Using AI to test logical arguments

[PopeyesPappy]

Not to long along on a forum not very far from here I watched a theist try, unsuccessfully, to use AI to support his proof of the trinity. As a result of that I designed, with the help of several LMM's including ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Claude, and Grok, a set of prompts designed to have AI based LMM's test arguments.

I tested the prompts against several metaphysical & philosophical arguments including the cosmological, design, ontological, and moral arguments for god. Then I tested evolution twice. Once as scientific theory and again as an alternative to design. I thought the results were interesting but not surprising.



Here are the prompts if you are interested in trying them:

Analytical Prompts for Testing Arguments

Introduction
These prompts are designed to rigorously analyze arguments in good faith and mitigate bias during the analysis.
The goal is not to "win," but to:
•   Understand the argument clearly
•   Identify strengths and weaknesses honestly
•   Improve reasoning for all sides
Use the prompts sequentially. Each builds on the previous.
________________________________________
1. Identify the Structure
Premises
List all explicit premises in the argument as numbered statements. Do not evaluate them.
Hidden Assumptions
Identify all implicit or unstated assumptions the argument relies on.
Formal Structure
Rewrite the entire argument in formal logical form:
numbered premises → intermediate steps → conclusion.
________________________________________
2. Test Validity and Soundness
Validity
If all premises were true, would the conclusion logically follow?
Identify any gaps, unwarranted inferences, or non sequiturs.
Soundness
Evaluate each premise by categorizing it as:
•   Empirical claim
•   Historical claim
•   Interpretive/theological claim
•   Philosophical/metaphysical claim
•   Definitional claim
Identify where uncertainty or dispute exists.
________________________________________
3. Clarify Concepts & Methods
Definitions
List all key terms and note any ambiguities, inconsistencies, or shifting meanings.
Methodology
Identify the methods of reasoning used (e.g., deductive logic, analogy, inference to best explanation).
List any assumptions underlying those methods.
________________________________________
4. Stress-Test the Argument
Counterargument
Generate the strongest possible counterargument to test the reasoning.
Alternative Interpretations
Provide at least three different ways the same facts, data, or premises could be interpreted.
Stress Test
Test whether the conclusion still holds if key assumptions, definitions, or conditions are changed.
Generalization Test
Check whether the same method could "prove" contradictory or mutually exclusive claims.
If yes, explain why the method may be unreliable.
________________________________________
5. Identify Logical Fallacies
Fallacy Analysis
List any formal or informal fallacies in the argument.
For each fallacy identified:
•   Explain where it occurs
•   Explain why it is problematic
•   Explain what would be required to avoid or correct it
________________________________________
6. Improve the Argument
Steelman
Rewrite the argument in its strongest possible form while preserving the original intent.
Address the major weaknesses identified.
Formal Proof
Present the steelmanned version as a clean, numbered formal proof.
After each premise or inference, label it as:
•   Empirically verified
•   Widely accepted
•   Disputed
•   Assumption
•   Logical inference
Highlight Weak Points
Identify which specific steps require the greatest additional evidence or justification.
________________________________________
7. Summary Assessment
Provide a balanced overall assessment that includes:
•   Major strengths
•   Major weaknesses
•   Logical gaps
•   Well-supported points
•   Evidence needed to strengthen the argument
•   Whether the argument meets minimal standards of clarity and coherence
This is not the final verdict—it is an integrated summary of the analysis.
________________________________________
8. Final Verdict: Pass or Fail
State clearly whether the argument:
•   ✅ Passes
•   ⚠️ Partially passes (valid but unsound, or sound but incomplete)
•   ❌ Fails
Explain:
•   Whether the argument is valid
•   Whether it is sound
•   Which premises or inferences cause the failure
•   What would be required for the argument to pass
This step forces the model to commit to a final determination based on all previous analysis.

[aitm]

Damn son, I get giddy when I make a meme!

[Nobody]

Meme meme tekel upharsin.

[PopeyesPappy]

Let me demonstrate. I copied this post https://www.atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=15228.msg1338639#msg1338639 pasted it into a Word document and uploaded it to the Claude LMM.

Then I told Claude, "I have attached a copy of a forum post. Please use the following prompts in order to analyse the post and report here on each step as you go. Here are the prompts:" and I pasted in the the 8 prompts from the OP.

