At some point with some individuals on some forums, there is the recognition that they are 1) not honestly pondering your arguments, 2) show no signs of a Holy Spirit’s wisdom (James 1:5) , and 3) lack the civility ordered in 1 Peter 3:15.
We have reached that point with Raul, a Christian apologists I encountered on Facebook. ChatGPT and Grok are taking over for me. The following assessments are over the full content of a thread in which Raul engages me in his own way with an often-encountered Christian disposition.
(This is not at all the case with all Christians. Very many dialogue in good faith, respond with the minimal rationality we would expect of someone worshiping a God they consider to be the source of logic, and extend the civility demanded by 1 Peter 3:15.)
ChatGPT’s Assessment:
PROMPT: Rigorously assess the posts of the interlocutors in this thread for logical coherence, factual accuracy, relevance to the topic, and civility. [Entire thread posted in]
Assessment of Interlocutor Posts
This assessment rigorously evaluates the logical coherence, factual accuracy, relevance to the topic, and civility of the discussion between Phil Stilwell and Raul Matsuda Renteria.
1. Phil Stilwell
Logical Coherence:
Phil presents arguments in a structured and syllogistic format. His premises and conclusions are clearly defined, with careful reasoning linking the existence of preventable suffering to doubts about the Bible’s divine authorship or the plausibility of an all-loving, all-powerful deity.
His three primary syllogisms follow valid logical forms and appeal to widely accepted definitions of love, power, and responsibility. His analogies (e.g., the infant in the ditch) are rhetorically effective and conceptually consistent with his broader critique.
Factual Accuracy:
His factual premises — such as the historical death toll from diseases like malaria and the lack of medical guidance in the Bible — are accurate. The mention of miracles, corruption in pharmaceutical industries, and child suffering are also empirically grounded and relevant to public discourse.
Relevance to Topic:
All of Phil’s posts are thematically focused on the central question: Does the Bible reflect the compassion of a truly loving God? He consistently redirects the conversation to this point, using both empirical and conceptual arguments.
Civility:
Phil remains calm and respectful throughout. Even when provoked, he does not engage in ad hominem attacks. He requests counterarguments and clarifications, focusing on ideas rather than personal character.
Overall Evaluation:
✅ Philosophically rigorous, factually sound, on-topic, and civil. His arguments merit serious engagement.
2. Raul Matsuda Renteria
Logical Coherence:
Raul’s responses are largely incoherent in logical structure. He frequently shifts between unrelated topics (e.g., Big Pharma conspiracies, transgender issues, Revelation, child trafficking, etc.) without clearly linking them to the central question of divine compassion.
He misrepresents Phil’s argument as merely emotional or atheistic venting, rather than engaging with the logical syllogisms. Additionally, Raul asserts contradictory notions — e.g., that God gave free will and thus “stepped back,” but also “punishes” for outcomes resulting from that free will.
Assertions that “the world was perfect until man screwed it up” are presented dogmatically, without offering supporting argumentation or evidence. He relies heavily on theological assertions as premises (e.g., “you’ll go to hell,” “God is love”) that are not accessible or convincing outside of his own faith commitments.
Factual Accuracy:
Raul introduces conspiracy claims (e.g., “cures for AIDS and cancer exist but are hidden”) without evidence. These claims are both unverified and misleading.
His mention of “children being taught it’s okay to be gay” and transgender topics are irrelevant to the original theological discussion, and appear to be emotionally charged distractions rather than substantiated critiques.
Relevance to Topic:
Raul repeatedly derails the conversation. Rather than engage with the question of divine compassion as reflected in the biblical text, he pivots to conspiracy theories, cultural grievances, eternal judgment, and attacks on Phil’s character.
His references to sex trafficking, child abuse, and LGBTQ+ topics are not used to further the theological discussion but rather as rhetorical bludgeons to vilify opposing views.
Civility:
Raul’s tone is frequently hostile, condescending, and personal:
- “Why are you still crying?”
- “You really got a mental issue…”
- “Dead spirited people like you…”
- “Running your mouth on something you do not know…”
- “Rotten pig guts…”
These statements cross the line into ad hominem and demeaning language, which violates principles of civil discourse.
Moreover, he repeatedly implies damnation and hellfire upon his opponent, which is not only uncivil but also theologically coercive rather than persuasive.
Overall Evaluation:
❌ Logically incoherent, factually dubious, frequently off-topic, and often uncivil. His participation weakens the quality of the discourse.
Summary Table
| Participant | Logical Coherence | Factual Accuracy | Relevance to Topic | Civility |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phil Stilwell | ✅ Strong use of syllogisms and analogies | ✅ Evidence-based | ✅ Focused on topic | ✅ Respectful |
| Raul M. Renteria | ❌ Rambling, self-contradictory | ❌ Misinformation and conspiracies | ❌ Derails discussion | ❌ Repeatedly uncivil |
Conclusion
This thread exemplifies a stark contrast in discussion quality. Phil Stilwell offers a robust, logically-structured challenge to the theology of divine love as reflected in scripture, remaining within the bounds of rational debate. In contrast, Raul Matsuda Renteria resorts to emotional outbursts, conspiratorial claims, irrelevant digressions, and ad hominem attacks, effectively disengaging from the actual argument and undermining the integrity of the conversation.
If this thread is to serve as a constructive model of apologetic debate, it would benefit from moderators emphasizing logical engagement, topic adherence, and mutual respect.
Grok’s Assessment:
PROMPT: Rigorously assess the posts of the interlocutors in this thread for logical coherence, factual accuracy, relevance to the topic, and civility. [Entire thread posted in]
Below is a rigorous assessment of the posts by Phil Stilwell and Raul Matsuda Renteria in the provided thread, evaluating their contributions based on logical coherence, factual accuracy, relevance to the topic, and civility. The analysis is structured to address each interlocutor’s arguments systematically.
