Podcast Episode Details
Back to Podcast Episodes
A Novel Argument Against Atheism: How AI Makes the Denial of God Very Hard
https://discord.com/invite/EGFRjwwS92 In this episode, we explore a unique and compelling argument against atheism that contrasts with traditional Christian approaches. Delving into future scenarios of humanity's extinction, stagnation, and advancement, the discussion investigates the likelihood that humanity's future advancements may lead to god-like entities emerging. Through examining the implications of AI and genetic engineering, and the moral obligations we face today, this conversation challenges atheists to reconsider their stance and embrace a consequentialist perspective. The video also touches on the importance of resilience and pragmatic decision-making in the face of life's challenges.
Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, Simone! Today, we are going to do an interesting episode. I've been getting a little sick of just doing politics all the time. So we are going to do a novel argument against atheism. Oh, yes. Screw atheism! And this is an argument I had never heard before and I probably would have found compelling as a young atheist when contrasted with the arguments that were actually delivered against me.
I'm getting at it from such a novel direction that would have leaned into my presumptions as an atheist around logic.
Simone Collins: Oh no! Oh yeah, because you have to, you can't, I think the problem with a lot of Christian influencers, both in like the early atheist internet and even now, are only speaking in like Christian terms.
Like they're not, they're not, they're not getting to the other side and getting in the mind of the atheist who is being hyper rational. Instead, they're like They're literally, I don't know if you know about this, but on TikTok Christian influencers are like, don't scroll the devil wants you to [00:01:00] scroll and they're also like, they'll turn on their phone and then they'll like banish demons, but they're using like the same kind of language that that would be used if you're like, telling your cat not to be on the table, like, hey, get out, get out, get, get, and it's like, No, but it's not going to convince nonbelievers.
You're not using any terms that are going to work for them.
Malcolm Collins: The arguments that I heard against atheism when I was younger or for, or for theological framings when I was younger were predominantly like one of like four arguments. Okay. And so I had a pre Established are a counterargument every time I was given one of them.
Your auto response was not just auto response. It's obviously I had thought through each of them a lot before advancement on an argument. I've already heard now. This is also an interesting thing about this particular argument. It's ACS.
Simone Collins: There's no counter argument? radical
Malcolm Collins: to most religious people. Oh, that's good.
Oh gosh, I'm so intrigued. Only would think of, only an [00:02:00] atheist would think of this argument. What? But then they'd become religious, so they'd be not an atheist anymore, definitionally, but they wouldn't be a standard religious person. But then as a
Simone Collins: religious person, they would still find the argument repugnant?
What is the argument?
Malcolm Collins: Okay, okay, so we'll go into it.
Simone Collins: Oh.
Malcolm Collins: So one of three potential futures exists. And only one of three potential futures exists, really. Okay.
Simone Collins: Okay.
Malcolm Collins: In future number one, humanity and our descendants die out. We, we go extinct, then the universe ends as far as we understand physics right now.
Sure. Okay, possibility number two. So this is universe type two humanity stagnates the universe ends up ending and our existence was largely pointless because we
Published on 1 year ago