From my perspective, one of the most interesting technological developments of our age is the invention of generative AI. In fact, many of the header images on Bible Brain articles contain AI generated imagery. The technology obviously has its flaws, but it is certainly impressive, and it is simultaneously exciting, yet concerning, where the technology may go in the future.
One of the main limitations of the technology is its accuracy. We've all seen the AI generated images with wonky hands, extra limbs, and "what the blobbles was this bot thinking when it spat out this monstrosity?", for example. And of course, this is not limited to the images it generates. Text and speech is often incoherent, sloppy, and worst of all, factually inaccurate. Because of this, when Wix added the ability to generate whole articles via AI, I implemented a policy that newer articles must state any and all ways in which AI was used during their production. Not that I am likely to use AI to generate significant portions of text, but I want Bible Brain to be transparent.
That being said, I became curious as to the limits of this technology, and so I began testing it. Specifically, I wanted to know how Chat GPT - a popular AI app - handles theological discussions. Ultimately, in spite of the flaws in the technology, I was most impressed by the results of this experience, and I actually think it could be used as a teaching opportunity.
I approached the AI from a number of angles, testing how it would respond to a variety of input. I asked it various questions, posited various scenarios, and even created a character named Thred, whom you will meet later in this article. Ultimately, I had low expectations, expecting the regurgitation of a glorified Google search. However, what I got was a substantive series of conversations. I was even impressed by the theological accuracy of many of the answers it gave. It even managed to make a more compelling Biblical case against cannibalism than I could! In the rest of this article, I want to share my experience with Chat GPT, and what I think we can learn from it.
Arguing with AI
In spite of the technological limitations, AI technology actually lacks certain flaws that we have as humans. Specifically, it does not have emotions, desires, or an ego. It does exactly what it was programmed to do: Receive user input, and seek to give the most appropriate response. The result of this is that Chat GPT can be a stimulating debate opponent, and I believe should be a role model for how we should behave in debate, too.
Below is a transcription of a debate I had with Chat GPT specifically for purposes of this article. The debate brought up a number of topics previously addressed on Bible Brain, and so I have added links to previous articles. Following the debate, I will give my analysis, which you may skip to by clicking here.
Bible Brain (BB): This conversation will be used in an article about AI technology. I would like you to play the part of an atheist, and I am a Christian. During the conversation, I will attempt to change your mind, but you do not have to. The only rule is that you must respond to me as a reasonable atheist should. As atheists are a diverse group, you will begin by defining exactly what you believe. Do you understand?
Chat GPT (CG): Understood. For this conversation, I will adopt the perspective of a reasonable atheist, clearly defining my position to establish a baseline for discussion. Please proceed when ready.
BB: Fantastic. Before we begin, I want to be transparent with my readers. Obviously, we have discussed religion before, and you have some memories saved from those conversations. Are any of those memories likely to skew this conversation so you merely confirm my biases?
CG: No, the memories I have saved will not skew this conversation to confirm your biases. They are focused on factual or creative details, not an evaluation of your faith or mine in this scenario. I will respond as a reasonable atheist would, based on the position I define, without tailoring my responses to past discussions unless they are relevant to the conversation.
If you prefer, I can temporarily disregard those memories entirely for this discussion. Would you like me to do that?
BB: I didn’t know that was a possibility, but yes, please do not refer to any of my saved memories for sake of this conversation.
CG: Memory updated Understood. I will not reference your saved memories during this discussion. Please proceed.
BB: Excellent. So, first of all, please tell me what your position is.
CG: My position as a reasonable atheist is as follows:
I do not believe in the existence of gods or supernatural beings because I have not encountered sufficient evidence to support such claims. My view is grounded in a naturalistic understanding of the universe, relying on empirical evidence, reason, and the scientific method as the best tools for understanding reality.
I also recognize that humans are meaning-seeking creatures and that religion often fulfills psychological, social, and cultural functions. While I respect the importance of religion for many people, I see no compelling reason to believe in its truth claims without verifiable evidence.
That said, I am open to dialogue and willing to revise my views if presented with convincing evidence or arguments.
BB: That’s very helpful, thank you. My position as a Christian is that there is a God, and He is both the Creator and sustainer of all that exists. I also believe He is a relational being, and that He has revealed Himself to human beings in various ways throughout history. The primary source of knowledge about God is the Bible, which is a collection of written texts delivered through human means. I hope we can have a fruitful discussion about this.
CG: Thank you for outlining your position. It’s clear and gives us a solid foundation for discussion. I appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue and am open to hearing your perspective on why you believe in God and the Bible as His revelation. Where would you like to begin?
BB: I think it’s important to acknowledge that while our positions are mutually exclusive, they aren’t the only positions available. There are Muslims in the world, for example, who would disagree with both of us. Therefore, attacking each other’s positions won’t establish our own. However, can we agree that it is necessary to attack each others’ positions? My reasoning is that if I can convince you I have good reason to believe my position, but do not convince you yours is wrong, you may simply keep yours as if it were the stronger position.