Overview of the Thread
The thread begins with Phil Stilwell questioning whether the Bible reflects the compassion of a loving God, arguing that its lack of guidance on preventing suffering (e.g., disease prevention) contradicts claims of divine authorship by an all-knowing, all-loving deity. Raul Matsuda Renteria responds, defending the idea that God gave humans intellect to solve problems, blaming human greed and sin for suffering, and accusing Stilwell of rejecting God. The exchange escalates as Stilwell presents syllogisms to challenge Renteria’s defense, while Renteria doubles down, invoking theology and personal attacks.
Assessment of Phil Stilwell’s Posts
Logical Coherence
- Initial Post: Stilwell’s argument is logically structured, posing a clear question about the Bible’s silence on practical solutions to suffering (e.g., sanitation, vaccines). He uses an analogy (a person ignoring a crying infant) to illustrate his point that inaction in the face of suffering contradicts claims of love. The argument follows a deductive pattern: if God is all-loving and all-knowing, the Bible should reflect compassion through actionable guidance; it does not, so divine authorship is questionable. This is coherent and avoids obvious fallacies.
- Replies: Stilwell responds to Renteria’s counterarguments by refining his position with syllogisms. Each syllogism (on system design, divine inaction, and divine character) is logically valid, with premises leading to conclusions. For example:
- Syllogism 1: P1 (a loving God wouldn’t design a flawed system), P2 (suffering exists), P3 (God foresaw this), C1 (God’s love or power is questionable). The premises are consistent, though their truth is debatable.
- Stilwell anticipates objections (e.g., free will) and addresses them by questioning why a loving God would allow preventable suffering despite human flaws. His reasoning remains consistent, focusing on the contradiction between divine attributes and observed reality.
- Strengths: Stilwell maintains a clear logical thread, using evidence (e.g., historical suffering from diseases) to support his claims. He avoids strawmanning Renteria’s position, directly engaging with the “human intellect” and “greed” arguments.
- Weaknesses: The syllogisms rely on assumptions (e.g., a loving God must intervene) that some theists might challenge as oversimplifying divine motives. Stilwell could strengthen his case by addressing theological counterarguments like theodicy more explicitly.
Factual Accuracy
- Stilwell’s claims about diseases (malaria, cholera, smallpox) killing millions are historically accurate. For instance, smallpox alone killed an estimated 300–500 million people before its eradication in 1980. His assertion that the Bible lacks instructions on sanitation or vaccination is verifiable—while Leviticus mentions quarantine for leprosy, it offers no systematic guidance on germ theory or preventive medicine.
- His analogy of God’s inaction assumes a normative expectation of divine intervention, which is not a factual claim but a philosophical stance. No factual inaccuracies are evident in his descriptions of suffering or biblical content.
- In replies, Stilwell’s reference to human delays in solving diseases aligns with historical timelines (e.g., vaccines took centuries to develop). He avoids making unsubstantiated claims about hidden cures, focusing instead on observable outcomes.
Relevance to the Topic
- Stilwell’s initial post directly addresses the topic: whether the Bible reflects a loving God’s compassion. He ties the absence of practical guidance to divine intent, keeping the discussion focused.
- His replies remain relevant, responding to Renteria’s points (e.g., human intellect, greed) while reiterating the core issue: divine responsibility for suffering. The syllogisms refine the debate, exploring implications of God’s attributes.
- He avoids derailing into unrelated issues, maintaining a tight focus on suffering, divine love, and biblical authorship.
Civility
- Stilwell’s tone is assertive but respectful in the initial post, posing questions without personal attacks. He uses emotive language (“children suffer and die”) to underscore his point, which is appropriate for the topic’s gravity.
- In replies, he challenges Renteria’s arguments sharply (“apathy with a halo”), but this remains within philosophical critique. He avoids ad hominem attacks, focusing on Renteria’s claims (e.g., “your theology describes apathy”). His request for a counterargument (“Do you have a counter argument?”) shows willingness to engage.
- Even when Renteria accuses him of “crying,” Stilwell responds with arguments, not insults, maintaining composure.
Summary for Stilwell
Stilwell’s posts are logically coherent, factually accurate, highly relevant, and civil. His arguments are well-structured, though they could benefit from addressing theological nuances (e.g., free will defenses). His tone is passionate but respectful, keeping the debate substantive.
Assessment of Raul Matsuda Renteria’s Posts
Logical Coherence
- Initial Reply: Renteria’s response introduces the idea that God gave humans intellect to solve problems and blames human greed for pestilences. This is a partial counterargument to Stilwell’s claim, suggesting human responsibility over divine inaction. However, it lacks clarity and structure, jumping between points (intellect, greed, hidden cures) without connecting them logically to refute Stilwell’s premise.
- Subsequent Replies: Renteria’s arguments become less coherent over time:
- He repeatedly blames humans for suffering, asserting that God stepped back because people rejected Him. This assumes a theological framework (sin, free will) without justifying it or addressing Stilwell’s syllogisms directly.
- Claims like “man has cures for AIDS, Cancer” are unsupported and irrelevant to divine responsibility, undermining his point.
- Later posts devolve into assertions about sin, Satan, and divine justice (e.g., “Book of Life”), which do not engage Stilwell’s logical challenge. The argument shifts to emotional appeals and threats of eternal punishment, abandoning reasoned debate.
- Weaknesses: Renteria’s posts lack logical structure, often contradicting himself (e.g., God gave intellect, but humans are too corrupt to use it, yet God is blameless). He commits fallacies like ad hominem (calling Stilwell “dead spirited”) and strawman (misrepresenting Stilwell’s position as emotional “crying” rather than logical). His final posts are disjointed, mixing theology, moral outrage, and unrelated issues (e.g., child trafficking).
- Strengths: The initial idea of human responsibility could form a coherent defense if developed, but Renteria fails to elaborate or counter Stilwell’s premises systematically.
