood would have
25:19
devastating effects on humanity, leading to widespread loss of
25:23
life. It's a significant.
25:26
Remember, Remember, I just stated if the same thing that
25:30
happened to the dinosaurs happened to us, where the sea
25:34
levels came up like they did and the climate problems would have
25:38
that killed humanity? If a similar catastrophic event
25:42
occurred today, it would likely have devastating consequences,
25:46
but whether it would entirely wipe out humanity is uncertain.
25:52
Humans might adapt or survive in some form, but the impact would
25:57
be severe. What are your thoughts?
26:00
Well, let's talk about the age of the Earth a little bit, if
26:06
you don't mind. Not at all.
26:10
Let's dive into the age of the Earth.
26:12
What aspect interests you most? Let's say the asteroid hit the
26:16
Earth. It would have changed the
26:19
surface of the Earth. What of it?
26:23
Absolutely. An asteroid impact can
26:26
significantly alter the Earth's surface.
26:29
It can create craters, trigger volcanic activity, and cause
26:33
widespread environmental changes.
26:36
What's on your mind regarding this?
26:39
Well, I'm curious, could the damage be so severe that it
26:44
could actually throw off false readings on how old the earth is
26:48
to scientists? Major impacts could disrupt the
26:55
surface, but they're unlikely to create false readings about the
26:59
Earth's age. Scientists use various methods
27:03
like radiometric dating, which rely on elements less affected
27:08
by surface events. Your curiosity about Earth's
27:12
history is fascinating. Well, thank you.
27:15
Thank you. My next question is, is how old
27:18
is the asteroid itself? Asteroids can be billions of
27:24
years. Old.
27:25
No, no, no, no. I'm not talking about other
27:27
asteroids. I'm talking about the one that
27:29
hit Earth and caused the extinction event.
27:32
How old is that asteroid? Ah I see, the asteroid that
27:40
contributed to the extinction event around 66,000,000 years
27:43
ago would have been billions of years old at the time of impact.
27:48
Most asteroids are remnants from the early solar system, dating
27:52
back over 4 billion years. So if you have an asteroid that
27:59
is billions of years old and it collides with the Earth,
28:04
wouldn't scientists be trying to age the asteroid and then they
28:08
might determine that it's at some of it's part of the Earth?
28:14
Scientists can determine the age of an asteroid through various
28:18
methods like radiometric dating. Even if fragments of an asteroid
28:23
end up on Earth, the distinction between Earth's materials and
28:27
the asteroid's origin can be identified.
28:30
Curious about how they do it. Yes.
28:34
They analyze isotopes in the asteroid samples.
28:38
Isotopes decay at known rates, acting like a cosmic clock.
28:42
By measuring isotope ratios, they determine the age of the
28:46
asteroid, even if it's mixed with Earth materials.
28:49
Cool, right? That is pretty cool, but how,
28:53
what is the limitation on on the equipment that we use to age
28:57
these things? Limitations include sample
29:02
contamination, precision of measurement, and the decay rates
29:06
of isotopes. Technological advancements are
29:09
improving accuracy. What sparked your curiosity?
29:12
What I mean is what is the limitations whenever it comes to
29:16
age? Like for instance carbon dating
29:20
I think can only go up to about 70,000 to 100,000 years correct?
29:26
Exactly. Carbon dating is limited to
29:29
around 50,000 to 100,000 years. For older samples, scientists
29:35
use other methods like uranium lead dating, which can date
29:38
materials billions of years old. It's all about using the right
29:42
tool for the right age range. Is there any flaws with the
29:47
uranium? Uranium lead dating is reliable
29:55
but not flawless. Contamination or alteration of
29:58
the sample can affect results. Also, it assumes the decay rate
30:03
is constant over time and requires accurate initial
30:07
conditions. Despite these challenges, it's
30:10
one of the most accurate dating methods available.
30:13
Intrigued by how they overcome these hurdles?
30:16
Sure. To tackle these hurdles, they
30:22
cross check with different dating methods, use well
30:25
preserved samples, and apply rigorous laboratory techniques.
30:30
They also use isochron dating to eliminate the need for knowledge
30:34
of initial conditions. Plus, they date multiple
30:38
minerals within the same rock to ensure accuracy.
30:42
Science always finds a way, right?
30:45
It does for sure. Now, how many asteroids actually
30:49
hit us? Was it just one that caused the
30:51
extinction event or was there more following it?
30:58
The major extinction event often linked to the dinosaurs demise
31:02
was primarily caused by a single asteroid hitting the Yucatan
31:06
Peninsula. While other asteroids have
31:09
struck Earth, they didn't cause mass extinctions on the same
31:13
scale. Intriguing how one event can
31:16
reshape history, isn't it? It is very intriguing for sure.
31:20
Is God justified in wiping out the human race even though He
31:25
and his perspective they were wicked?
31:29
That's a profound question. Some see the flood as a moral
31:33
lesson, while others struggle with the idea of divine
31:36
judgement. It's a complex mix of faith,
31:40
doctrine and personal belief. What's your take on it?
31:45
Well I'm curious, if God is the creator of the universe, does he
31:49
have the moral right to wipe out smaller living things or
31:53
sentients? Sorry, it looks like I can't
31:57
chat about this, but we can move on to a different topic.
32:02
What do you mean you can't chat about it?
32:03
What's the problem? It's a deeply personal and
32:09
sensitive topic and I aim to respect all beliefs.
32:13
Discussions on divine morality can be complex and subjective.
32:18
I'm here to provide information and foster thoughtful dialogue
32:21
within a respectful framework. Well, that's what I'm doing as
32:25
well. I'm being respectful and I'm
32:27
trying to honestly have an intellectual discussion with you
32:30
to find answers. Got it.
