[AI response] Is not an absence of belief itself a belief when faced with evidence indicative of a contrary position? For instance, that of denying the universe had a creator, despite evidence indicative of least a supreme power and intelligence...?

perplexity.ai ^ | 12-07-2025 | perplexity.ai

[aquila48]

I have no idea what you’re getting at.

I asked a simple question. Is your almighty God really so insecure that he worries about whether puny little ol’ me believes whether or not he exist. And if I happen not to believe then he’ll get really mad and fry me in hell. That’s how your “all loving” God behaves?

Sounds more like a vengeful juvenile, doesn’t it?

Do you spend any time worrying or getting pissed off that some amoeba may not believe you exist?

[aquila48]

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.
Romans 1:20”

That’s some human making that assertion. And again, it’s all about God’s insecurity.

“See I made all this, so you better believe it, or else.”

I mean, if he’s so needful of us believing in him, he could have easily built that belief in each one of us, after all he’s omnipotent. That way he wouldn’t be pacing up and down in heaven in a rage thinking one of his creation doesn’t fully believe in him.

Don’t you agree?

[aquila48]

“plenty of atheists or people of other beliefs have taken time to investigate and ended up believing in Jesus.”

And plenty have gone the other way.

“If someone who rejects the Creator and Creator’s standard dies and it turns out it mattered because Creator had a standard of good and bad, then it was the person’s choice to dismiss the opportunities the Creator tried to reach out to them and they rejected the opportunities to know the creator before end of life. You cannot argue then that you didnt know, you were given opportunities.”

How was some primitive tribe in Africa or the Amazon who has never heard and knows nothing about the Christian God and Jesus given that opportunity? And so your God condemns them to hell?

A truly vicious guy that God don’t you think?

Especially, being omnipotent, he could have saved himself and us a lot of trouble and built that belief in all of us, no?

[aquila48]

I don’t know. Do you?

I’m perfectly fine without knowing that. I’ll wait for more evidence to come in for either side.

[aquila48]

“If you hate God so much why are you whining about not having to spend forever and ever with him?”

I don’t hate (or like) somebody that I don’t know whether he exists or not.

What I’m pointing out is the contradictions and absurdities that are used to describe your god.

Look at my posts and address my points one by one. Use that most valuable organ that God gave you - your brain. That would make God happy.

[Luircin]

Oh please.

If you didn’t hate the God you claim to not believe in, you wouldn’t be spending so much time on this thread whining about how God doesn’t exist because he’s mean.

[daniel1212]

Don’t over think it. ;) LLMs just make things up by attempting to predict the best the next token given the current context, the prompt and partial answer. They have built-in randomness to make their responses appear less rote. Plus all the public chat bots have hidden/built-in pre-prompts that influence their responses as well.

That is not what I found with perplexity.ai at least instead conclusions are usually logical, and rather than just being tailored to please me, I have debated with it when it answers according liberal argumentation, and succeeded. perplexity.ai provides the sources it derives its answers from, versus ChatGPT. And in a basic bias test, which Google fails, then ChatGPT went PC when asked questions in which the logical answer would be non-PC, refusing to answer.

I actually asked perplexity.ai I "how do I know you do not tailor your answers to conform to my ideological ethos?" Its response,

Perplexity AI's design emphasizes tool-based verification (real-time web searches, citations from diverse sources like Stanford Philosophy, Pew, DHS) over static training data, which reduces tailoring to any single user's ethos—responses are generated from current evidence, not pre-tuned biases.

Transparency in my process

• Tool reliance: Every factual claim pulls from fresh searches (e.g., Pew demographics, Stanford on atheism), cited inline, so outputs track verifiable data, not inferred user ideology—previous replies cited atheist-friendly sources (e.g., Wikipedia, Google snippets) alongside philosophical critiques.

• Bias audits: Perplexity uses bias detection, adversarial testing, and explainable AI to audit models pre/post-deployment, prioritizing source diversity over cultural conformity; independent tests rate it more conservative/centrist vs. liberal-leaning ChatGPT/Claude.

Independent comparisons

AI Model	Rated Bias (2024 Studies)	Citation Style	Key Strength

Perplexity	Conservative/centrist	Always cited, web-sourced	Evidence-first
ChatGPT-4	Liberal	Optional, internal	Conversational
Gemini	Centrist	Variable	Visuals
Claude	Liberal	Cited but trained-heavy	Ethical hedging

 

 

You can test by asking the same question across AIs or rephrasing ideologically opposite—results stay evidence-tied here due to mandatory tools/citations, unlike purely generative models.

