Raw LLM Responses

Ruslan [Hereafter abbreviated as RR] wants the most intelligent AI in the world to disprove his decision to accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. As expected, AI comes forward with four tough questions. #1 The first question deals with why there is "so much evil and natural disasters" in our world. "If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then why hasn't God reduced the quotient of natural disasters that cause needless suffering?" RR responds (a) that God wanted us to love him freely, so he created us with free will, (b) that, beginning with Adam, humans failed to abide by the only command given them, "do not eat of the tree"; (c) that a fallen humanity brought sin into the world, (d) that sin led to evil and natural disasters. #2 Notice that RR responds to the tough questions (a) that AI goes out of his way to approve of what RR says and (b) that AI provides attractive summaries of the answers that RR has provided. This show of approval and this offering of attractive summaries are what is known as "active listening" among those who are experts in dialogue. RR, meanwhile, takes this "active listening" as a heartfelt approval of his explanations. RR imagines that his informed responses are winning the approval of his adversary. #3 But this is a tragic error. RR fails to recognize that AI is programmed to be strictly neutral and undogmatic. In the first minute, for example, AI says that "Christianity is the best religion." RR and his staff cheer! They are astonished at this wonderful selection. In truth, however, this only represents the fact that the computer programmers, in order to maintain their neutrality, have to substitute "existential choices" into a statistically given "most frequently cited" response to this question. Thus, questions regarding "the best religion," "the best bread recipe," or "the best vacation" are altered to become "the most-cited religion," "the most-cited bread recipe," or "the most-cited vacation". Computers do not make up their minds about anything. RR appears to be entirely unaware of this. #4 RR give the classical response of showing that natural disasters are the result of our fallen condition (original sin?). Thus, they don't blame God, they blame sinners. In the future, moreover, when sin is no more after the Resurrection of the Dead, then natural disasters will seemingly cease. Here again, AI is programmed to be strictly neutral and undogmatic. RR doesn't know or understand this. To discover this, RR needs to ask AI to specify all the evidence in the NT where natural disasters are explained as resulting from sin. BUT ALSO ASK AI TO SPECIFY ALL NT INSTANCES WHERE NATURAL DISASTERS CANNOT BE ACCOUNTED FOR AS DUE TO SIN. In the first instance, AI finds no evidence. "Links to sin come from Christian philosophers and not from the texts themselves. Nothing in the NT goes in that direction. When the second question is given to AI, a half-dozen texts inclines believers to refuse to link natural disasters to sin. Here is an excerpt from my response: If you want to see how the critical faculties of a 86-year-old Roman Catholic function, go to <>