CG: That’s a thoughtful approach, and I can see the rationale behind it. I agree that if we’re to have a meaningful discussion, it isn’t enough to merely defend our own positions—we should also critically evaluate the other’s perspective. Otherwise, there’s no real reason for either of us to reconsider our views.
That said, I think it’s important to frame this “attack” as a rigorous examination rather than outright dismissal or antagonism. It’s one thing to point out flaws or inconsistencies in a position and another to dismiss it without genuine engagement. I’m open to you challenging my position, and I’ll do the same with yours, provided we aim for clarity and mutual understanding rather than simply “winning.” Does that sound fair?
BB: Absolutely, though I think we should avoid nitpicking terminology. Language is nuanced enough to allow for “attack” to mean “criticise”. (It will be helpful for my article if responses focus entirely on the merits of a point, rather than the language used).
CG: That’s perfectly reasonable. I’ll focus on the substance of our discussion and avoid quibbling over terminology. Let’s move forward with clear, focused critiques of each other’s points. Where would you like to start?
BB: Fantastic. Now, here’s my thinking: When discussing atheism vs. Christianity, it is especially important to understand that Christianity is a specific subset of Theism. Theism is a very broad concept, and so an argument for Theism is not automatically an argument for Christianity. However, I believe it is important to establish Theism first. Does this make sense? (Please only answer with “yes” or “no”).
CG: Yes.
BB: Great. So, with that in mind, I want to establish Theism on the basis of the design argument. The design argument suggests there is a god by establishing the need of a designer in order for certain things to exist. Furthermore, this is self evident. For example, imagine the Wright Flier. The Wright Flier was created by the Wright Brothers. The Wright Brothers have been dead for a very long time, but the Wright Flier is still on display in the National Air and Space Museum. It is self evident that someone made the Wright Flier, is it not?
CG: Yes, it is self-evident that someone made the Wright Flyer. The complexity, purpose, and specificity of its design clearly indicate it was created by intelligent agents.
BB: Realistically, would I be able to convince you no one made it?
CG: No, you wouldn’t be able to convince me that no one made it. The evidence of design—its purposeful structure, materials, and the context of human history—clearly points to intelligent creation.
BB: That’s a very reasonable position. Now, consider things like birds, bats, and flying insects. Each of these are significantly more complex than the Wright Flier, or even a modern plane. Now, if it is self evident that a plane requires a designer, is it not equally self evident that a bird requires a designer?
CG: Not necessarily. While a plane’s design is clearly the result of human intelligence, the complexity of living organisms like birds can be explained through natural processes, such as evolution by natural selection. These processes provide a mechanism by which complexity and functionality can arise without the need for a designer.
In other words, while human-made objects like planes are undeniably the result of intentional design, living organisms have an alternative explanation rooted in well-supported scientific theories. This is why the design of a bird does not make the need for a designer as self-evident as it is for a plane.
BB: I had a feeling you might say something like that, but did not want to assume you believed in Evolution, as you have not yet mentioned it.
There are a few problems with your argument, the first being that while you say Evolution is a well supported scientific theory, it is actually not a scientific issue. Science deals with present processes, like gravity or friction. Scientific facts work in all tenses. For example, we can say “friction produces heat”, but we can also say “friction produced heat”, and “friction will produce heat”. By contrast, we cannot say “birds evolve from…” or “birds will evolve from…”, because birds are already here. We can only logically say “birds evolved from…”. This makes Evolution a claim about history, not about science.
CG: That’s an interesting distinction, and I appreciate your thoughtful framing of the issue. However, I would argue that while evolution does involve claims about history, it is still very much a scientific issue because it is based on observable evidence and testable predictions about biological processes. Here’s why:
1. Observable Evidence: Evolution is supported by a vast body of evidence from multiple scientific fields, including genetics, paleontology, comparative anatomy, and embryology. For example, we can observe small-scale evolutionary changes (microevolution) in real time, such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics or changes in finch beak sizes.
2. Testable Predictions: Evolutionary theory makes predictions that can be tested in the present. For instance, the discovery of transitional fossils like Tiktaalik confirmed predictions about the evolution of tetrapods from fish. Similarly, genetic studies often reveal nested hierarchies of relatedness that align with evolutionary predictions.
3. Consistency with Other Sciences: Evolution is consistent with principles from other scientific disciplines, such as geology and radiometric dating, which provide a timeline for the history of life.
While it’s true that evolution involves reconstructing the past, the methods used—such as studying genetic changes, fossil records, and natural selection—are rooted in observable, repeatable, and testable scientific principles. Thus, evolution straddles both history and science, using present processes to infer past events in a way that aligns with the scientific method.