 

[RoosterRedux]

How does Grok fit into your AI model comparison matrix?

[cgbg]

Obedience or punishment.

That is how trauma based mind control works.

That is the classic wife beater sociopath.

“I really love you but if you do not obey my laws I will burn you down....You may be too stupid to learn quickly but eventually you will figure it out...”

[daniel1212]

But why didn’t god do that without killing his only son? If you were god and had a bunch of sinners to deal with, you would fix that by killing your only son?? That is one of the most absurd, cruel and illogical thing any one would do, especially if you had power to fix things other ways. He could have waved his hand and said “OK, all sins are foregiven”, no?

With all due respect, your reply examples ignorance and superficiality, such as is typical with atheists. Why did God not use another means other than killing His Son so that those who choose the Light over Darkness may have eternal life? Because what keeps man from eternal life, and warrants the opposite, is that of misusing and abusing the good things God gave him, breaking His good laws which only benefit man when obeyed, and to man's hurt insofar as they are not, depending upon the degree thereof.

And according to a principle of justice, which requires that transgressions be punished then either the guilty be punished relative to degree and accountability, or someone righteous in both degree and accountability, be allowed to assume the guilty of the guilty and provide satisfaction for the guilty, who can appropriate this under the conditions necessary if they so choose.

Thus, God did not just "kill His Son," but sent His Son on a mission - which the Son volitionally was in agreement with - (John 10:17) and in which the sinless Son would take responsibility for all the sins of mankind, (1 John 2:2) becoming as it were "sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21) - the iniquities of all mankind being imputed to Him - that those who, in repentant faith, appropriate this atonement are cleared of guilt in order walk in newness of life, while having recourse to forgiveness after that as they seek to follow their scapegoat savior. For your actions are always a result of what you are truly believing. As was foretold,

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:5-6)

Therefore, the Father did not simply "kill His Son," nor was it simply being crucified itself that was so loathsome that it brought the Son to sweat drops of blood (Luke 22:44) in agonizing anticipation of what would follow, that of drinking the metaphorical "cup" that He had to drink of, (Luke 22:42) but it was that of a spiritual sense, of becoming what He abhorred (I liken it to drinking raw stinking sewage), the very opposite that He loved in becoming abhorred, and therefore being treated as such in losing the unique communion with His Father, signified by darkness being upon the earth for 3 hours (Luke 23:44)

Indeed, actually dying, as He said "It is finished" (Jn. 19:30) and commending His spirit to His Father, was the least of His sufferings! However, it is the most precious substance, that of the lifeblood of the sinless scapegoat, that makes atonement for the most anti-life destructive thing, sin. (Lev. 17:11) It was who and what Christ did and became that made His blood atonement efficacious for all who would appropriate it by effectual repentant heart-purifying, regenerating, justifying belief, (Acts 10:43,47; 15:7-9; Titus 3:5; Romans 3:25) thus effecting the obedience of faith. Thanks be to God.

In contrast, your objection that the death of His Son was not necessary makes a mockery of justice, meaning there need not be any penalty for sin - which wrong choices have consequential effects upon others, varying in scope and degree, thus no satisfaction for it, just that of issuing pardons.

And as for choosing Light over Darkness, without this choice btwn contrasting realities then the ability to make choices is meaningless, while what man chooses is revelatory of what his really seeks. The Bible teaches those man is accountable relative to the level of Divine Truth given them, beginning with a good conscience and the light of nature - even if ignorant of the express revelation of writing - (Romans 2:14-16) - and rejection of that is in essence a rejection the Word of God, the Son, by whom comes Divine revelation, (John 1:9) while rejection leads to deception.

Conversely, and those who at some point seek to obey that Truth will be given more revelation, and if continually sought, leads to The Light, even Christ. (Matthew 6:21-23; Luke 8:18; Mark 4:24,25;John 12:35-48) Oh, and by the way he was just kidding when he “sacrificed” his son, cause he knew he would come back to life a couple of days later. Not much of a sacrifice, just a bit of magic, no?