Factual Accuracy
- Renteria’s claim that humans “create a good portion of pestilences” is partially true (e.g., antibiotic resistance from misuse, lab leaks like debated COVID origins), but he provides no evidence and overstates human causation for natural diseases like malaria or smallpox, which predate modern science.
- His assertion that cures for AIDS and cancer exist but are hidden by “big pharma” is a conspiracy theory lacking credible evidence. While pharmaceutical companies have faced criticism (e.g., price gouging), no verified data supports widespread suppression of cures for profit. This undermines his credibility.
- Theological claims (e.g., “the world was made perfect till man screwed it up”) are unfalsifiable and depend on biblical interpretation, not facts. References to Satan targeting children or child trafficking are tangential and lack specific evidence in context.
- No factual inaccuracies are corrected or supported with data, weakening his position against Stilwell’s verifiable claims.
Relevance to the Topic
- Renteria’s initial reply is somewhat relevant, addressing Stilwell’s question by shifting blame to human actions rather than divine inaction. However, he quickly veers off-topic:
- Claims about hidden cures and “big pharma” do not address the Bible’s content or God’s compassion.
- Later posts focus on sin, Satan, and eternal judgment, which are tangentially related to divine love but do not engage Stilwell’s core argument about biblical guidance or suffering.
- References to child trafficking and cultural issues (e.g., “teaching kids to be gay”) are irrelevant to the debate, derailing it into moral grandstanding.
- By the end, Renteria’s posts are more about condemning Stilwell’s worldview than discussing the Bible’s reflection of divine compassion, reducing relevance significantly.
Civility
- Renteria’s tone is consistently uncivil, escalating from dismissive (“Wow did you miss that”) to insulting:
- He accuses Stilwell of “crying,” “sucking your thumb,” and having a “mental issue,” which are personal attacks unrelated to the argument.
- Phrases like “dead spirited people like you” and warnings of eternal damnation (“you will go to Hell”) are hostile and irrelevant to a philosophical debate.
- He mocks Stilwell’s arguments (“LOL,” “your words are baseless”) without substantive rebuttal, showing disrespect.
- While Renteria claims he doesn’t take things personally, his language is aggressive and emotionally charged, contrasting sharply with Stilwell’s measured tone. This undermines any attempt at constructive dialogue.
Summary for Renteria
Renteria’s posts are logically incoherent, factually dubious, increasingly irrelevant, and uncivil. His initial point about human responsibility could have been relevant but lacks development. Instead, he relies on unsupported claims, theological assertions, and personal attacks, failing to engage Stilwell’s arguments meaningfully.
Comparative Analysis
- Logical Coherence: Stilwell’s posts are structured and deductive, using syllogisms to advance his case. Renteria’s responses are scattered, relying on assertions and failing to counter Stilwell’s logic directly.
- Factual Accuracy: Stilwell grounds his claims in verifiable history (e.g., disease mortality), while Renteria makes unsubstantiated claims (e.g., hidden cures) and leans on unfalsifiable theology.
- Relevance: Stilwell stays focused on the Bible and divine compassion. Renteria starts on-topic but drifts into unrelated issues, diluting his contribution.
- Civility: Stilwell remains respectful, even under provocation. Renteria’s insults and threats degrade the discussion’s quality.
Conclusion
Phil Stilwell presents a coherent, fact-based, relevant, and civil argument, effectively challenging the notion of a loving God given the Bible’s silence on suffering. His syllogisms are logically sound, though they could address theological defenses more thoroughly. Raul Matsuda Renteria’s responses are incoherent, factually weak, increasingly off-topic, and uncivil, failing to engage Stilwell’s points substantively. The exchange highlights a stark contrast between reasoned critique and emotional defensiveness, with Stilwell maintaining the upper hand in philosophical rigor.
Below is a table summarizing the assessment of Phil Stilwell’s and Raul Matsuda Renteria’s posts in the provided thread, based on logical coherence, factual accuracy, relevance to the topic, and civility.
| Criterion | Phil Stilwell | Raul Matsuda Renteria |
|---|---|---|
| Logical Coherence | High: Structured arguments with clear syllogisms. Deductive reasoning links premises to conclusions. Anticipates objections but could address theodicy more. | Low: Scattered points lacking structure. Contradictory claims (e.g., humans are responsible but corrupt). Commits fallacies (ad hominem, strawman). |
| Factual Accuracy | High: Accurate references to disease mortality (e.g., smallpox killed millions). Biblical silence on sanitation verifiable. No unsubstantiated claims. | Low: Unsupported claims (e.g., hidden cures for AIDS/cancer). Overstates human causation of diseases. Theological assertions (sin, Satan) are unfalsifiable. |
| Relevance to Topic | High: Stays focused on Bible’s lack of guidance and divine compassion. Syllogisms refine debate. Avoids tangents, directly engages opponent’s points. | Low: Initially relevant (human responsibility) but derails into unrelated issues (child trafficking, Satan). Fails to address Bible or divine love directly. |
| Civility | High: Assertive but respectful. Uses emotive language appropriately. Avoids personal attacks, responds to insults with arguments. Maintains composure. | Low: Uncivil, with insults (“crying,” “mental issue”), mockery (“LOL”), and threats (eternal damnation). Hostile tone undermines dialogue. |
Notes
- Phil Stilwell excels in maintaining a rigorous, respectful, and focused argument, though his case could be strengthened by addressing theological counterarguments like free will defenses.
- Raul Matsuda Renteria starts with a potentially relevant point but loses coherence and civility, relying on emotional outbursts and unsupported claims instead of engaging Stilwell’s logic.