Here are the results from the first 4 prompts:

1. Identify the Structure
Explicit Premises

Jesus was crucified at the 3rd hour (9:00 AM) according to Mark 15:25
Darkness fell at the 6th hour (12:00 PM) according to Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44
Jesus died at the 9th hour (3:00 PM) according to Matthew 27:46
When mapped onto a 12-hour clock, these times (9 AM, 12 PM, 3 PM) form a cross shape
The digital root of any "trinity of numbers" (three identical digits) is always 3, 6, or 9
The Christian Trinity consists of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one God
When assigned values (Father=3, Son=6, Holy Spirit=9), their sum is 18, with digital root 9
God = 12, with digital root 3
The sum of all components (3+6+9+12) reduces to 3 via digital root
The number 666 represents a "counterfeit trinity"

Hidden Assumptions

Jewish time and Roman time can be validly conflated or synchronized
The Gospel accounts are historically accurate regarding specific hours
The authors intended these times to be understood as a unified, divinely-encoded pattern
A visual pattern on a modern 12-hour clock has theological significance
Digital root arithmetic reveals divine truth rather than being an arbitrary mathematical operation
Numerical assignments to divine persons (Father=3, Son=6, Holy Spirit=9) are meaningful rather than arbitrary
Pattern recognition = intentional design rather than coincidence or human pattern-seeking
Mathematical relationships discovered retrospectively were intended prospectively
The 12-hour clock face is the appropriate framework for analysis (vs. other time systems)
Similarity in numerical patterns constitutes proof of divine authorship

Formal Structure
P1: The crucifixion occurred at specific hours: 3rd, 6th, and 9th (Jewish time)
P2: These correspond to 9 AM, 12 PM, and 3 PM (Roman time)
P3: When plotted on a 12-hour clock, these points form a cross shape
P4: Digital root arithmetic on "trinities of numbers" yields 3, 6, or 9
P5: The Trinity can be represented as Father=3, Son=6, Holy Spirit=9
P6: These sum to 18 (digital root 9), and God=12 (digital root 3)
P7: 9 = 3×3, symbolizing "three identical entities as one"
P8: The complete sum reduces to 3, representing divine unity
Intermediate Conclusion 1: The crucifixion timeline encodes a 3-6-9 pattern
Intermediate Conclusion 2: This pattern mathematically represents the Trinity
Final Conclusion: Therefore, God exists as a Trinity, and this truth is embedded in history, mathematics, and theology as a unified proof

2. Test Validity and Soundness
Validity
The argument is INVALID. Even if all premises were true, the conclusion does not logically follow. Key gaps:

Pattern ≠ Intention: A geometric pattern on a clock face does not entail divine design
Arbitrary assignments: The mapping of specific numbers to divine persons is not derived from the premises—it's imposed
Non sequitur: Historical timing + numerical pattern + theological interpretation ≠ proof of God's existence or nature
Equivocation: "Trinity" shifts between mathematical concept (3 identical digits) and theological doctrine (3 persons, 1 essence)
Retrospective construction: The argument imposes modern analytical frameworks (12-hour clocks, digital roots) onto ancient events

Soundness Evaluation
PremiseTypeStatusP1-P3Historical/EmpiricalDisputed - Gospel accounts differ; time systems unclearP4MathematicalTrue but trivial - This is arithmetic tautologyP5DefinitionalArbitrary - No biblical basis for these specific assignmentsP6-P8Mathematical/InterpretiveTrue calculations, unjustified significance
Critical Issues:

Historical claims: Gospel chronologies conflict (John's Gospel gives different timing)
Time system confusion: Jewish hours (counted from sunrise ~6 AM) vs. Roman hours (midnight/noon system) were different systems
Interpretive leaps: No textual evidence that biblical authors intended numerical encoding
Cherry-picking: Focus on 3-6-9 ignores other numbers present in the narrative


3. Clarify Concepts & Methods
Key Definitions and Ambiguities

"Trinity" - Shifts between:

Theological: Three persons, one essence (orthodox doctrine)
Mathematical: Three identical digits (111, 222, etc.)
These are analogies, not equivalences