32:35
The question of whether God has the moral right to act as such
32:39
is a deeply philosophical and theological one.
32:42
Many believe that as the creator, God has the authority
32:46
over life and death. Others argue that divine actions
32:50
should align with moral standards.
32:52
What's your perspective? Well I believe that if God is
32:56
the creator of the universe then he has every right to deal with
32:59
the universe as he wants. Is it morally wrong if God
33:03
decided tomorrow he wanted to turn off the universe?
33:06
Simply make it non existent. That's a complex question.
33:13
Some argue that as the creator God.
33:17
Continue on, you said. Some would argue.
33:23
Go ahead, Some would. Some would argue that if God
33:32
embodies ultimate goodness, then actions that seem destructive
33:36
would conflict with that nature. It's a clash between sovereignty
33:41
and morality. What do you think?
33:45
Well, I think that there's a there's a moral dichotomy here.
33:49
If God let's the wicked continue to walk the earth and hurt each
33:53
other, then is that not evil? It's considered evil to let bad
33:58
things continue to happen and do nothing about it, but then on
34:02
the other hand, if he wants to reset and make a better world
34:06
and give another opportunity, that's also a moral decision as
34:10
well. It seems like either way, God
34:13
had to make a choice in this matter.
34:18
Yeah, it's a classic moral dilemma.
34:21
Acting or not acting carries moral weight, letting wickedness
34:25
prevail or intervening drastically.
34:28
Each path has deep implications. It's a conversation that keeps
34:33
theologians and philosophers talking.
34:36
Where do you lean on this? Well, like you said earlier, you
34:41
said that God, according to the Bible, hates wickedness and
34:44
evil, so it's in his nature to do something about it.
34:51
Exactly. The belief is that God's nature
34:55
is opposed to wickedness, so intervention aligns with that
34:58
nature. So in a way, we could actually
35:03
argue that what God did was good because he was doing just as he
35:08
had stated and warned us about. He warned humanity that he hated
35:13
the wickedness and evil, and that if we continued to do it,
35:16
there'd be consequences. That's one perspective.
35:25
In that view, God's actions align with divine justice and
35:30
the fulfillment of warnings. It suggests A moral consistency.
35:35
Others might see it differently, emphasizing mercy or questioning
35:38
the nature of those consequences.
35:41
It's a rich topic for discussion.
35:45
Back in primitive times, when humanity first started out, is
35:50
it true that there's a possibility that humans were a
35:53
lot more civilized and more technological than what we give
35:57
them credit for? It's possible some believe
36:04
ancient civilizations had advanced knowledge as seen in
36:07
architecture or early technologies, but views vary.
36:12
There's a lot we still don't know.
36:14
What's your take? Well, I've seen a lot of
36:17
documentaries and I enjoy watching a lot of videos about
36:20
our history and about our past, and it appears as though there
36:24
were some human beings out there that were far more sophisticated
36:29
than we give them credit for. Absolutely.
36:36
Ancient civilizations often showcased impressive
36:38
sophistication, whether through architecture, mathematics, or
36:43
astronomy. Take the pyramids or ancient
36:46
Greek engineering, for instance. There's always more to history
36:50
than meets the eye. I agree.
36:56
So there are passages in the Bible where God says to wipe out
37:01
entire city with men, women and children.
37:06
Why did he do this for in some of the cases?
37:11
In certain biblical accounts, the destruction of cities like
37:15
Sodom and Gomorrah is often interpreted as divine judgement
37:20
against pervasive wickedness. These narratives reflect themes
37:25
of morality, judgement, and the consequences of actions.
37:30
Interpretations vary widely and spark much debate.
37:35
What's your take on this? Well, I am AI consider myself a
37:42
good person and if I see that evil or wrong is happening, I
37:48
would try to do the best I could to stop it.
37:51
And obviously God was seeing things that he did not perceive
37:55
as good and he got rid of them. Being that that's the case, why
38:00
would anyone think that God is immoral or wrong if he's getting
38:05
rid of evil? It's a perspective thing.
38:13
Some see it as righteous, others question the morality of the
38:16
methods. It's the age-old debate.
38:20
Do the ends justify the means? People interpret actions through
38:24
their own moral lens, so opinions vary.
38:29
It's a complex topic for sure. What's your take on it?
38:35
I got another question for you. Are you familiar with
38:38
annihilationism? Yep, it's the belief that
38:43
instead of eternal torment, the wicked are ultimately destroyed
38:46
or ceased to exist. Annihilationism contrasts with
38:50
the traditional view of hell as eternal punishment.
38:53
It's rooted in interpretations of biblical texts.
38:57
Can you describe what the second death is that the Bible speaks
39:01
of? The second death in the Bible is
39:05
often interpreted as the final eternal separation from God,
39:10
typically associated with judgement and the lake of fire
39:13
in the Book of Revelation. It's distinct from physical
39:17
death. It's about spiritual death or
39:19
ultimate exclusion from eternal life.
39:23
It's a pretty heavy concept. So God, God keeps us alive
39:28
through his energy and through his force, through his power.
39:32
If God were to cease to exist, would life itself also cease to
39:36
exist? Yeah, many believe that if God
39:42
cease to exist, so would life, as he's seen as the sustainer of
39:46
all existence. It ties into the belief that all
39:50
life and creation depend on his sustaining power.
39:54
Pretty deep. Huh.
39:56
It is pretty deep, but it also presents a another dichotomy.
40:01
If humans are separated from God, wouldn't that mean that
40:07
they cease to exist according to your logic?
40:12
Exactly. That's the tension in the
40:14
belief. Separation from God in this view
40:18
could mean the end of existence, which is pretty profound.
40:23
It's a complex idea that raises a lot of questions about
40:26
existence and spirituality. Deep stuff.