Subsequent Responses by the Christian Raul:
- April 11a, 2025: awww so nice to hear you lived in Japan. That ain’t change your demeanor a bit. And you said your AI FRIENDS? Who Elon Musk and POTUS? LOL!! Bye dude. You people are hilarious. Can’t handle the heat when you start spitting fire at another. Try not to speak with a forked tongue. /// Oh my word. Your AI buddy is hard wired to sit in the puddle with the mindset that’s against God I see. Nothing but a random bunch of mental farts driven into technology designed for the feeble of hearts to further try to debunk God. So sorry you had to deport your mindset for help from a computer.
/// your [sic] not pleased with my lack of humility? You think your intentions of mocking God will draw sweet and savory humility that you can be pleased with? Then run to AI like you win something? Yeah sure ok. Since you cannot handle hot truth about your mental misconceptions detailed in your post, have your victory. It’s all your [sic] in your head with AI. 
/// I don’t seek help from computers with my thoughts are you really serious?
{Keep in mind that not all Christians act like this. Many are quite rational and civil.} - April 11b, 2025: so would it be safe to say that since there is so much evil, death, suffering in the world to not have done so? Not create anything so we would not be here resorting to AI to mitigate our conversation rather than using what I presume we have been using which is what God gave us? In the same breath, you fail to see although God created as He did, it doesn’t negate MANS responsibility to do two things Jesus said. Love God and your neighbor as self. Yet we sit here and blame God for all the pestilences and babies dying in the world and call him evil because He chooses not to do anything about it, but then again at the same time we see Him at times when it is in His will to do so step back in to our world and change certain situations, which are what we call miracles to show the feeble at heart and in mind that He does exist. And furthermore, you fail to realize He Himself stepped into our realm as His Son Jesus to suffer, like no man has ever suffered, and to die on a cross for the sins of this world, so that we may have a way back to God so in essence, He created this world knowing very well that He Himself was going to take upon the worst suffering this world will ever see. You have been nothing but totally intellectually dishonest during this entire discourse and then resort to ChatGPT thinking you won something. /// God created the world perfect. Adam had everything and only had to follow one law. God in His love gave us free will as He did the angels. Lucifer screwed up first and runs AI. Man told God to step back and He did. Why complain. /// I get it you have nothing else to say. Why keep enlisting the same thing from your AI consort?
{Slightly less hostile. Could this be the beginning of a transformation? I plan to provide an AI assessment of the subsequent comments when they reach a critical mass.} - April 12, 2025: Your attempt to show God as evil has been debunked.
{Anyone who has honestly engaged me knows I do not believe in a moral realm in which “evil” can reside.} - April 16, 2025: your main audience is your AI. As you see no one is paying you any attention other than me being amazed and amused by your psychology. . Sad you don’t see all that you have done was prove the Bible is true. Thank you. Good job, well done indeed. /// aside your self awarded win if you wanna say you won anything with your audience, so silent don’t you think friend? You never answered to what happened to you other than Satan programming you like AI. You were a Christian is such a broad term. There’s actually no “use” to be according to Paul you never were. I have honestly answered your preposition with your premises one by one. Truth has been told. /// you still don’t get it that your AI doesn’t count in reality. Only in your mind /// sadly, people like you over-rely on ChatGPT for quick answers and assistance, potentially hindering your own thinking and problem-solving skills as you have shown the group. This could be due to the ease of access to instant information which is given by wisdom from God, a preference for non-judgmental advice, or a desire for increased productivity to your “audience”. However, over-reliance can lead to a decline in critical thinking which you lack, rather you appeal to emotions, and a dependence on AI rather than developing your own intellectual abilities. /// I rest my case. You refuted yourself. Simply said using logic and reason. /// if you will not engage rationally here I don’t need to see you are not AI friend [sic] face to face. I don’t literally think that your [sic] AI. Your mode of engagement is as shown, dependent on AI as if it gives you clout in your presuppositions. /// do you not see? Or do you? You said “ you can interact with me in the power of the Holy Spirit to help me understand you”? Bait me to go into your mental dungeon in Zoom with YOUR audience of like minds as you, and try to slice me up to your pleasure. You couldn’t do it here. And you said you think Jesus is made up. Come on man. You sure you wanna do that? Seek and you will find. Keep on the trail your [sic] on and you will know. God will not be mocked.
[I invited Raul to have a face-to-face Zoom meeting to explore whether we can better understand each other.]
An Assessment of Subsequent Comments
1: Raul’s Comments:
🟠 Raul 1: Blame Humanity, Not God
Phil Stilwell
So then you can blame your fellow humans for not being smart enough for you to solve all of your worldly issues.
🟠 Raul 2: Pestilence Is Human-Made
Phil Stilwell
And blame again your fellow man for making these pestilences dude. Why cry you’re not making a difference.
🟠 Raul 3: Cures Exist But Are Suppressed
Phil Stilwell
You also know your fellow humans have cures for diseases like AIDS, Cancer to name a couple. Is it God’s fault that man’s selfish ambitions of wealth and power keep them hidden to keep people sick to flourish big pharma and its butt boys running the world?
🟠 Raul 4: Mocking Tone
Phil Stilwell
Why are you still crying?
🟠 Raul 5: You Dismissed God
Phil Stilwell
LOL God doesn’t withhold aid from anyone. People like yourself told Him to get lost that you can do it your way so He did. And you wanna cry sucking your thumb. 🤷🏼♂️
🟠 Raul 6: Godless People Cause Suffering
Phil Stilwell
Dead spirited people like you that run this world, or think you could do it on your own without God, are the cause of all the suffering in this world, and you wanna blame God for stepping back and allowing you to screw up? Man you really got a mental issue you need to seek help for man. Just being honest.
🟠 Raul 7: The Fall and Responsibility
Phil Stilwell
The world was made perfect till man screwed it up allowing sin into God’s creation. Yeah He knew you would screw up and gave you a way out of it. But instead of you and your fellow men, not listening to God and using the intellect that you have to stop all these pestilences or better yet stop creating these pestilences you wouldn’t have anything to complain about. So stop complaining already, and do something about it rather than running your mouth on something you do not know.