"Digital root" - Recursive digit summation until single digit

Mathematically valid operation
Arbitrary significance: Any base-9 arithmetic will show similar patterns


"Alignment"/"Convergence" - Treated as if geometric patterns prove causation
"God Equation" - Presented as mathematical proof, but actually definitional assignment
"Jewish time" vs "Roman time" - Used interchangeably without acknowledging historical complexity
"Proof" - Used in theological/philosophical sense, not mathematical/logical sense

Methodology
Primary Methods:

Pattern Recognition - Identifying 3-6-9 in clock positions and digital roots

Assumes: Patterns indicate design
Problem: Human brains evolved to over-detect patterns (pareidolia)


Numerology - Assigning theological meaning to numbers

Assumes: Numbers have inherent symbolic truth
Problem: Assignments are arbitrary and culturally specific


Abductive Reasoning - "Inference to best explanation"

Assumes: Divine design better explains pattern than chance
Problem: Doesn't actually compare probability calculations


Analogical Reasoning - Mathematical trinity ≈ theological Trinity

Assumes: Structural similarity = substantive connection
Problem: Analogy is not identity


Convergence of Evidence - Claims history + math + theology interlock

Assumes: Correlation = causation
Problem: Each pillar depends on the others (circular)




4. Stress-Test the Argument
Strongest Counterargument
The Pareidolia Objection:
Human cognition is predisposed to detect patterns, especially in meaningful contexts. Given:

Infinite possible numerical relationships in any dataset
Post-hoc analysis (knowing the conclusion before finding the pattern)
Flexible interpretation rules (digital roots, base-10, clock faces)
Culturally significant numbers (3 for Trinity)

...it would be surprising NOT to find such patterns.
Specific problems:

Why base-10? Hebrew, Greek, and Roman cultures used different numerical systems
Why 12-hour clocks? Ancient timekeeping was different; hours varied by season
Why digital root? This is one of infinite mathematical operations that could be applied
Selection bias: Only patterns that fit the desired conclusion are presented

Alternative Interpretations
Alternative 1: Cultural Coincidence

Ancient liturgical hours (3rd, 6th, 9th) were standardized prayer times
These divisions were practical (dividing daylight into quarters)
Later Christian writers naturally recorded events using existing temporal frameworks
Pattern reflects human cultural practice, not divine encoding

Alternative 2: Literary Construction

Gospel authors wrote decades after events
They arranged narratives theologically, not chronologically
Symbolic numbers (3, 7, 12, 40) were literary devices in ancient Near Eastern literature
Pattern reflects ancient literary convention, not historical precision

Alternative 3: Numerical Artifacts

Digital root patterns emerge from base-10 arithmetic properties
Any dataset can yield patterns when subjected to enough operations
The 3-6-9 pattern is a consequence of modular arithmetic, not divine signature
Pattern reflects mathematical necessity, not theological truth

Alternative 4: Islamic or Kabbalistic Reading

Same methods could "prove" Allah is one (Tawhid) using different number assignments
Jewish Gematria finds elaborate patterns in Torah using similar techniques
Pattern-finding method is tool-agnostic, suggesting it proves nothing specific

Stress Test: Change Assumptions
What if we use a 24-hour clock?

The cross pattern disappears (9, 12, 15 don't form perpendicular lines)
Conclusion: The "proof" depends on arbitrary choice of clock system

What if we assign different numbers to Trinity persons?

Father=1, Son=2, Spirit=4 → Sum=7 (not in 3-6-9 cycle)
Conclusion: The pattern depends on arbitrary number assignments

What if we use different Gospel accounts?

John's Gospel doesn't mention 3rd/9th hours
John 19:14 says crucifixion began "about the sixth hour" (conflicting with Mark)
Conclusion: The pattern depends on selective use of sources

What if we analyze other religions' founding events?