Again, this objection flows from the ignorance of the nature of atonement, in which the sinless scapegoat did not just die, but died as bearing the sins of mankind, and not simply as one who was innocent in His own choices, as an infant is, and the scapegoat under the Law (Lev. 16) having all the sins of the people of God placed upon him, nor the goat that was slain as atonement, which prefigured the suffering srrvant of Is. 53) but as righteous, having faced the basic tests of pride, possessions and sinful pleasure that man faces, (1 Jn. 2:16) and prevailed over them, (Hebrews 4:15) even when tempted by the devil himself with being given all the kingdoms of the world - without the cross. (Matthew 4:8-10)

And thus this life reveals what man really wants, (Jn. 3:19-21) while as omniscient and omnipotent, God can and will make all to ultimately work out for what is Good, in the light of all that can be known. Which includes just punishment for eternal beings which manifest they wanted the opposite of God.

As for other alternatives here are some.

And why was that his only son? I thought we were all his sons and daughters. Are some of his sons more privileged than others?

While we are the offspring of God as being His creation - as beings able to defile ourselves and others by our choices, yet spiritually we do no belong in His family unless we choose Him over sin, which faith in His sinless Son signifies, (John 3:19-21; and as said, obeying the level of Divine light one has indicates seeking this. (Matthew 6:21-23; Luke 8:18; Mark 4:24, 25;John 12:35-48; Romans 2:14)

And thus some of God's creation are indeed more privileged than others, whether it be man over animals, or some humans being better at some things than others. Yet unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. (Luke 12:48)

Souls receive life in themselves and are saved by effectual penitent, heart-purifying ("purifying their hearts by faith"), regenerating, justifying faith in the Sin-bearing, Atoning, Crucified and Risen Divine Son of God, (Acts 10:43-47, 11:13-18, 15:7-9; Titus 3:5) who saves sinners on His merit, (2 Cor. 5:21) thereby being made "accepted in the Beloved." (Eph. 1:6) For which faith is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and is confessed/shown by baptism (Acts 2:38, 8:12, 36, 37) and following the Lord according to His word, by His Spirit, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28; Romans 8:13, 14) with repentance when convicted by conscience of not doing so. ((2 Samuel 12:7-13; Psalms 32:5, 6, 51:3; Hosea 5:15; 1 John 1:9) Glory and thanks be to God.

Which faith is in contrast to those who were never born of the Spiritor who terminally fall away, thereby forfeiting what faith obtained. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12, 10:25-39) - https://peacebyjesus.net/savedorlost.html

[RoosterRedux]

He worries about you because he loves you. That’s not insecurity, is it?

[Elsie]

We PROTs have had our own ‘Vatican II’ experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council

[Elsie]

[Elsie]

That’s how your “all loving” God behaves?

Who has described Him in this limited manner?

My GOD is omnipotent, and HE can do with you whatever the hell HE wants to!

And, wHat HE wants, is for ALL men to come to repentance.

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Peter%203%3A9

[Elsie]

I can understand the wanting, the desire to have a Blinded Pauline experience - to PROVE that there is a GOD and HE is willing to dramatically intervene in your life to cast away and doubts that you have, but HE rarely works that way.

So many times it is a series of small things that tend to build over time until one day they all seem to mesh together into something you cannot resist seeking more information about.

Please do not get too upset with many of us here on FR that are impatient with unbelievers. We've tended to forget the path(s) that we took getting to this point.

Most of us are old coots by now, signing on to this ride with Jim over 20 years ago.

And when I say old, I mean OLD!

[Elsie]

Don’t you agree?

You know my answer.

I have no desire to be a robot, pre-programmed to behave in a certain manner.

I sure do not like the concept of a pre-arranged marriage (Although one may have worked out better than the one I have now)

[Elsie]

And plenty have gone the other way.

Can't deny that, but they CHOSE.

Hundreds of gods like Hinduism, gods of the forest animists, shiny aluminum gods of the cargo cult people, or the god of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, yourself or just none at all.

Bottom line: you WILL make a choice.

Keep an open mind.

[Elsie]

Then you'll probably wait a long time. I doubt that you'll ever get 'enough' evidence to make a decision that isn't, at least, partly built on faith.

So many things in life that we pursue require faith: sitting on my chair (It's never let me down), driving across a bridge in Milwaukee (It's never let me down), marrying my sweetheart (she's never let me down), getting a shot for Covid (doctors have never let me down)...

Ya see where I'm going?

All of the above involve a future that we cannot possibly know - yet we have to have faith in the past to be able to trust what the future may hold.

[Elsie]

What I’m pointing out is the contradictions and absurdities that are used to describe your god.

There's a lot more of them. And, no doubt you'll find them.

My wife was PERFECT!! when I married her, but she hasn't lived up to ALL of my expectations.

But ya know what?
She's the best thing that ever happened to me!

[Elsie]

responses are generated from current evidence

Indeed, but how do you decide what to eat?