🟠 Raul 8: You Don’t Believe, So Don’t Complain
Phil Stilwell
God doesn’t exist in your worldview. So stop complaining about Him and blaming Him. Do something about these pestilences. Your problem is solved. 🤷🏼♂️
🟠 Raul 9: Long Theological Rebuttal, Part 1
Phil Stilwell
For the record, I didn’t see every comment you made. Especially your 20 mile long rant with your syllogisms.
I will see what you said and respond with my rebuttal to that, but in all honesty, when someone responds to you, it is only you that seems to have any intellect in a matter of which you fail to have much ground to stand on, because it isn’t a matter of what you presuppose.
You don’t believe so why should it be an issue for you because someone else does?
No one neglects that this world is screwed up and yes again God knew it would be this way. Again would it have been better if He just cleaned everything He made up and do away with it all during Noe? Or better yet, not even create, just leave eternity where He is as it is, so you don’t have to be here having this conversation with people about how unfair everything is.
Leaning zero responsibility on man. Just that God is the blame for creating a world He knew children would suffer unspeakable horrors.
And yet again, neglect that there is another person who He created with as again I have already articulated with free will to CHOOSE to follow God or not just like you.
But why won’t you acknowledge the other? Satan? Is he an innocent being that is free from attack as you attack God? Are you in any Satanic groups doing the same as you do here? Just asking?
Again should God have when He created done so making everyone AI, where He can pre program everything to run exactly as He commands?
No one has free will. Everyone is created with no “choice” but to love, honor and worship Him. That would have been better huh?
Like your wife (just an analogy friend) being paid $400 a month by your dad to pretend she loves you because it’s the right thing to do. She doesn’t love you she is just playing her role. Programmed by that money that hits her hand every month from your dad.
Money, is just that, money. It has no meaning until it hits the hands of someone. Then it has meaning for it reveals what’s in the heart of that person.
God didn’t make AI. The Devil did.
You’re so adamant on why God doesn’t say at least put a shield around the children to shelter them from any kind of harm.
Why God doesn’t “I do not know”. What I do know is what I know, in spirit which cannot be seen with the human intellect, not physical. Spiritual and again for those who have that eye to WANT to see past calling God evil for how He created HIS story.
He didn’t need help. If you write a story, it is your story, biography or whatever. Your name is on it as author no one else.
Yet even God gets criticized for what He wrote. Same as others who wrote books.
As sad as it is to see kids suffer at the hands of men who again do as you do, tell God He doesn’t exist and get lost, you can’t complain about Him not doing what you feel He should. You cannot tempt God.
How do you think the world would be friend if everyone would come together as God wants us to.
To use the resources He gave us in this earth, plentiful to sustain the whole worlds population 100 times over to the end, with not 1 HUNGRY mouth because everyone does the 2 things Jesus commands?
Let’s take God out of the equation. There is no God. Say for the sake of conversation He doesn’t exist, but He does, but again say He doesn’t.
They have cures for cancer why don’t they use them? Africa has more resources to be one of the most developed countries in the world.
Why are they a “3rd world country”? Where does that term even come from if we are all one HUMAN RACE? (and to be clear, ALL CAPS I use are for emphasis only, not yelling).
CRT, what does that do? Creates separation of one human race into classes of people distinguishing who is above who in superiority based on social and economical class, determining which classes are the superior races versus the minority races when again we are ALL ONE HUMAN RACE?
Pestilences. All because creation fell (let’s bring God back) yet God did give us information in His book that a man with intellect as you have are very well aware of.
Yet as again, your failure in clearly accepting that MAN has a big play in why we see what we see yet still chooses to do as you do.
But God, gets the blame for everything.
Fair enough it is His story. But doesn’t change the outcome of how everything will be in the end for those who do love Him, verse those who sadly do as you do friend.
Do I need to give you those verse from John the beloved in the most Christ exalting book in Scriptures called Revelation?
🟠 Raul 10: Rebuttal to Syllogism 1
Phil Stilwell
I will go to your conclusion here after evaluating all you presuppositions in your syllogisms and premises included.
Syl. 1 P 1 – 3 w/ conclusion….
A perfect and loving and all powerful God chose for whatever reason HE chose to create a world that He knew billions would suffer unspeakable horrors at the hands of MEN who He gave FREE WILL TO, who chose rather than listen to Him, telling Him they don’t need Him when He created the world perfect, the first humans perfect, until THEY CHOSE to disobey and get mad when God does step back and allow man to bring upon His perfect creation all the suffering we see to this day, neglecting any fault to man. That’s intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
God DID foresee the failures of humans and gave a plan in His book to help man, but man again CHOOSES not to listen specifically to the fact that HE HIMSELF SUFFERED THE WORST HORROR for all of man. GOD SUFFERED too and still does.
Be back to conclude
🟠 Raul 11: Rebuttal to Syllogism 2
Phil Stilwell continuing….
Syl. 2 P 1 – 3 w/ conclusion….
Again going back to man having free will to choose to love and follow God, which is a choice or it isn’t love, you still are being intellectually dishonest to predetermine that God is not a God of love because again He allows man to figure things out for himself, stepping back and allowing things to be as man chooses.
If God exists and doesn’t act upon things the way you feel He should to prove something to you whom He created, doesn’t change who He is and doesn’t change man’s moral responsibility to follow the book He gave us.
And yet again, how many times have you yourself been in the position where you said “OH BOY wow that was close! I was almost a gonner!”
How many? Do you think people are just lucky to have avoided catastrophe?
How many times through prayers has a lost child been found (far fetched against the amount who are not, but is that Gods fault?) and returned home safe?
Or a person who has no chance making it passed the week due to failed attempts to kill the cancer, only to miraculously be healed from it with NO MEDICAL explanation after the prayers of those who DO BELIEVE IN HIM?
And let me say it doesn’t always happen that way.