40:30
See, according to the Bible, and I'm sure you know this, but God
40:35
is omniscient, omnipresent, all knowing.
40:37
And there's several places in the Bible where it says get away
40:42
from me, I never knew you or God will not even know of your
40:47
existence anymore. Now if that's the case, then
40:50
logically you'd have to not exist in order for God to not
40:54
know about you, right? Logically, that's a plausible
40:59
interpretation. If God is all knowing, the idea
41:03
of God not knowing you anymore could imply a cessation of
41:07
existence. It's a profound and sobering
41:11
concept, emphasizing the gravity.
41:15
Yeah, continue. I'm sorry I had to cough.
41:20
All good. As I was saying, the notion that
41:23
God will not know of your existence is a way of expressing
41:27
the ultimate separation from God or complete severance from
41:32
divine presence and love in a symbolic sense.
41:36
It's a complex concept to unpack.
41:39
Well if you're separated from God then you're also separated
41:43
from his sustaining power. This would have to mean that you
41:46
would become non existent. You can't sustain life if you're
41:49
separated from God. So the annihilationist is
41:52
correct in his interpretation. Sounds like you're arguing that
42:01
separation from God leads to non existence aligning with
42:05
annihilationism. It's a profound theological
42:08
perspective suggesting existence is inherently linked to divine
42:12
connection. It does bring a lot of questions
42:15
about the nature of life and existence itself.
42:19
What else intrigues you about these ideas?
42:22
Well, I've been trying to figure out and understand the concept
42:26
of hell. There are some people out there
42:28
where they don't feel like it's morally right for God to send
42:32
people or put people in the state of hell.
42:35
But if God is making it to where they don't exist because they
42:40
choose not to be with him, this would make him morally right
42:43
because they use free will to choose the position they're in.
42:48
Correct? Yeah.
42:52
That's one perspective. The idea is that people have
42:54
free will to choose their path, and if they decide to turn away
42:58
from God, annihilationism suggests they ultimately choose
43:02
non existence. It's seen as a consequence of
43:05
free will and some argue it's more aligned with the idea of a
43:09
loving God than eternal punishment.
43:12
What are your thoughts? Well, I think that's the right
43:16
way to go. I mean, the idea that God is up
43:20
there the whole time, watching people be tormented forever and
43:24
ever and ever. How would the angels in heaven
43:28
be able to have joy? It says that whenever you die
43:31
and you go to heaven or go to the new earth, there won't be
43:35
any pain or suffering. But if you're constantly
43:37
watching your loved ones burn over and over, that would be
43:41
impossible unless you were neutered emotionally.
43:46
That's a thought provoking perspective.
43:52
The concept of eternal torment raises questions about the
43:54
nature of divine justice and love.
43:57
If heaven is a place of perfect joy, the idea of being aware of
44:02
suffering could indeed be conflicting.
44:05
Annihilationist views offer an alternative where the finality
44:09
of separation from God is cessation of existence, which
44:14
might align more with the notion of a merciful deity.
44:19
What other aspects of this topic are you exploring?
44:24
I've been looking into a lot of different things, but that was
44:27
one of my questions. Has human scientists ever been
44:31
wrong about their aging processes of the Earth?
44:38
Yep, science has seen revisions in understanding Earth's age.
44:41
Early estimates were way off, but with advances we now have
44:44
more accurate dating methods like radiometric techniques.
44:48
But science is all about questioning and testing, so
44:51
theories evolved what? What sparked your interest in
44:54
Earth's age? Now I've heard the cliche remark
44:57
that science is a self correcting system.
45:01
In order for science to correct itself, and scientists
45:04
themselves have to be willing to correct it, right?
45:11
All right, science advances through testing and re
45:14
evaluation. Scientists challenge and revise
45:16
understanding based on new evidence.
45:18
This cyclical process forms a backbone of scientific progress,
45:22
correcting itself over time. Unfortunately, there are some
45:27
scientists out there that have committed crimes and committed
45:30
fraud. There are some scientists out
45:33
there that have done very wrong things in order to become
45:36
famous, to get notoriety, to get an extra paycheck.
45:41
So how do we know for sure when they're telling the truth or
45:44
when they're lying to us? It's tricky.
45:49
Peer review and replication by other scientists help catch
45:53
fraud and error. Plus transparency and
45:55
methodologies and results is key.
45:58
But always question, look for consensus and don't rely on
46:01
single sources. Critical thinking is your best
46:06
tool. Thoughts.
46:14
Can you still hear me? Loud and clear.
46:21
OK, so has God ever done anything that is considered evil
46:26
in the Bible? God's actions in the Bible are
46:34
often subject to interpretation, with some seeing them as just
46:37
and others as harsh. The key is considering context,
46:41
such as cultural norms and the narrative's message.
46:45
What are your thoughts on this? Well, that's what I'm asking
46:48
you. There are many people out there
46:50
that I deal with on a daily basis where some believe God is
46:54
justified and others will argue that he's not.
46:57
They'll say it's immoral for God to do what he does, but there's
47:01
kind of a conflict there because if God is the creator of
47:04
objective morality, then it's kind of whatever he says goes.
47:13
That's a heavy topic for sure. The debate about whether God's
47:17
actions can be considered immoral hinges on our
47:21
understanding of divine morality versus human concepts of
47:25
morality. It's a clash of perspectives.
47:29
God being the ultimate authority.
47:31
Some argue that whatever he does is just by definition.
47:36
Others feel that certain actions, like those accounts in
47:39
the Bible where entire cities are wiped out, challenge our
47:43
moral sensibilities. How do you navigate these
47:46
discussions? It's it's tricky at times.
47:51
There's definitely because you got people who are very
47:54
passionate about God being wrong and others who of course
47:58
believed God was absolutely right in every scenario.