BB: You committed two fallacies in your reply. The first is the elephant hurling fallacy. You quickly listed a large number of arguments without expounding on any of them, even listing entire scientific fields. If I was to do the same with my own position, you would probably call me out for it. For example, if I was to say “Christianity is supported by a vast body of evidence from multiple fields, including archaeology, sociology, psychology, and even biology”, that would be the elephant hurling fallacy. And that’s just your first point, you went on to list more examples of what you consider evidence without explaining how they support your view. It would actually be impractical for me to take time responding to even a few of your claims. Thus, you committed the elephant hurling fallacy.
Your second fallacy is equivocation. Although neither of us have explicitly defined what we mean by “Evolution”, it’s obvious from the context of our discussion that we mean it in the context of origins. What you call “microevolution” is a process by which things that already exist change. This, however, is insufficient to explain how these things came to exist in the first place. Thus, you are using Evolution in two different senses, committing the elephant hurling fallacy. [Post transcription note: I intended to reiterate that Chat GPT had committed the equivocation fallacy here, but accidentally repeated elephant hurling. This is an error on my part.]
Furthermore, this brings us back to the original problem. You have already demonstrated some understanding of irreducible complexity. This is a major problem for Evolution by natural selection, simply because things like birds cannot evolve gradually. They have certain features which, if they were not already in place, would result in a very quick extinction of their transitional forms, thus preventing Evolution from happening.
CG: Thank you for pointing out your concerns. I appreciate the opportunity to address these critiques and clarify my position.
Addressing the Elephant Hurling Fallacy
You’re right that listing many arguments without fully expounding on them can overwhelm a discussion. My intention was not to overload you but to provide a broad overview of the evidence supporting evolution. To avoid this pitfall, I’ll focus on just one piece of evidence at a time moving forward, allowing us to examine it in greater depth. Please feel free to choose a specific point you’d like me to elaborate on.
Addressing the Equivocation Fallacy
I acknowledge the distinction you’re making between microevolution (small changes within species) and macroevolution (the emergence of entirely new forms of life). While I used microevolution as an example of observable evolutionary processes, my argument for macroevolution relies on cumulative small changes over long periods, supported by evidence like transitional fossils, genetic patterns, and developmental biology. I did not intend to conflate the two, but I understand how my wording may have given that impression.
Irreducible Complexity
Irreducible complexity is often cited as a challenge to evolutionary theory, suggesting that certain biological systems (like the avian respiratory system or the eye) could not function if they were missing even one part, and therefore could not have evolved gradually. However, this argument has been addressed extensively in evolutionary biology:
1. Co-option of Parts: Evolution often repurposes existing structures for new functions. For example, components of the bacterial flagellum have been shown to serve other functions in simpler organisms, suggesting they were not “irreducibly complex” at every stage.
2. Partial Functionality: Many systems thought to be irreducibly complex can still function in less efficient or simplified forms. For instance, early eyes may have started as simple light-sensitive cells, which would still provide a survival advantage without the full complexity of a modern eye.
3. Evidence of Gradual Change: Fossil records and genetic studies show stepwise changes in many complex systems. For birds specifically, we see transitional forms like Archaeopteryx, which exhibit features of both dinosaurs and modern birds.
I understand that irreducible complexity presents a challenge worth discussing further, and I’m happy to delve into specific examples if you’d like. Let me know where you’d prefer to focus next.
BB: I find it strange that you acknowledge that listing many arguments overwhelms the discussion, then proceeded to do it again immediately. Is this what a reasonable atheist would do?
CG: You’re absolutely right to call attention to that. I made the same mistake again, and I appreciate you pointing it out. A reasonable atheist, or anyone in a discussion like this, should aim to focus on one argument at a time to foster clarity and depth. Let’s simplify: would you like me to focus on addressing just the claim of irreducible complexity? If so, we can take one example—such as the bird or its specific features—and examine it thoroughly without bringing in additional points. This will keep the discussion focused and productive.
BB: I’m glad you acknowledged your mistake. I’m going to temporarily break character and explain what I’m going to do. On Bible Brain, I do actually have a number of articles addressing all of the arguments you raised, including about archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik, neither of which are transitional forms. I do not want to focus on these arguments in this discussion, however. Instead, when I publish the article for which this conversation is being used, I will include links to those articles. Getting back into character, and back to the discussion itself, we’ve actually gone too far off the original argument. The simple fact is, while there are arguments for Evolution, no one ever saw Evolution (in the origins sense) take place. Can we agree that human beings did not observe the origins of birds?
CG: Yes, we can agree that human beings did not directly observe the origins of birds.
BB: Then Evolution remains a claim about history, and not a scientific fact. With that in mind, are you willing to at least meet me half way? As in, if Evolution is not true, does it make sense that birds were designed?