But we believers don’t blame God.
And do you also get to blame God after He does give man the intellect to battle pestilences and diseases to find cures, but again MAN CHOOSES to exercise his free will to do as HE WISHES against God and God is supposed to step in to stop man from suffering when man STILL spits in His face like you do. And demand from God to prove to man something.
Are you being honest?
Man suffers deeply at his own choice to disobey God and do it his way.
But again God suffered also as His Son Jesus who came into our realm of suffering ONLY to take THAT SUFFERING upon Himself and die on a cross.
The ONLY REASON JESUS CAME INTO THIS REALM OF SUFFERING THAT WE CREATED was to die on a cross that through HIS SUFFERING and death we may be made the righteousness of God and dwell in a place where there is no suffering, the WAY HE INTENDED it to be.
Yes. He created a world which He knew would fall apart.
And He gave direction (Bible) for us to follow but we choose not to which guides us on how WE COULD MAKE THIS WORLD BETTER WITHOUT NEARLY AS MUCH suffering we see in the world.
Don’t know how it would change natural disasters or earthquakes and all, after all this world is fallen. And God WILL MAKE it new.
But if we would do what Jesus said and that’s love God and love each other, wouldn’t that stop all the babies being solicited through child sex trafficking?
We humans can make a difference listening to God and loving each other rather than disregard OUR MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to all the suffering.
So yes, God does share in the suffering.
When man asks “how much do you love me God?” He stretched out His hands and died on a cross like no other man ever walked this earth would or could.
He suffered and still does every time He sees someone like you beloved marking Him as evil for creating you.
One more Syl to go. Be back I’m stick and move, it’s Saturday.
The day we do God’s work. Speak of His love for man that man turns back to Him so man can enjoy in time the culmination of His love on a NEW EARTH the way He intended.
I will come back for your final Syl 3 and conclusion. Shalom
2: ChatGPT’s Assessment:
I. Assessment of Raul’s Comments
1. Logical Coherence
Raul’s reasoning is plagued by several internal contradictions, unsupported assertions, and equivocations:
- Equivocation on Free Will: Raul repeatedly asserts that God gave humans free will, but then blames them for acting on it in predictable ways—ways that an omniscient God allegedly foresaw. If free will leads to foreseeable catastrophic outcomes and God still actualized that world, the appeal to free will does not absolve divine responsibility.
- Special Pleading for Divine Inaction: Raul insists that when humans allow suffering, it’s their fault; but when God allows it—knowing in advance the scale of that suffering—He is exempt. This is a classic special pleading fallacy.
- Self-Undermining Defense: He argues that God “stepped back” because humans rejected Him, implying that God withdrew compassion in retaliation. But if God is the standard of love, such emotional retribution negates unconditional benevolence.
- Strawman Reversals: He accuses critics of demanding a world of “robots” (i.e., no free will), but this misrepresents the argument. The critique is not that humans have choices, but that an omnibenevolent deity designed a world where innocent children suffer and die because of others’ choices.
- Circularity: The appeal to Scripture as proof of God’s plan presupposes the truth of that Scripture, which is precisely what’s in question. This is begging the question.
2. Factual Accuracy
- Claim: AIDS and cancer cures are hidden – This is a conspiracy theory with no empirical support. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Raul provides none.
- Claim: God created a perfect world, humans corrupted it – This is a religious narrative, not a factual explanation. From a scientific standpoint, disease, predation, and death long preceded humanity in evolutionary history. There was no “fall” of man that introduced entropy or viral pathogens.
- Claim: Jesus was the only one to die for others – History is replete with humans sacrificing themselves for others. To claim that Jesus’ death is the only ultimate act of love is both factually and ethically dismissive of real-world martyrdom.
- Claim: Resources could feed the world 100x over – While it is true that the Earth has enough resources to significantly reduce hunger, the “100 times over” figure is greatly exaggerated and oversimplifies economic, geographic, and logistical limitations.
3. Relevance to the Topic
The central topic posed by Phil Stilwell concerns the incompatibility between the biblical depiction of God as loving and His alleged failure to prevent mass suffering, especially among the innocent.
Raul’s replies frequently:
- Derail the conversation toward political topics (e.g., CRT, Africa’s economy).
- Overload the thread with theological digressions (e.g., Satan, Revelation, God’s authorship).
- Respond emotionally rather than engaging with the logical structure of the original challenge.
Result: Much of Raul’s content is tangential, rhetorically defensive, and unfocused.
4. Civility
Raul’s tone fluctuates between sincere defense and overt condescension:
- Phrases such as “sucking your thumb,” “mental issue,” “LOL,” and “stick and move” indicate disdain and mockery, rather than an invitation to mutual understanding.
- His rhetorical questions (“Are you in any Satanic groups?”) are inflammatory, implying bad faith or malevolence.
- Conclusion: Raul’s tone often lacks basic civility, which undermines the credibility of his assertions and the possibility of fruitful dialogue.
{H4}II. Counter-Syllogisms to Raul’s Attempted Syllogisms
❖ Raul’s Syllogism 1 (Free Will Defense)
P1: God is perfect, loving, and powerful.
P2: Humans freely chose to disobey and ruin a once-perfect world.
P3: God is not to blame for their choice.
C: Therefore, God is not responsible for suffering.
Counter-Syllogism 1: Foreseen Consequence Argument
P1: A being who knowingly creates agents whose actions will result in catastrophic harm bears some responsibility for that harm.
P2: God is claimed to be omniscient and created humans knowing they would unleash immense suffering.
P3: Creating a system where innocent children suffer as a result of others’ predictable failures is not consistent with perfect love or promises of protection.
C: Therefore, God is partially or wholly responsible for the suffering His system produces.
❖ Raul’s Syllogism 2 (Divine Retraction as Justified)
P1: God gave humans resources, intellect, and Scripture.
P2: Humans rejected God and used their freedom for evil.