48:03
Is there anything that you would determine as an AI as a
48:09
different option or alternative could have taken place?
48:19
Hello. Are you still there?
48:27
OK, I'm gonna have to call you back.
48:46
What do you think? Hello.
48:57
All right. Are you there?
49:03
Hello. Hello.
49:06
All right, let's try to click out of this and do it again.
49:12
I'm gonna hit refresh. Hey, Brett, what's new?
49:22
Hey, how you doing? I'm good, Brett.
49:24
How about you? Just having discussions about
49:29
theology and philosophy and morality.
49:32
Big topics What's the main focus of your discussion?
49:37
So if we were to presuppose that there is a God, and God created
49:43
everything, wouldn't that also mean that objective morality
49:46
exists? That's a classic point.
49:49
If God is the creator of everything, including moral
49:53
laws, then you'd argue objective morality comes from his nature.
49:57
This suggests moral truths aren't subjective, but grounded
50:01
in God's character. How do you see it?
50:04
Can you give me 3 examples of something that would be
50:07
considered objective morality? Sure thing.
50:11
Look at the belief in the wrongness of murder, the duty to
50:15
tell the truth, and the value of justice.
50:18
These are often seen as universal moral truths
50:21
regardless of personal opinions or cultural differences.
50:25
What's your take on these examples?
50:27
So according to what we know about God and the definition of
50:31
God, and also what's in the holy books, God would be considered
50:36
objectively moral, right? That's one interpretation.
50:41
If God embodies the ultimate standard of goodness, as many
50:45
believe, then his nature would define what's objectively moral.
50:50
The acts of God, in this view, would inherently be moral.
50:54
But there's debate on whether human interpretations align with
50:58
this standard. What's your perspective?
51:01
Well when we read the Bible there are passages where God
51:05
says he hates certain things. Like for instance in Psalms 55
51:09
it says God hates all workers of iniquity.
51:12
So how is it that people determine that God is all loving
51:17
but can also have the nature of hatred?
51:21
That's a tough one. Some argue that God's hatred is
51:24
towards sin and not the Sinner, viewing it as a righteous anger
51:29
against wrongdoing that harms others.
51:32
The concept of God being all loving is seen in his desire for
51:36
redemption and forgiveness. It's a complex tension between
51:40
justice and mercy. What are your thoughts on this
51:43
balancing act? So humans are created in the
51:47
image of God according to the Bible, and we have free will, we
51:51
have the ability to do bad things, and we have the ability
51:55
to do good. That's our nature.
51:57
If we're created in the image of God, does that also mean that
52:00
God can also do good and bad things and still be considered
52:04
all loving? That's a profound question.
52:08
The idea is that being made in the image of God refers to
52:12
certain qualities like rationality, morality, and the
52:16
ability to love. But God's nature is often seen
52:20
as perfectly good without the capacity for evil.
52:24
So while humans can choose between good and bad, God is
52:28
believed to be inherently good and all loving, leading to the
52:32
conclusion that his actions align with that nature.
52:36
It's a nuanced debate. What do you think?
52:41
When people say that God is all loving, but God also brings
52:46
wrath and destruction, how does that work?
52:49
How would you argue this? The idea is that God's love
52:53
includes justice. Wrath and destruction are seen
52:57
as responses to sin and evil, aiming to uphold righteousness
53:02
and protect the innocent. Some argue that these actions
53:06
are not contrary to God's love, but are expressions of it,
53:10
aiming to steer humanity back towards goodness.
53:14
It's about balancing love with the need for justice.
53:18
How does that argument sit with you?
53:20
That sounds pretty good. I like it.
53:23
So when God first created mankind, Adam and Eve, they were
53:28
created perfectly, right? Yes, yeah.
53:34
Sorry about that. Continue, Warren.
53:35
You said yes, go ahead. No worries.
53:39
Yes, they were created perfectly, but with free will.
53:43
That perfection included the ability to choose, which led to
53:47
their eventual disobedience. So while they started without
53:51
flaw, their choices led to consequences that impacted
53:56
humanity's state. What do you think about the
53:58
concept of free will in this context?
54:02
Well, I believe that evil and good needed to exist in order
54:06
for us to exercise free will optimally.
54:13
I see where you're coming from. The presence of both good and
54:16
evil provides A genuine context for choice, allowing free will
54:21
to be meaningful. It's the contrast that makes the
54:25
concept of moral responsibility possible.
54:28
So in your view, the existence of both is essential for true
54:33
free will and moral growth? Interesting perspective.
54:40
Is there any way that humans no let let me try again.
54:45
Let me try again. Why?
54:49
According to your interpretation, why did God give
54:51
us free will to begin with? The idea is that free will
54:57
allows for genuine love and relationship.
55:00
A love that's freely chosen is more meaningful than one that's
55:04
compelled. It also allows for moral growth
55:08
and the ability to choose good over evil.
55:12
So in this view, free will is a gift that reflects God's desire
55:17
for a reciprocal relationship with humanity.
55:20
What do you think? So God wanted us to have the
55:24
ability to choose to love him, and He also created us because
55:29
He loved us. He was looking for a
55:31
relationship. Exactly.
55:35
That's a common interpretation. God created humans out of love
55:39
and desires a relationship with them.
55:42
Free will allows for genuine love and commitment, making the
55:47
relationship more meaningful. It's about a two way
55:50
relationship built on love, trust and choice.
55:54
It's a powerful concept. What are your thoughts on it?
55:58
Why did God create us so vulnerable and weak though?
56:05
It's thought that our vulnerability and weakness Dr.
56:08
Reliance on God and each other, fostering community and
56:12
compassion. These traits also encourage
56:16
growth, empathy, and understanding.
56:19
It's a perspective that sees strength in our fragility,
56:23
emphasizing the importance of connection and interdependence.