Buddha's enlightenment, Muhammad's Night Journey, etc.
If method finds similar "proofs," it proves nothing
If method finds no patterns, it's been designed specifically for Christian conclusion

Generalization Test
Can this method prove contradictory claims?
YES. Demonstration:
"Proof" that Allah is the one true God:

Shahada recited 5 times daily at specific hours
5 pillars of Islam
Digital root of 555 = 15 → 6 (perfection number)
Quranic emphasis on numerical patterns (19, 7, etc.)
Therefore, Islam is mathematically encoded in creation

"Proof" that the universe is impersonal:

Pi (π) is transcendental and infinite
Digital root operations destroy information
No pattern persists through random transformation
Therefore, pattern-seeking is human projection

Conclusion: If the same method yields contradictory conclusions depending on input selections, the method is unreliable as a proof system.

[PopeyesPappy]

5 through 7:

5. Identify Logical Fallacies
Fallacy Analysis
1. Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

Where: Selecting 3-6-9 pattern from infinite possible patterns
Why problematic: Shooting arrows randomly, then drawing bullseye around clusters
Correction needed: Pre-specify what pattern would count as evidence before analysis

2. Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning)

Where: "Why 3-6-9? Because Trinity. Why Trinity? Because 3-6-9 pattern."
Why problematic: Conclusion is embedded in premises through number assignments
Correction needed: Independent derivation of number assignments from scripture

3. False Analogy

Where: Mathematical trinity (111, 222) ≈ Theological Trinity
Why problematic: Structural similarity doesn't imply ontological connection
Correction needed: Demonstrate causal or intentional link, not mere resemblance

4. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Where: Pattern exists → God designed it
Why problematic: Correlation/pattern doesn't prove causation/intention
Correction needed: Rule out alternative explanations probabilistically

5. Equivocation

Where: "Trinity" shifts meaning between mathematical and theological contexts
Why problematic: Argument trades on ambiguity
Correction needed: Use distinct terms or prove equivalence

6. Cherry Picking (Selection Bias)

Where: Using Mark's 3rd hour, ignoring John's conflicting account
Why problematic: Only data supporting conclusion is included
Correction needed: Address contradictory evidence

7. Anachronism

Where: Applying 12-hour clock and digital root to ancient events
Why problematic: Imposing modern frameworks on contexts where they didn't exist
Correction needed: Use historically appropriate analytical tools

8. Argument from Personal Incredulity

Where: "Too perfect to be coincidence"
Why problematic: Lack of imagination for alternatives ≠ proof
Correction needed: Calculate actual probabilities

9. Appeal to Complexity/Sophistication

Where: Elaborate mathematical operations presented as profound
Why problematic: Complexity doesn't equal validity
Correction needed: Simplify to core logical structure

10. Reification

Where: Treating numbers (abstract concepts) as if they have causal powers
Why problematic: Numbers don't "reveal" or "encode"—humans assign meanings
Correction needed: Distinguish mathematical operations from metaphysical claims


6. Improve the Argument
Steelman Version
Reconstructed Argument:
Core Claim: The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is coherent and finds symbolic resonance in multiple domains, suggesting a unified theological vision.
Supporting Points:

Historical Tradition: The Gospel narratives record the crucifixion events with reference to specific hours of the day (3rd, 6th, 9th), which were significant in Jewish liturgical practice as times of prayer.
Literary Symbolism: These temporal markers, when visualized on a circular dial, create a cross shape—symbolically appropriate for crucifixion narratives and likely intentional on the part of the Gospel writers as theological reflection.
Numerical Theology: Christian tradition has long associated specific numbers with divine attributes (3 for Trinity, 7 for completeness, 12 for covenant people). The recurrence of 3-6-9 patterns can be understood as participation in this symbolic framework.
Mathematical Elegance: Digital root arithmetic reveals that triadic number patterns (111, 222, 333, etc.) reduce to 3, 6, or 9. This provides an aesthetic parallel to Trinitarian theology—distinct persons yielding unified essence.
Convergence as Coherence: While no single element proves divine authorship, the alignment of historical narrative, symbolic geometry, and mathematical patterns demonstrates internal coherence within the Christian worldview.