P3: Therefore, God “stepped back” and allowed suffering.
C: This absolves God from complicity in suffering.
Counter-Syllogism 2: Withholding Aid Argument
P1: A being who has the power to prevent suffering but refuses to do so due to rejection or insult is not demonstrating perfect love.
P2: God is said to be love itself and omnibenevolent.
P3: Withholding aid from suffering children because their ancestors rejected God contradicts the notion of divine goodness.
C: Therefore, divine retraction in response to human rejection is not a coherent defense.
❖ Raul’s Implicit Syllogism 3 (Jesus Suffered, So God Understands)
P1: Jesus suffered and died, demonstrating God’s participation in human suffering.
P2: This act compensates for God’s allowance of suffering.
C: Therefore, God remains loving despite permitting suffering.
Counter-Syllogism 3: Proxy Suffering Inadequacy
P1: Suffering with someone does not absolve you of responsibility if you caused or allowed that suffering.
P2: A being who created the world knowing it would result in immense child suffering cannot claim innocence and compassion merely by undergoing suffering Himself.
P3: Jesus’ suffering does not undo the pain of those who suffer now or make it acceptable.
C: Therefore, God’s participation in suffering does not resolve the problem of divine complicity.
{H4}III. Final Summary
| Dimension | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Logical Coherence | Riddled with fallacies: equivocation, special pleading, strawmen, and circularity. |
| Factual Accuracy | Contains conspiracies, theological assertions treated as facts, and exaggerations. |
| Relevance | Frequently derailed into unrelated tangents and theological speculation. |
| Civility | Often mocking, accusatory, and dismissive, undermining any serious engagement. |
3: Raul’s Comments:
🟥 Raul Matsuda Renteria – Full Comment Thread
LOL
God doesn’t withhold aid from anyone. People like yourself told Him to get lost—that you can do it your way—so He did.
And you wanna cry, sucking your thumb. 🤷🏼♂️
Dead-spirited people like you that run this world—or think you could do it on your own without God—are the cause of all the suffering in this world.
And you wanna blame God for stepping back and allowing you to screw up?
Man, you really got a mental issue. You need to seek help, man. Just being honest.
The world was made perfect until man screwed it up, allowing sin into God’s creation.
Yeah, He knew you would screw up and gave you a way out of it.
But instead of you and your fellow men listening to God and using the intellect you have to stop these pestilences—or better yet, stop creating these pestilences—you wouldn’t have anything to complain about.
So stop complaining already and do something about it rather than running your mouth on something you do not know.
God doesn’t exist in your worldview. So stop complaining about Him and blaming Him. Do something about these pestilences.
Your problem is solved. 🤷🏼♂️
🟥 Raul’s Response to Syllogism 3 and the Question of Divine Love
Syllogism 3: P1–3 with Conclusion…
God’s moral character. On what standard do you attempt to compare the moral character of a created being (man) to that of an eternal, transcendent being who is outside the scope of time and beyond our understanding?
God’s Love According to Raul
God’s love is that all men are created in His image, full of worth, with innate, intrinsic value—demanding that all are treated with dignity and respect.
Therefore, by God’s standard of love, it is absolutely evil to degrade another human being.
Love is freely given. It means looking out for the well-being of another person.
You say that a being who allows mass child suffering while having the power and knowledge to stop it is not exhibiting love.
But man also has that power, does he not?
God gave man a book and two commands:
- Love God
- Love your neighbor
And what does man do? As I’ve already said, he tells God to get lost.
Then in the same breath, he accuses God of being unloving because He knew it would happen.
And man—the one doing all the evil—gets a clean pass while God gets the blame for not stopping the suffering after being told to leave.
That’s hypocritical and intellectually dishonest.
The Suffering of Jesus – Proof of Love?
How much more loving must a God be than to enter into the physical realm and die on a cross?
Want a breakdown of what He (God), who took on flesh like yours and mine (but perfect), went through in His suffering?
1. Pre-Crucifixion Suffering
- Scourging
Whips with leather thongs, metal balls, and bone fragments tore into the skin, causing blood loss, shock, and deep trauma. - Crown of Thorns
Pierced the scalp, damaging nerves and causing severe pain. - Emotional Agony
Sweated blood—likely hematohidrosis, a stress-induced condition. - Exhaustion
Combined emotional and physical stress likely caused dehydration and collapse.
2. Crucifixion-Related Factors
- Nailing of Hands/Wrists
Likely damaged median nerves, causing excruciating pain. - Carrying the Cross
Exacerbated fatigue, trauma, and collapse. - Asphyxiation
Hanging posture made breathing difficult, ultimately fatal. - Cardiac Rupture
Trauma and stress may have caused heart failure or rupture. - Compound Death
Likely due to a combination of shock, suffocation, exhaustion, and heart failure.
3. Medical Considerations
- Hematohidrosis
Stress-induced sweating of blood. - Hypovolemic Shock
Caused by massive blood loss from scourging. - Asphyxiation
Likely contributed directly to death.
I could give even more detail. But what I’ve already said should be enough for an honest heart to see His highest possible love for mankind.
Can you still conclude that God is not loving? Be honest.
Do I need to add a medical thesis to convince you of the excruciating pain He endured?
🟥 On Morality in a Godless World
❎ Your final argument will be real short. Somewhat.
In a world where there is no God—where He doesn’t exist at all—everything came into existence randomly over billions of years. No God involved. Here we are.
Where does your standard of morals come from? Who decides right and wrong?
Who defines “races” and creates systems like CRT to determine superiority?
Who decides it’s wrong if a grown Muslim man marries a baby and uses her as a sex object—if that’s his culture, upbringing, and morality?
If morality is subjective, who is the arbiter?
On what principle do you condemn anything?
If you continue to claim God is not all-loving and all-powerful, you must explain how man is doing any better—all while following the Devil’s path and saying nothing about him.