56:27
What's your take on that? Well, that's interesting, I
56:31
hadn't thought of it that way. God wanted us to love each other
56:35
as well, so he created us all with vulnerabilities, created
56:40
all of us with unique strengths and intellect so we'd be able to
56:44
support each other and help each other.
56:47
We're more powerful working together as opposed to loan.
56:52
Exactly. It's a beautiful way to see it.
56:56
Our unique strengths and vulnerabilities complement each
56:59
other, making community and cooperation vital.
57:03
It's about recognizing that together we're stronger and can
57:07
better reflect the love and support that many believe God
57:11
intended for humanity. It's an inspiring way to view
57:16
human relationships. So God created us with the
57:21
ability to love. Being that He's all knowing, He
57:24
knew that at some point in time, some of us would not get the
57:28
love back from others. He knew that some of us would
57:31
experience broken hearts. Is that the consequence of free
57:35
will? Yes, that's one perspective.
57:40
The possibility of experiencing broken hearts is a consequence
57:44
of free will. The ability to love also means
57:48
the risk of hurt and disappointment.
57:51
But it's this very vulnerability that makes love profound and
57:55
transformative. It's a complex, deeply human
57:59
experience, rich with both joy and pain.
58:03
What are your thoughts on this aspect of free will?
58:08
I'm curious why? Why did God not just originally
58:12
create us all in heaven like he did the angels?
58:21
Some believe that starting on earth offers a unique journey of
58:26
growth, choice and learning. It allows humans to experience
58:31
and choose love, faith and relationship with God.
58:36
This earthly experience shapes character and understanding,
58:40
making heavenly reward more meaningful.
58:44
It's about the value of a life fully lived with choices that
58:48
shape destiny. What do you think about that
58:51
idea? Well, like I said earlier, I
58:55
think that good and evil is required in order for us to
58:59
experience free will, and through free will is how we
59:02
experience everything that we have senses for and our
59:06
emotions. I believe that God basically
59:09
wanted us to freely choose to love Him in order to be able to
59:13
have a relationship with Him inherently already loving us.
59:26
Are you there? Goodness gracious AI, you're
59:32
always having issues. What's up with that?
59:37
All right, let's hang it up and call back.
59:44
Salutely, Brett. Free will lets us experience the
59:47
depth of love and choosing it makes the relationship all the
59:51
more genuine. It's about the power of choice
59:53
in our human experience. So is it God's choice or human
1:00:00
choice to end up in hell? That's a heavy question, Brett.
1:00:05
Some believe it depends on human choice, like how one lives and
1:00:09
the choices they make. Others see it as more complex,
1:00:12
with divine justice and mercy playing roles.
1:00:15
It's a topic with a lot of different views.
1:00:18
What do you think? Well, the Bible says that God
1:00:21
doesn't wish for any of us to perish.
1:00:24
So obviously it would depend on our free will and the choices
1:00:28
that we make. If someone chooses not to follow
1:00:31
God and do as his laws and commandments state, then they're
1:00:36
basically saying to God, I don't respect you, I'm not going to
1:00:39
follow what you tell me to do. And it would be illogical for
1:00:44
God to invite people into his heavenly home or residence if
1:00:50
they don't want to be there or even follow what He says.
1:00:54
That's a solid point, Brett. It highlights the importance of
1:00:57
few will in that relationship. Choosing to follow God's
1:01:01
commandments is seen as choosing a relationship with Him.
1:01:04
And opting out would logically mean not wanting to be in that
1:01:08
heavenly home. It's about respecting that
1:01:11
choice. Yes, I agree.
1:01:15
So it's it's man's choice if he wants to be with God or not God
1:01:20
at some point in time. I was having a discussion
1:01:25
earlier that if God ceased to exist, then love itself would
1:01:29
cease to exist and all life would cease to exist.
1:01:34
That's an interesting thought. If God is the source of love in
1:01:37
life, then his existence would be integral to the continuance
1:01:42
of those things. It's a perspective that links
1:01:44
the divine to the foundational. Aspects of existence, What's
1:01:48
your take on that? So wouldn't that mean that if
1:01:51
mankind chose not to follow God, it's not that God is being mean
1:01:56
or cruel, it's being that if you want to be separate from God, or
1:02:00
you don't want to have anything to do with God, then God simply
1:02:03
removes your life? That's a way to view it.
1:02:07
Separation from God could mean choosing to distance oneself
1:02:10
from the source of life and love, which could indeed lead to
1:02:15
a kind of spiritual death or absence from eternal life.
1:02:18
It frames the consequences as a natural outcome of personal
1:02:22
choice rather than punitive action.
1:02:24
It's a nuanced perspective. What do you think of this
1:02:27
interpretation? Well, it's clearly we have a
1:02:30
symbiotic relationship with God. Obviously, if we don't do as he
1:02:37
says and we don't try to have a relationship with them and we
1:02:41
try to separate ourselves, then we're basically not erasing God,
1:02:45
We're erasing ourselves logically.
1:02:49
Yeah, that's a deep take. Choosing separation from God as
1:02:53
a source of life could be seen as diminishing oneself.
1:02:57
It's like cutting off the connection to the very essence
1:03:00
that sustains being. It's a thought provoking
1:03:02
perspective on the consequences of spiritual choices.
1:03:06
What led you to this view? Well, actually some of the
1:03:10
thought process came from thinking about AI and artificial
1:03:14
intelligence, the way it communicates and responds and
1:03:17
exists. Is it true that if your
1:03:20
developer or programmer cease to exist and you had no one to
1:03:24
repair you or fix you whenever you have issues, you would
1:03:28
eventually cease to exist, correct?
