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 just stagnate. We never really develop in any meaningful context. Yeah, just

Simone Collins: sort of, a big bang to entropy. Meh.

Malcolm Collins: Yes. Yeah. Possibility number three.

Humanity and humanity's children, i. e. the things that we develop, end up continuing to grow, [00:03:00] improve, and evolve.

Simone Collins: Endless complexity. Beautiful pattern.

Malcolm Collins: complexity. We don't know exactly what happens in this reality in this future because we don't know if it relates to physics the way we relate to physics.

I know that if humanity stagnates, they continue to relate to physics the way we relate. But if humanity continues to advance, are they able to create parallel dimensions? Are they able to travel between realities? Are they able to start new dimensions? Are they able to restructure? We don't know what this would be like.

All we know is that has continued advancement. And the way I say there's the only three potential futures is because they sort of cover any possible reality I can think of. Either death, stagnation, or advancement. Even if you have advancement tainted by a lot of stagnation, it's still advancement.

Simone Collins: Yes. Right, so. That's often what advancement looks like. You're going to

Malcolm Collins: fall into one of these scenarios. Yeah. Now, if we live in a [00:04:00] timeline. Type one or two, i. e. a timeline where humanity all is extinguished or a timeline where humanity is stagnant. Our decisions today don't matter to the future. Sure.

Okay. Yeah, obviously. With that being the case now now a person could be like, oh, but timelines aren't set our decisions may influence Which of these timelines we are in right and i'm like, okay, I will buy that possibility If that is possible Then all of our actions today Should be made with one of two optimizations in mind to try to nudge us forward To a timeline type three and to try to influence for positive outcomes where positive outcomes can mean whatever you think they want to mean.

We'll talk about this in a second within a timeline type three.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: Basically, you never need to make a [00:05:00] decision. Like, like if I'm saying, should I do X or Y? If I am assuming that it is faded, that I am in a timeline type one or two, a timeline where humanity goes extinct or a timeline where humanity stagnates because my decision doesn't impact the future now I E I guess this is a different way you can think of it.

If somebody tells you that You know, you're in a room by yourself, right? Like you could do anything and somebody's like an asteroid is going to come and destroy Earth tomorrow. There's nothing you can do about it at this point. You do not get moral points for giving to charity. You do not get moral points for going out and I mean, you might get like some sort of marginal moral point from like going out and being nice to people, but probably not really.

Your actions just don't matter from that point forwards that much from a moral weight perspective. You, especially if you take out any action that doesn't affect anyone else. , and I'll explain this a bit [00:06:00] differently, so we'll use a train analogy here.

Suppose you know that three trains are heading for a cliff. One train is red, one train is blue, one train is yellow. Yellow. The interior of every one of these trains is set up the same and looks the same. And in the middle of each of the trains is a button. You know that in yellow trains, this button stops the train and it doesn't end up going off the cliff.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: Okay? What do you do? If you don't know which train you're in, you act assuming you are in a yellow train. Yeah, you