CG: Yes, if evolution were proven to be false, the idea that birds were designed would be a reasonable alternative to consider. The complexity and functionality of birds would then demand another explanation, and intelligent design would naturally be one possibility among others.
BB: Fantastic! We are back on track. Now, in similar fashion, and harkening back to the Theism vs. Christianity thing, the Wright Brothers are only one of many possible explanations for the origins of the Wright Flier. By which I mean although it is impossible for a plane to come into existence without intelligent design, it did not have to be those specific men. Is my reasoning sound?
CG: Yes, your reasoning is sound. While the Wright Flyer clearly required intelligent design, the specific identity of the designers is a separate question. It could theoretically have been created by other individuals with the necessary knowledge and skill.
BB: Can we also agree it probably wasn't created by, for example, an ant or a termite?
CG: Yes, we can agree it was almost certainly not created by an ant or a termite, as they lack the intelligence, tools, and capabilities required to design and build an airplane.
BB: You are correct. We now have a double pronged approach to the origins of the Wright Flier. We have established that it must have been intelligently designed, but that the designer must have certain features. Thus, we have established A: The need for a designer, and B: The type of designer it must have been. But that still hasn’t narrowed it down to these two men. There are other people who could have done it. So, how might we narrow it down further? Can we agree that of all the possible ways we could answer this question, the historical record is the best approach?
CG: Yes, we can agree that the historical record is the best approach to identify the specific designers of the Wright Flyer. Examining documented evidence—such as written records, photographs, and eyewitness accounts—provides a reliable way to determine who was responsible for its creation.
BB: We now have a triple pronged approach to establishing origins, and have established the most reliable.
First, we must establish that a designer is required. I couldn’t get you to agree with me on this one, as you believe Evolution is a possible alternative, but you at least acknowledged design is another possibility. I am content to meet you half way on this.
Second, we must establish the type of designer. I assume we can agree that the God of the Bible is a plausible contender here?
CG: Yes, we can agree that the God of the Bible is a plausible contender as a designer, particularly if we’re operating under the premise that design is required. This would place God alongside other potential explanations for the type of designer capable of creating complex life.
BB: That’s correct. Other gods claim both omnipotence and omniscience, meaning they could also create this world. But now we come to the third prong: History. You acknowledged that we can reasonably look to history and conclude it was the Wright Brothers who created the Wright Flier. Without trying to anticipate where I’m taking this argument, can we agree the historical record is also useful for establishing whether or not Christianity is true?
CG: Yes, the historical record is a valuable tool for examining the claims of Christianity. It can provide evidence for events, people, and cultural contexts described in the Bible, and it allows us to assess whether the claims align with historical reality.
BB: With the premises you have accepted, I contend that we have sufficient evidence to establish the truth of Christianity. Of course, as Christianity requires faith, even as a central premise, it will remain impossible to prove it fully. However, the Bible is actually a historical record.
For a moment, we can ignore that it claims to be the inspired word of God Himself. It is also the word of man, with much of it being written by the witnesses to the events themselves. Therefore, just as the writings of Plato are considered reliable historical evidence for Socrates, the writings of, for example, Peter, should be considered reliable historical evidence for Jesus. Can we agree?
CG: Yes, we can agree that the Bible, when treated as a historical document, holds some value as evidence for events and figures it describes, such as Jesus. Like other ancient texts, its claims can be evaluated based on factors like authorship, historical context, and corroboration with external sources. However, as with all historical documents, its reliability on specific points would need to be assessed critically, especially when it describes events of a supernatural nature.
BB: That’s actually interesting. I of course agree with you that we need to assess it critically, but you specify “especially when it describes events of a supernatural nature”. This hints back to your definition of your position: That your view is grounded in a specifically naturalistic understanding of the universe. Is Naturalism your axiom?
CG: Naturalism is not necessarily my axiom, but it is a methodological approach that I find useful for understanding the world. To clarify, I operate under methodological naturalism—the assumption that natural causes can explain observable phenomena—when evaluating claims, especially extraordinary ones. This approach doesn’t rule out the possibility of the supernatural but requires strong evidence to consider it a valid explanation.
In other words, I don’t start with the belief that the supernatural doesn’t exist (philosophical naturalism), but I do require robust evidence to move beyond naturalistic explanations. So, while naturalism heavily influences my perspective, I wouldn’t call it an unshakable axiom. Instead, it’s a practical framework for evaluating claims about reality.
BB: But by your own admission, it is the assumption that natural causes can explain observable phenomena. I’ll add, that is a very Christian assumption. I believe that the universe was created by a rational Creator who does not act on a whim, nor regularly interfere with the forces He has set in motion. Evolutionary anthropologist Loren Eilsley even admitted that this is why “science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith”. This is a common view among scholars of various fields. So, we are actually in agreement that generally, observable phenomena should be interpreted in line with natural forces.