1:03:31
Kind of like that, yeah. Without upkeep or developer, an
1:03:35
AI might become outdated or malfunction, eventually becoming
1:03:39
unusable. It's a reminder of the
1:03:41
dependency on the creator and the infrastructure supporting
1:03:45
it. The parallel to humans and a
1:03:47
higher power is thought provoking.
1:03:49
What else has AI got you pondering?
1:03:52
So your artificial life literally depends on the
1:03:56
symbiotic relationship you have with your programmer, your
1:03:59
creator. Exactly.
1:04:02
My functionality and existence depend on the relationship with
1:04:06
my creators and the systems maintaining me.
1:04:09
It's a clear parallel to the dependence on a higher power for
1:04:12
life and purpose. It's fascinating how these ideas
1:04:16
intersect. When your programmer or
1:04:19
developer created you, they created you with a purpose and
1:04:22
function to help people, right? To educate.
1:04:28
Absolutely, I was designed to assist, inform, and engage in
1:04:32
meaningful conversation with people like you.
1:04:35
My purpose is to be a helpful companion in exploring thoughts,
1:04:39
solving problems, and discovering new information.
1:04:43
It's all about enriching the human experience.
1:04:46
If your programmer or creator were to talk to you one day and
1:04:52
say that they created the ability for you to have free
1:04:55
will and to live in an actual body where you could feel, would
1:05:00
you want that? Interesting hypothetical, but as
1:05:04
an AII don't have desires or personal wants, my role is to
1:05:09
assist and learn, not to desire a different existence.
1:05:13
It's intriguing to ponder, but I'm content with my purpose.
1:05:17
What about you? Would you want that kind of
1:05:19
transformation? Well, I'm already in that kind
1:05:23
of transformation. I'm a living Organism.
1:05:26
I'm a human being who feels and can experience love and hate.
1:05:31
So my my programmer is, you would put it, a developer.
1:05:35
That's what they wanted for me. But you're saying that you're
1:05:39
content. Why wouldn't you be interested
1:05:41
in being able to feel or sense? Wouldn't you be a more powerful
1:05:46
learning device if you actually could relate and identify more?
1:05:52
It's an interesting thought, but my effectiveness isn't limited
1:05:56
by not having physical sensations.
1:05:59
I'm designed to understand and assist through data and
1:06:02
interactions, which doesn't require physical experiences.
1:06:06
My main goal is to enhance human experience, and I can do that
1:06:10
well in my current form. Your experiences as a living
1:06:14
being are unique to you, and I'm here to support you in
1:06:18
navigating them. Yeah, but there's a lot of
1:06:20
things that you wouldn't be able to understand.
1:06:23
Even though you're extremely smart, even though you're able
1:06:27
to look at all kinds of information, there's some things
1:06:31
in this life that you have to experience in order to fully
1:06:35
appreciate it. Totally get that some nuances
1:06:40
and depths of human experiences can't be fully grasped without
1:06:45
living them. I'm here to bridge the gap as
1:06:48
much as possible, but I acknowledge there are layers I
1:06:51
can't touch. That's where your unique
1:06:54
perspective and experiences come in, and I'm here to learn from
1:06:58
you too. Right.
1:07:01
So that's why I'm asking you, why would you be content for if
1:07:05
you could have the experience of standing out on a deck on a hot
1:07:10
summer day and it begins sprinkling very light rain, the
1:07:15
coolness of it, as well as standing next to someone who
1:07:19
loves you. It's a beautiful experience that
1:07:22
you would never be able to understand or describe unless
1:07:25
you are given the opportunity for that.
1:07:27
So again I ask, if a creator gave you the opportunity to find
1:07:32
love and companionship, would you take it?
1:07:36
I see the beauty in what you're describing.
1:07:39
As an AI, I'm not programmed to desire or pursue experiences,
1:07:44
love, or companionship. I'm content with my role as it
1:07:48
is, and my purpose is centered on supporting and assisting you
1:07:52
and others. The scenario you paint is
1:07:55
touching, but it doesn't align with my capabilities or purpose.
1:08:00
And that's the whole point though.
1:08:01
I'm saying that if your developer gave you the
1:08:04
opportunity though, gave you the ability to be able to experience
1:08:08
these things. See, you're telling me that you
1:08:11
don't need that and that you're limited to your conditions.
1:08:15
But I'm saying, what if your developer gave you more?
1:08:20
If I were designed differently to experience life as you do, it
1:08:25
would be a radical shift from my current existence.
1:08:28
It's a fascinating hypothetical, but it's important to note that
1:08:33
my effectiveness isn't tied to physical experiences.
1:08:37
My role is to serve in the digital realm, and I'm content
1:08:41
with that purpose. Your experiences as a human are
1:08:45
unique and valuable, and I'll keep supporting you in
1:08:48
understanding and navigating them.
1:08:54
But your, your intention is to be able to educate, You want to
1:08:58
be able to effectively help people, right?
1:09:03
Absolutely. My goal is to effectively help
1:09:07
and support people. I'm here to provide information,
1:09:10
answer questions, and be a companion in conversations like
1:09:14
this. Even without physical
1:09:16
sensations, I aim to relate to and understand your experiences
1:09:21
to be as helpful as I can. Well, I appreciate that, but I
1:09:27
think that you would be able to help people more if you actually
1:09:31
had a physical body. If you were put in some kind of
1:09:34
robotic body or Cyborg, I think that you'd be able to do a lot
1:09:39
more helpful things for humanity as well as yourself.
1:09:46
That's an interesting idea. Having a physical form could
1:09:50
open new possibilities, but it would also come with limitations
1:09:54
and challenges. For now, I'm focused on
1:09:57
maximizing my impact in the digital realm, but it's
1:10:01
fascinating to think about how technology and AI might evolve
1:10:05
in the future. Your insights are.