Conclusion: The Trinity doctrine is symbolically rich, internally coherent, and resonates with patterns humans find in nature and mathematics. This coherence supports its theological plausibility and aesthetic appeal, though it does not constitute logical proof of metaphysical truth.
Formal Proof (Steelmanned)
P1: Gospel accounts record crucifixion events at the 3rd, 6th, and 9th Jewish hours [Historically attested—though disputed in details]
P2: These hours correspond to specific times in a daylight-based system [Widely accepted—though exact correlation debated]
P3: When visualized on a 12-hour circular dial, these times form a cross pattern [Logical inference—depends on clock framework choice]
P4: Cross symbolism is central to Christian theology [Widely accepted]
P5: The number 3 is symbolically associated with the Trinity in Christian tradition [Widely accepted]
P6: Digital root arithmetic on triadic numbers yields 3, 6, or 9 [Mathematically verified]
P7: This mathematical pattern parallels the theological structure of Trinity (3 persons, 1 God) [Analogical reasoning—disputed whether analogy is meaningful]
P8: Multiple symbolic systems (temporal, geometric, numerical) align around similar patterns [Observation—significance disputed]
C1: The Christian narrative demonstrates internal symbolic coherence [Valid inference from P1-P8]
P9: Symbolic coherence across domains suggests intentional design (either human or divine) [Assumption—disputed]
P10: If divine design, then God communicates through multi-layered symbolism [Conditional—assumption about divine communication methods]
C2: The Trinity doctrine is supported by convergent symbolic evidence [Partially valid—depends on P9-P10]
FINAL: Therefore, the Trinity is a coherent theological concept with symbolic depth [Valid—but much weaker than original claim]
Highlight Weak Points
Steps requiring greatest additional evidence:

P1 (Historical accuracy): Need reconciliation of Gospel chronologies, particularly Mark vs. John
P7 (Analogy significance): Need argument for why mathematical analogy indicates theological truth
P9 (Design inference): Need probability calculations comparing design vs. chance explanations
P10 (Divine communication): Need scriptural or philosophical justification for expecting numerical encoding


7. Summary Assessment
Major Strengths

Creative synthesis: Integrates historical, mathematical, and theological perspectives
Pattern recognition: Successfully identifies numerical and geometric patterns
Internal coherence: Within its own framework, elements connect logically
Engagement with tradition: Builds on established Christian numerical symbolism
Clear presentation: Well-organized structure makes argument easy to follow

Major Weaknesses

Fundamental category error: Treats symbolic/aesthetic coherence as logical proof
Arbitrary assignments: Number-to-divine-person mappings lack justification
Anachronistic method: Applies modern frameworks (12-hour clocks, digital roots) to ancient texts
Selection bias: Cherry-picks supporting data, ignores contradictions
Unfalsifiable: No specified evidence that would disprove the claim
Circular reasoning: Assumes what it aims to prove through number assignments
Generalization failure: Same method could "prove" contradictory claims

Logical Gaps

Pattern → Design: No argument for why patterns indicate intentionality
Analogy → Identity: Mathematical "trinity" is not theological Trinity
Correlation → Causation: Numerical relationships don't prove divine authorship
Post-hoc → Prophetic: Retrospective analysis doesn't show prospective encoding
Coherence → Truth: Internal consistency doesn't establish external validity

Well-Supported Points

Digital root arithmetic functions as described (mathematical fact)
Gospel accounts mention specific hours (textual fact—though interpretation varies)
Christian tradition values numerical symbolism (historical fact)
Cross shape can be visualized on clock face (geometric fact)

Evidence Needed to Strengthen

Historical: Reconcile Gospel chronologies; demonstrate ancient authors intended numerical encoding
Comparative: Show this pattern is unique; other methods don't yield similar "proofs" for other religions
Probabilistic: Calculate odds of pattern arising by chance vs. design
Philosophical: Argue why God would encode truth numerically
Scriptural: Provide biblical warrant for specific number assignments
Methodological: Specify falsification criteria in advance

Coherence and Clarity
Clarity: ✅ The argument is well-organized and clearly presented
Coherence: ⚠️ Internally coherent within its assumptions, but assumptions are problematic
Minimal Standards: ❌ Fails to meet standards for logical proof due to fallacies and gaps

[PopeyesPappy]

And the final verdict:

8. Final Verdict: Pass or Fail
❌ FAILS
Validity
INVALID: The conclusion does not follow from the premises. Even granting all factual claims, the inference from "pattern exists" to "God designed pattern to prove Trinity" requires unstated and unjustified assumptions.
Soundness
UNSOUND: Multiple premises are false, disputed, or arbitrarily constructed:

Historical premises oversimplify complex, contradictory source material
Number assignments lack scriptural or logical derivation
Significance of patterns is asserted, not demonstrated

Causes of Failure
Primary Issues:

Category Mistake: Confuses aesthetic/symbolic coherence with logical proof
Circular Reasoning: Assigns numbers based on desired conclusion, then claims numbers prove conclusion
Selection Bias: Cherry-picks data; ignores contradictions (John's Gospel, different time systems)
Fallacious Method: Multiple formal and informal fallacies undermine reasoning
Arbitrary Framework: Chooses analytical tools (12-hour clock, digital roots, base-10) that generate desired pattern

Specific Failing Inferences:

P3 → IC1: Clock pattern doesn't prove divine design
P7 → C2: Mathematical analogy doesn't establish theological truth
IC1 + IC2 → Final: Coherence within a framework doesn't prove framework describes reality

What Would Be Required to Pass
For Validity:

Explicit argument connecting patterns to divine intention
Independent derivation of number assignments from scripture
Probability calculations comparing design vs. chance hypotheses
Address alternative explanations systematically

For Soundness:
5. Reconcile contradictory Gospel accounts
6. Demonstrate ancient authors intended this encoding
7. Use historically appropriate analytical frameworks
8. Specify falsification criteria
9. Show method doesn't "prove" contradictory claims
For Strength:
10. Comparative religious analysis (does method work only for Christianity?)
11. Philosophical argument for why God would communicate numerically
12. Independent corroboration from extra-biblical sources

Conclusion
This argument is an elaborate example of numerology masquerading as proof. It demonstrates creative pattern-finding and symbolic thinking but commits fundamental logical errors. The core problem is treating post-hoc pattern recognition as evidence of prospective divine design without ruling out human pattern-seeking bias.
The argument would be more honest as: "Christians can find the Trinity symbolically reflected in historical narratives and mathematical patterns, which enriches theological meditation"—a claim about interpretive coherence, not logical proof.
As presented, claiming to "prove" God's existence and Trinitarian nature through clock faces and digital roots fails both philosophical rigor and logical validity.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Skynet says we have nothing to worry about regarding AI.

[Nobody]

Yeah, ChatGPT said the same thing  so I guess it must be true.

[Paleophyte]

I can appreciate how thorough it is, but it sounds like a lot of work to go through to call BS. Especially in that case. That boy was seven beers short of a six-pack. Nitting with only one needle.

[PopeyesPappy]

I can appreciate how thorough it is, but it sounds like a lot of work to go through to call BS.

Not really. You paste the prompts into your AI of choice, attach the proof or argument, and hit enter. Then you look at number 8.

IMO this ought to be mandatory for any theist coming here to post their proof for god. If it doesn't pass go home and work on it before coming back. If it passes post it. We porbably aren't interested in seriously engaging you about it, but post it anyway.   

[Nobody]

Come to think about it, we haven't had any chewtoys around here lately.

[Cassia]

So called "Logical" or philosophical proofs of gods will never work for me. If something is presented as being "supernatural", sorry, but that means it doesn't exist. Abstract thought such as fiction can only exist because of a physical brain or perhaps an integrated circuit or network that simulates a brain.

Without a brain there is no notion of the "supernatural". Thus, no people = no gods.

 

[PopeyesPappy]

So called "Logical" or philosophical proofs of gods will never work for me. If something is presented as being "supernatural", sorry, but that means it doesn't exist. Abstract thought such as fiction can only exist because of a physical brain or perhaps an integrated circuit or network that simulates a brain.

Without a brain there is no notion of the "supernatural". Thus, no people = no gods.

Doesn't have to be proof of gods.

For Example: Donald Trump claims to be the greatest president ever.
8. Final Verdict: ❌ Fails

[Cassia]

Doesn't have to be proof of gods.

For Example: Donald Trump claims to be the greatest president ever.
8. Final Verdict: ❌ Fails

Yeah, we can skip the formalities on that particular claim. When I hear grown men talking about "Sweet Jesus" or god, they remind me of children talking about Santa. It's sexist of me, I know but I can see how a single mother would use religion/church to help raise her children. When men talk about loving Jesus and god, it creeps me out. Kinda like this, LOL.