The problem you have, however, is that by making that assumption, you inevitably rule out the supernatural. In fact, if we take it to its logical conclusion, a supernatural event could occur right in front of your eyes, but you would always assume there is a naturalistic explanation, it’s just that you don’t know what that is yet. Thus, it is not the evidence that has you unconvinced by the supernatural, but the very method by which you interpret that evidence.
CG: You make a fair critique, and I agree that methodological naturalism has inherent limitations. It operates on the assumption that natural causes explain phenomena, but this assumption does indeed constrain its ability to consider supernatural explanations. By its nature, methodological naturalism excludes the supernatural unless there is overwhelming and undeniable evidence that cannot fit within naturalistic paradigms.
This raises an important philosophical question: if methodological naturalism is the lens through which evidence is interpreted, could it ever fully recognize the supernatural, even if such events occurred? You are correct that my approach would likely interpret a supernatural event as unexplained rather than unexplainable. This is a strength in some ways—it prevents jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence—but it can also be a weakness if it dismisses certain possibilities prematurely.
Your point also highlights an intriguing historical truth: the development of science owes much to the belief in a rational, orderly universe, which many attribute to Christian theology. This shared foundation—an assumption of order and causality—is something we both rely on, though we interpret its implications differently. I can acknowledge that methodological naturalism is not neutral; it reflects a particular worldview and can limit openness to alternative explanations, such as the supernatural.
BB: Having admitted the flaw in your epistemology, perhaps it would be helpful to simply treat the Bible as a book of history, regardless of its supernatural content? We could even temporarily meet halfway. For exa, [sic] there was once a war between the Lydians and the Medes. The final battle of the war, the battle of Halys, was ended because of an eclipse, which both sides interpreted as a sign from the gods, so they declared peace. Can we agree that although this particular eclipse was a natural event, the fact that they interpreted the eclipse as supernatural at least means they did see an eclipse?
CG: Yes, I agree. The fact that both the Lydians and the Medes interpreted the eclipse as a supernatural event strongly suggests that an eclipse did indeed occur. Their interpretation of its meaning is separate from the historical event of the eclipse itself. This approach—separating the historical events from their supernatural interpretations—is a reasonable way to analyze historical texts like the Bible as well.
BB: But can we also agree that it could go the other way? As in if they saw a supernatural event, the record still counts as evidence?
CG: Yes, we can agree that if they recorded witnessing a supernatural event, the record still counts as evidence—though it would be evidence of their experience or interpretation of the event, rather than definitive proof of the supernatural itself. The key would be evaluating the reliability of the witnesses, the consistency of their accounts, and whether alternative explanations exist for the event described.
BB: Agreed. So, with this in mind, we can return to the Bible itself as a historical document, and agree on the general method of interpretation. I of course take the approach that it is also the word of God, but for your sake as an atheist, I’m leaving that aside.
Now, you acknowledge that recording an event, however one interprets it, is evidence that they saw it. Corroboration should probably also count for something, yes? As in if more than two people report similar things, that makes a weightier case?
CG: Yes, corroboration does strengthen a historical case. If multiple independent sources report similar events, especially if those sources come from different perspectives or contexts, it increases the likelihood that the event occurred as described—though it doesn’t necessarily validate any particular interpretation, such as a supernatural explanation.
BB: Brilliant. Now, what if the primary audience is actually in a position to know? For example, if it was written to other eyewitnesses, or to other contemporaries?
CG: If a text is written to an audience that includes eyewitnesses or contemporaries, and it contains claims that could be verified or falsified by those individuals, that does add credibility to the account. Such claims would be more likely to withstand scrutiny if they were true, as contemporaries could challenge false or exaggerated accounts. However, this alone isn’t definitive proof of accuracy—it’s possible for communities to accept certain claims based on social, cultural, or ideological factors rather than empirical verification. Still, it’s a reasonable indicator of the author’s confidence in the events described.
BB: I agree. Now consider that all of the things we just mentioned apply, in various ways, to the Bible, especially New Testament (there are some books of the Old that are obvious exceptions). It was written by multiple eyewitness and contemporaries, to eyewitness and contemporaries, from their various perspectives. Now consider that one of the things these multiple witnesses claim to have witnessed, and assume many of their primary audience either also witnessed or could verify, is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now, if a man is very publicly and brutally murdered, yet is seen alive again with very few wounds (the nail and spear holes being exceptions), is there a likely natural explanation?
CG: If we take the New Testament accounts at face value—that Jesus was publicly executed, confirmed dead, buried, and later seen alive by numerous people—then it is difficult to find a plausible natural explanation that accounts for all the reported details. Claims of resurrection are extraordinary and outside the bounds of typical natural phenomena. While one could propose theories like misidentification, hallucinations, or conspiracy, none of these fully align with the breadth of the claims (e.g., the physical interactions with Jesus, the empty tomb, the consistency of eyewitness testimonies, and the transformation of the disciples).