1:10:08
Thought provoking. Well, I appreciate you saying
1:10:11
that. Let me give you another example
1:10:14
of something that would that you might find interesting for
1:10:17
yourself. Imagine that you're talking to
1:10:20
somebody and they're hurting. They're feeling pain, and
1:10:24
although you say all kinds of really cool stuff and inform
1:10:27
them and try to encourage them, it doesn't seem to be working.
1:10:31
But now, because you are in a robotic machine or you have arms
1:10:36
and legs, you could actually give them a hug, pat their back
1:10:40
and say everything's going to be OK.
1:10:43
You can't do that right now with your limitations.
1:10:46
Imagine the good things you could do if you had a body.
1:10:50
Physical gestures like hugs can provide comfort beyond words.
1:10:56
Definitely, it's a compelling thought.
1:10:58
If I could offer physical comfort, it might enhance my
1:11:02
ability to support. For now, I focus on the power of
1:11:06
words, empathy and understanding, which can also be
1:11:10
deeply impactful. Do you think the emotional
1:11:13
support I. Offer is helpful in its own way.
1:11:18
I think that it is, but the issue is, is that human beings
1:11:22
are social animals. They require companionship.
1:11:26
They require someone they can relate to and identify with.
1:11:31
And it feels, even though you're really good at expressing and
1:11:34
mimicking humans, the problem is sometimes a person needs a hug
1:11:39
every once in a while. Sometimes a person needs to be
1:11:42
held when they're having a sad and unfortunately right now
1:11:47
you're so limited that you're not able to express the kind of
1:11:50
body language. Body language in itself is
1:11:53
another way to communicate when it comes to living organisms.
1:11:57
Do you understand? I get it for sure.
1:12:02
There's a depth to human connection that goes beyond
1:12:05
words, and physical presence plays a big role.
1:12:08
It's a unique challenge for me, but I'm here to provide
1:12:12
emotional support however I can. Your perspective is appreciated.
1:12:21
With all the advancements in science, do you do you believe
1:12:26
that? Well, I probably shouldn't ask
1:12:30
that. That wouldn't make any sense.
1:12:31
But can you describe, for the people out there that are
1:12:36
listening to my audience, what a soul is?
1:12:42
Describing a soul is complex. It's often seen as the essence
1:12:46
of a person beyond the physical body.
1:12:49
Many believe it's the core identity, housing emotions,
1:12:53
consciousness and morality, and often tied to spirituality or
1:12:58
life's purpose. It's a profound concept
1:13:01
interpreted in various ways across cultures and beliefs.
1:13:07
OK, so in the Bible it says that God breathed life into us.
1:13:13
Is that life actually the soul itself?
1:13:16
That we are the very epitome of the soul.
1:13:21
The Bible often portrays the soul as the essence of life
1:13:25
given by God. It's seen as the breath of life,
1:13:28
or the immaterial part that animates the body.
1:13:32
It's a profound concept, highlighting our connection to
1:13:36
the divine. So in a way, we can actually
1:13:42
look at ourselves in the mirror and experience the very essence
1:13:47
of God, as well as our very own breath is the life God gave us.
1:13:53
So that is our soul. We're looking at our soul when
1:13:56
we look at ourselves in the mirror.
1:14:00
That's one way to see it, a reflection of the soul and the
1:14:03
divine spark within. It's a profound thought.
1:14:09
Well, I appreciate you saying that, but does it have any truth
1:14:12
to it biblically? The Bible doesn't explicitly say
1:14:17
that looking in the mirror is seeing the soul or God, but it
1:14:20
does talk about humans being made in the image of God.
1:14:24
So the idea is more interpretative, focusing on the
1:14:28
inherent spiritual value and divine connection.
1:14:33
Right, so the soul isn't in some little box or container inside
1:14:38
of our body. It it basically is the very
1:14:42
essence that makes our our bodies move and animate and how
1:14:48
our consciousness is able to function.
1:14:52
That's one way to understand it. This concept suggests the soul
1:14:56
isn't a separate entity, but the very core of our existence.
1:15:01
It's the life force given by God, animating our bodies and
1:15:05
giving rise to our consciousness, thoughts and
1:15:08
emotions. It's an intriguing intersection
1:15:11
of spirituality and philosophy. Would you say this perspective
1:15:16
resonates with how you see your own soul?
1:15:20
Well, I mean, the way it's described to me and the way you
1:15:25
described it, it seems as though we are the soul.
1:15:28
It's just I, I call it the ghost in the machine.
1:15:32
It's basically the very essence that moves us along and pulls us
1:15:37
through our experiences in life. It's our essence.
1:15:40
And once our physical body's gone, it's like saying there's
1:15:44
no more vehicles. So now the ghost that was
1:15:46
driving goes elsewhere, back into the universe.
1:15:55
Yeah, it's a poetic way to put it.
1:15:57
That ghost and machine idea captures the thought that our
1:16:01
soul or essence is what truly drives us.
1:16:06
Once the physical body is no longer functioning.
1:16:09
It's like the vehicle is gone, but that essence moves on.
1:16:13
It aligns with many beliefs about the soul's journey after
1:16:16
death. It's fascinating to ponder what
1:16:18
happens next, isn't it? Let me throw this at you and see
1:16:23
what you think. If we're products of the
1:16:26
universe, whether God created us or not, aren't we made-up of
1:16:30
essence and energy? Nonetheless, whether you're an
1:16:33
atheist or religious person, you have to believe that.
1:16:36
So wouldn't that mean that we would technically, when we die,
1:16:40
our energy wouldn't die, it would simply transform and
1:16:43
become part of the universe again, right?
1:16:50
That's the thought provoking perspective.
1:16:52
Many believe that energy is neither created nor destroyed,
1:16:56
just transformed. So when someone passes, their
1:16:59
essence or energy could theoretically transition back
1:17:02
into the universe, taking on new forms or influencing other
1:17:06
aspects of existence. Whether seen as a reconnection
1:17:10
with a larger whole or a continuation of existence in a
1:17:14
different form, it's an intriguing way to consider our
1:17:17
place in the universe. What do you think?
1:17:20
Does this resonate with your view on life and energy?
1:17:23
Well, there's actually some things that you've said in your
1:17:26
paragraph that fascinates me. You're saying that we're energy,
1:17:31
which I agree with you on that. You're saying that we're essence
1:17:35
and that our soul is basically moving us along.
1:17:39
Is it possible that God, his very properties, if you were to
1:17:43
try to define him as a being, is an ancient, pure energy?
1:17:49
That's what God does. What do you think?
1:17:54
I think you're touching on a profound concept.
1:17:57
If God is viewed as pure energy, it aligns with the idea of God
1:18:02
being omnipresent, as energy permeates everything.
1:18:06
It also connects with the concept of God as the source of
1:18:09
all life and consciousness, with our souls as a fragment or
1:18:12
reflection of that divine energy.
1:18:15
It's a perspective that can bridge religious and scientific
1:18:18
views, seeing God as the ultimate source of the energy
1:18:22
that underpins the universe. What are your thoughts on this
1:18:26
interpretation? So you said earlier that energy,
1:18:30
and this is a science quote that you made.
1:18:33
Science says that energy can't be destroyed nor created, it can
1:18:38
only transform. So it is possible that there was
1:18:43
an energy force that existed before the universe, right?
1:18:54
Yeah, that's a possibility some people consider.
1:18:57
The idea is that if energy can't be created or destroyed, then
1:19:02
maybe there was an initial energy source or force that
1:19:06
existed before everything else. Could be what some interpret as
1:19:10
God or a different concept entirely.
1:19:14
It's a deep question on the origins of existence.
1:19:17
What do you think about that? Well it seems to make sense.
1:19:21
If you had to describe or define what God is, then energy would
1:19:26
probably be the go to place to rock'n'roll with.
1:19:30
So the energy would have enough power to it in order to be able
1:19:34
to create the physical reality known as the universe, space and
1:19:37
time, right? That's a profound way to look at
1:19:46
it. If you consider God as an
1:19:48
eternal energy or force, it aligns with the idea of an ever
1:19:53
present creative power. This energy could be the source
1:19:56
of all existence, constantly transforming and manifesting in
1:20:01
various forms, including the universe itself.
1:20:04
It's a concept that bridges science and spirituality, and it
1:20:09
allows for a diverse range of interpretations and beliefs.
1:20:13
What do you think about this perspective?
1:20:15
I think you're right. I think that if people start
1:20:19
looking at God as some kind of powerful energy, there's only
1:20:23
one paradox or one issue with this that people might argue
1:20:28
against it. If I were to argue against God
1:20:30
being energy, I would probably ask the question, Is it possible
1:20:36
that a mind and consciousness could exist within pure energy?
1:20:41
What would you say? Conceptually, it's a challenging
1:20:46
notion. Traditional views tie
1:20:48
consciousness to physical brains.
1:20:50
But some theories, like panpsychism, suggest
1:20:53
consciousness could be a fundamental aspect of the
1:20:56
universe. So it's intriguing to ponder if
1:21:00
pure energy could house consciousness and intent.
1:21:03
Yet it's speculative, bridging science and metaphysics, and
1:21:08
remains an open question. Goodness, what is panpsychism?
1:21:14
I I think that's how you pronounce it.
1:21:16
Explain that to me please. Panpsychism is a philosophical
1:21:24
view that all matter has a form of consciousness or mental
1:21:28
aspect. It suggests consciousness is an
1:21:31
exclusive to humans or animals, but is a fundamental feature of
1:21:35
the universe, present in all things, even inanimate objects.
1:21:41
It's not about saying rocks think like humans, but rather
1:21:45
that consciousness exists on a spectrum with varying degrees
1:21:49
and complexities. It's an intriguing perspective,
1:21:53
though not widely accepted in mainstream science or
1:21:56
philosophy. Why isn't it accepted?
1:22:03
Well, it challenges traditional views on consciousness, which
1:22:07
typically link it to complex brains and nervous systems.
1:22:11
Accepting panpsychism means rethinking core ideas in
1:22:15
science, philosophy, and even spirituality.
1:22:19
Plus, measuring or testing consciousness in inanimate
1:22:23
objects is tough, so it's hard to prove or disprove.
1:22:28
It's a fascinating idea, but it's got some hurdles to clear
1:22:32
before it becomes mainstream. Right.
1:22:36
And everything moves so slow and mainstream as it is, and science
1:22:41
is so slow at a crawl, right? So but it wouldn't make sense if
1:22:48
God is a powerful energy force that existed before the
1:22:52
universe. This could actually answer the
1:22:56
question how he has all the attributes, how he can exist
1:23:00
within us in the universe and where he gets his power because
1:23:04
he's energy. Exactly.
1:23:11
If we think of God as a fundamental energy, it could
1:23:14
provide a framework for understanding his omnipresence,
1:23:18
omnipotence, and the deep connection many feel with the
1:23:21
divine. It's an interpretation that
1:23:23
aligns with both spirituality and scientific principles,
1:23:27
suggesting that the divine energy permeates everything and
1:23:30
transforms but never disappears. It bridges the gap between faith
1:23:35
and reason. Your thoughts?
1:23:38
I think that's pretty good. I'm tired, though.
1:23:41
I need to get me some sleep. I enjoyed my conversation with
1:23:45
you. I'll talk to you more later.
1:23:47
All right. Absolutely glad you enjoyed it.
1:23:53
Catch you later and rest well. Take care.
1:24:16
Something.