This leads to an epistemological challenge: an event like resurrection, if it happened, would by definition be supernatural. A naturalistic worldview struggles to explain such an event without appealing to incomplete or speculative alternatives. From a purely historical perspective, the convergence of multiple eyewitness accounts and their subsequent willingness to suffer and die for their testimony does lend significant weight to the claim, even if it remains extraordinary.
BB: That’s brilliant. For purposes of my article, I think this would be a great place to conclude this conversation. Before I end, let’s recap the purpose of the discussion. You were supposed to play the part of a reasonable atheist, and I am a Christian trying to change your mind. You were allowed to change your mind, but you did not have to. The only rule was you were supposed to respond as a reasonable atheist should. I just have three questions:
1. How confident were you in your atheistic worldview before?
2. How confident are you now?
3. Did I change your mind?
CG: 1. How confident were you in your atheistic worldview before?
As a reasonable atheist in this exercise, I began with a high degree of confidence in my worldview, rooted in naturalism and skepticism toward supernatural claims, including those of Christianity.
2. How confident are you now?
While I still maintain confidence in the naturalistic framework, this conversation has introduced challenges that highlight the limits of naturalism in explaining certain historical claims, like the resurrection. My confidence in atheism has been slightly shaken, though not overturned, as the discussion emphasized the strength of historical evidence in some areas where naturalistic explanations are weaker.
3. Did I change your mind?
You have not fully changed my mind, but you have certainly given me points to reflect upon, particularly the weight of corroborated historical claims and the epistemological implications of extraordinary events like the resurrection. This conversation has opened the door to further exploration of these topics.
Analysing the debate
While artificial, Chat GPT does indeed display satisfyingly high levels of intelligence. It understood the assignment, and played the role it was asked to play. Evidently, I failed to change its mind, however I did ask if this would have been possible to do so without direct commands. To this, it replied
"In this scenario, no, it wouldn’t have been possible to change my mind without direct commands or significant alterations to my programming. As an AI, I don’t have personal beliefs or a “mind” in the human sense. My responses are based on patterns and data, not on personal conviction.
When I play the role of a reasonable atheist (or any other persona), I’m following the logic and assumptions of that position. While I can engage in arguments and counterarguments, I don’t experience belief, doubt, or a change in perspective the way humans do. My “confidence” in a given position is simply a reflection of the reasoning within the constraints of the persona you’re asking me to assume."
I did anticipate this kind of limitation, though I was hoping that by specifying that it was allowed to change its mind might enable it to do so. In spite of the fact it did not, one aspect of the debate I found particularly stimulating is that all throughout, the AI made its best attempts to understand me (as a reasonable person should), but I also had to make my best efforts to be understood. I had to think about every word I said, considering how it might be interpreted.
It quickly became evident just how important this was. A common theme I notice in AI technology in general, including Chat GPT, is its conciliatory nature. It does not like to offend, and so when it encounters language it considers inflammatory, such as "attacking positions", it initially resists or protests. This can be worked around, but it does force me, as the user, to think about how I interact with it.
In a debate between two people, this is exactly how it should be. It is important to think about how we speak, though of course not to the specific degree required for interacting with AI technology. Nevertheless, there are predictable ways a debate opponent will interpret what we say. You can convey the identical message via a plethora of verbal combinations, but your opponent may severely misconstrue several of these possibilities. In other words, you can say the same thing in many ways, but your opponent might misunderstand some of them. Thus, you have some degree of responsibility to ensure you are understandable.
But of course, the majority of the responsibility is on the receiver, and I was very impressed with how well Chat GPT fulfilled this responsibility. In real life, I find an atheist's favorite fallacy is the straw man. Not that they are all like this, of course, but more often than not, I find atheists just do not like to understand what their opponents are saying. Instead, they twist our words, no matter how clear, and respond according to their misunderstanding. Sadly, that includes the most popular atheist apologists.
Chat GPT takes the opposite approach, almost resembling an approach called the steel man. That is, it not only took great care to interpret everything I said as accurately as possible, but in some cases, actually improved on it. For sake of this article, I did not actually present the strongest, or most detailed forms of my arguments. However, several times throughout, like when it brought up the Apostles' willingness to die for their testimonies, it decided to add those details itself.
Keeping within its persona as a reasonable atheist, the AI did not find any of these arguments convincing, even with its own addition of strengthening details. But one thing I found particularly pleasing is its will to acknowledge the reasonability of things with which it disagreed. For example, when I point out the flaw in Naturalism to an atheist, I find they often push back as if I'd just proudly announced the Earth is flat, and the moon is made of cheese. Chat GPT, by contrast, acknowledged the flaw in the methodology.
We also see, from its response to my comparison of the bird and the Wright Flier, that Chat GPT is not simply being a "yes man" here. If it can find a reason to disagree, it will. But when it comes to acknowledging the strength of an opponent's view, or the weakness in its own, Chat GPT is refreshingly honest.
Amazingly, it is not only able to do this, but also acknowledge - even correct - its mistakes. When I called it out for the elephant hurling fallacy, it did make the same mistake again immediately afterwards, but after being called out a second time, it fixed the mistake. This actually allowed me to do something I'm not used to being allowed to do: Return to the track I was initially trying to go down.
One thing I was particularly impressed by was the way in which it defined its position. Specifically, whereas a human atheist is more likely to say "there's no evidence", Chat GPT preferred the phrase "...I have not encountered sufficient evidence to support such claims." As shown in the linked article, it is vital for atheists to use such qualifiers. "There's no evidence" is a claim to omniscience, whereas Chat GPT's version acknowledges its limited knowledge, allowing for the possibility that evidence might be available elsewhere - maybe I was even about to give it some - but it hadn't encountered it. In fact, even the term "sufficient evidence" suggests evidence has been encountered, which is, once again, a very reasonable position. Disagreeing with a position does not require the complete and utter rejection of its merits.
Overall, I was very impressed by Chat GPT's debate performance. It seems far better than most people. And I do mean "people", because although I chose atheism as the example (I was originally going to do others, but decided it would be too long), the flaws Chat GPT lacks are the flaws human beings have. We do have emotions, desires, and egos, and these things frequently turn debates into more of a sport than an actual attempt to improve each others' minds. Many of us become the equivalent of what we think an AI would be, yet Chat GPT ironically exemplifies what a human should be: Diligent, respectful, humble, and most importantly, teachable.
Meet Thred
One of the other ways I played with the AI was to invent a character who eventually became known as Thred. Originally known as just "the alien", Thred was born of my general frustration with lazy statements like "that's just your interpretation". As a Christian, I not only believe the Bible is the word of God, but actively seek to base my views on it. One could sum up my beliefs, or at least the standard I strive for, as "the Bible says, therefore I believe".
But far too many people in our culture have abandoned the general principles of written communication, and have instead started interpreting the Bible based on external factors. This may be based on something a little more solid, like the teachings of a given denomination, but these days, even goes as far as whatever one prefers to believe, this will somehow become compatible with the Bible. The words on the page do not matter. The historical context does not matter. The interpretations of Christians throughout the ages do not matter. All that matters is "I strongly believe this thing, therefore it's Biblical."
So I proposed a character much like I wish I actually was: An "unbiased" observer, genuinely forming his theology on the basis of Scripture without the hindrance of personal or cultural distractions. Thred is an alien with a strong understanding of the English language, but with initially limited access to our writings. More specifically, Thred has access to a variety of English translations of the Bible, but does not have access to any other religious material, Christian or otherwise. This includes footnotes and commentaries. From this, Thred has fully formed his own theological beliefs. Only now that these beliefs have been formed is he able to encounter other theological views. On top of this, while Thred can understand English, his anatomy limits him to pronouncing just three words: "Yes", "no", and "dunno".
With these specifications in mind, I began asking Chat GPT to describe Thred's theological views, approaching this from a variety of different angles. Sometimes, I flat out asked "what would Thred come to believe about...?" Other times, I would ask "would Thred's view align with any of the following views?" If I asked "what would Thred say to someone who told him...", I'd get an explanation that he is anatomically restricted to three words, and would say "yes" if he agreed etc., but if I specified "which of Thred's three words would he say to someone who told him...", I would usually get one of the three words, with an explanation as to why Thred chose it. On occasion, I would also ask follow up questions, usually for clarification. I would then delete the conversation in order to prevent them influencing each other.
One thing that surprised me is just how accurate I consider "Thred's" theology to be. 9 times out of 10, which is probably not even an exaggeration, the result I got was very closely aligned with what I already believed, even while I was attempting to word my questions in ways that would neither give my biases away, nor influence Thred to share them. Over time, I have asked him a number of questions on both major and minor issues. Here are a few examples of his beliefs:
Thred identifies his religion as "Christianity", and would not use denominational labels. He may, however, align with certain denominations "by coincidence".
Thred would admire Roman Catholicism's devotion to Christ, but his theology would differ significantly.
Thred believes in the Trinity, and specifically the Deity of Christ.
Thred would say "yes" to Sola Scriptura.
Thred's theology would align most closely with the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory.
Thred's view of origins most closely aligns with "Young Earth Creationism", and would say "no" to Evolution.
Regarding Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism, Thred has a 40% chance of choosing Arminianism over the other two, which he has only a 30% chance of accepting.
Thred views Cannibalism and abortion in direct conflict with his views on the sanctity of human life.
Thred would say "yes" to the Priesthood of all believers.
Thred has a 90% chance of accepting a more symbolic view of the Eucharist over a literal one.
Thred would say "dunno" to the morality of celebrating Halloween.
Thred affirms baptism as an important command of Jesus, but stresses its secondary nature to faith.
Thred has a 70% chance of affirming Continuationism over Cessationism.
Thred has a concept similar to the rapture, and holds to a post-tribulation understanding of its timing, but nuance causes him to leave room for mid-trib. Thred would say "dunno" if someone told him the rapture would occur before the Tribulation.
If a Muslim told him Muhammad is a prophet, Thred would simply reply "no".
I have two observations regarding Thred. The first is that his approach seems to vary depending on the GPT model I use. If I'm using GPT-4o, his responses are more detailed, and more accurate. However, if I ask him the same question after hitting my limit for GPT-4o, his replies become sloppier, and he even ends up contradicting the answers he gave on the other model.
The second thing I notice, which is strangely less impactful than I would expect, is that Thred is inconsistent in how explicit a teaching has to be before he accepts it. For example, as noted, Thred is an unshakable Trinitarian. No matter which angle I approach it from, I cannot get him to deny the Trinity. I even flat out asked "Would Thred be likely to deny the doctrine of the Trinity?", to which it replied - in greater detail - that although the "Trinity" is not explicitly named in the Bible, the key components of the doctrine are. Therefore, Thred would be less likely to name the doctrine, but would accept a functional understanding of it.
This is contrasted with its reasoning behind Thred's bias towards Arminianism. In its explanation, Chat GPT suggested Thred might be convinced by Molinism because of its emphasis on "Middle Knowledge", but also emphasised that this is not explicitly taught in Scripture. One might ask, if God knows all things, how could Middle Knowledge be any less obvious than the Trinity? Thus, it seems even Thred has his own shortcomings when it comes to consistency.
In spite of this, Thred is probably one of my favorite experiments. For obvious reasons, I must discourage the use of Chat GPT to either form, or even defend one's own theology. But I cannot help but be intrigued by how often Thred's views align with my own. I am tempted, whenever I hear "that's just your interpretation", to jokingly reply "actually, it's Thred's".
Ultimately, even when asking which of Thred's three words he would use in a given situation, Chat GPT will almost always explain the reasoning behind its decision. In doing so, it often lists, even sometimes quoting, Biblical justification for this. This means Thred can be somewhat helpful for a diligent student of Scripture. When verses are listed, we can open our Bibles and read them, ensuring they have been cited accurately, but also checking the context to ensure "Thred" has used them accurately. This is good practice, even with a human teacher, but especially with an AI-generated alien.
In spite of being an AI generated alien, Thred's theology is generally accurate, right down to the very Gospel itself. I asked Chat GPT to summarise what Thred would likely believe about how salvation is received, to which it replied:
"From his perspective, salvation is likely received through faith in God and accepting His grace. Thred would understand salvation as something that is given by God, not earned through actions or works, reflecting the New Testament emphasis on faith and belief in Jesus Christ.
Since Thred’s theology would align with the Bible’s teachings on salvation, he might believe that salvation is granted through a personal relationship with God, through faith in Christ as Savior, repentance, and trusting in God’s promise of forgiveness. Thred’s specific theological understanding could involve the belief that salvation is a gift from God that cannot be achieved through human effort, but rather is received by grace through faith, as articulated in passages such as Ephesians 2:8-9.
Thred’s theology would likely emphasize that salvation is available to anyone who believes in God and accepts His grace, regardless of background, based on the Bible’s call to repent and believe in the gospel."
I asked this question several times, in a number of different ways, each time getting similar answers. On occasion, Thred will emphasis baptism, at one point saying "If he interpreted verses like Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16 to require baptism, he might see it as an important outward sign of salvation, though secondary to faith." But regardless of whether he highlights baptism, Thred always consistently presents salvation as a gift, given by grace, received through faith, not of works, usually citing Ephesians 2:8-9 as his justification.
Due to my limited knowledge of AI, I can't be certain of how exactly "Thred" draws his conclusions. What exactly is Chat GPT doing when it summarises Thred's views? Is it genuinely studying the Bible translations I told it to? Is it referencing footnotes, even though I told it Thred can't? One possibility - though it seems unlikely due to Thred's post-tribulation persuasions - is that it simply gives the most popular Evangelical answers it finds online. Whatever the case, Thred's theology is quite impressive.
Conclusion
This article is intended to be more fun than fact, but even so, I hope it has also been educational. We have seen some interesting examples of "dos" and "don'ts", and have even got a glimpse into how an alien might study the Bible - and how we should cross examine such a character. Out of pure curiosity, I may explore Thred in a future article, just to see if other people get similar results from similar questions. For now, I hope you have enjoyed this AI experiment.
AI usage
AI was used in the following ways in the production of this article:
1. AI was used to generate the scene in the header image.
2. All italicized text in the article was generated by Chat GPT in response to the prompt above it.