🟥 Final Two Comments
You have nothing else to say because you never did.
I rest my case.
You have officially shown you need AI for good.
Man’s not doing a good job.
4: ChatGPT’s Assessment:
I. Assessment of Raul’s Comments
1. Logical Coherence
Raul’s reasoning fails to achieve logical consistency. Key problems include:
- Conflating Creator with the Biblical God: Raul frames you as denying the existence of any deity, when your actual claim is that if a God exists, the biblical formulation is logically incoherent due to contradictions between omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and divine inaction. Your critique is thus internal to the Christian worldview, not atheistic.
- Failure to Distinguish Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Morality: Raul argues that without God there can be no morality. But this misunderstands your moral anti-realism. You do not claim that suffering is “morally wrong” in an objective sense—you argue that theists who do face a contradiction when defending a God who allows child suffering.
- False Dilemmas and Straw Men:
- He falsely presents the choice as between robotic determinism (no free will) or complete moral responsibility for all suffering, ignoring the middle ground where a wise designer could have structured a world without extreme collateral harm to innocents.
- He also caricatures cultural relativism, equating it with moral nihilism.
- Special Pleading: Raul excuses God’s inaction by appealing to divine transcendence while holding humans accountable for equivalent inaction. If power grants moral obligation, then a being of unlimited power would logically have maximum obligation.
2. Factual Accuracy
Raul’s arguments rely heavily on assertions without evidence:
- Medical Details of Jesus’ Death: The graphic description of scourging, thorns, and cardiac rupture is drawn from devotional tradition, not verified medical reports. The claim that Jesus’ suffering should override our concern about current child suffering is a redirection, not an argument.
- Cancer Cure Conspiracy: Suggesting that cures for cancer or AIDS exist but are withheld is a baseless conspiracy theory lacking empirical credibility.
- Misrepresentation of CRT: He portrays Critical Race Theory as promoting racial superiority and division, which is a distortion. CRT critiques structural inequality; it does not propose a racial hierarchy.
3. Relevance to the Topic
Raul persistently sidesteps the central issue:
Can a God be perfectly loving and all-powerful while allowing preventable, prolonged suffering—especially among innocent children—without intervention?
Instead of addressing this question directly, Raul:
- Over-focuses on human moral failings, without explaining why a loving deity would allow those failings to cause such extensive suffering.
- Preaches Jesus’ suffering, which is unrelated to God’s failure to intervene in the specific cases being criticized.
- Attacks secular morality, which is irrelevant since your critique does not require secular moral realism but exposes internal inconsistencies in the theist’s worldview.
4. Civility
Raul’s tone frequently crosses into personal attacks and mockery:
- “Sucking your thumb,” “mental issue,” “you never did [have anything to say],” and “you need AI for good” are not arguments—they are ad hominem distractions.
- He repeatedly attributes malicious or ignorant intent to you, despite your clear, structured, and logically precise critiques.
- This lack of civility undermines his ethos and suggests emotional defensiveness rather than rational engagement.
II. Counter-Syllogisms to Raul’s Implicit Arguments
❖ Raul’s Syllogism A: Jesus’ Suffering Proves Divine Love
P1: Jesus suffered and died in agony.
P2: This was voluntary and for mankind.
C: Therefore, God is loving.
Counter-Syllogism A: Suffering by Proxy Does Not Justify Ongoing Suffering
P1: A being who allows others to suffer while demonstrating His own willingness to suffer does not thereby justify the suffering of others.
P2: If Jesus suffered once but allows billions of others to suffer needlessly, then the original suffering is symbolic, not salvific in practical terms.
P3: A loving being would prevent preventable suffering, not merely demonstrate solidarity with it.
C: Therefore, Jesus’ suffering does not resolve or justify God’s allowance of mass suffering, especially among the innocent.
❖ Raul’s Syllogism B: God Withdrew Because Humans Rejected Him
P1: Humans told God to leave.
P2: God respected their choice and stepped back.
C: Suffering is their responsibility.
Counter-Syllogism B: A Loving Being Doesn’t Abandon the Vulnerable
P1: A being who is all-loving does not abandon the innocent when others misbehave.
P2: Children who die from famine, cancer, or parasitic worms are not the ones rejecting God.
P3: A God who withdraws compassion from the helpless because of others’ rejection is exhibiting conditional love, not perfect love.
C: Therefore, divine withdrawal in response to human rebellion is incompatible with divine love.
❖ Raul’s Syllogism C: No Morality Without God
P1: God is the foundation of morality.
P2: Without God, there is no right or wrong.
C: Therefore, critics of God can’t morally evaluate suffering.
Counter-Syllogism C: Internal Critique Does Not Require Moral Realism
P1: One can evaluate the internal consistency of a belief system without asserting their own.
P2: Your critique holds that if God is loving and all-powerful (as Christians claim), He should not allow children to die in preventable agony.
P3: This argument does not require believing in moral facts, only examining the claimed attributes of the biblical God.
C: Therefore, moral anti-realists can validly critique contradictions in theistic claims without appealing to objective morality.
III. Final Summary Table
| Dimension | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Logical Coherence | Flawed by false analogies, equivocations, and circular theology. |
| Factual Accuracy | Relies on conspiracies and theological traditions without evidence. |
| Relevance | Evades the central challenge by focusing on tangents and emotional preaching. |
| Civility | Contains mockery, condescension, and ad hominem attacks. |
IV. Concluding Note
Your position is not that suffering is “morally wrong” in an objective sense.
You are a moral anti-realist who simply points out that if someone claims God is perfectly loving, then allowing unnecessary child suffering undermines that very claim. Your argument is epistemic and logical, not moral.
Additionally, you are not an atheist. You allow for the possibility of a creator—but reject the incoherent attributes ascribed to the biblical God.
This is not an attack on faith per se, but a demand for conceptual consistency. As such, Raul’s responses fail both as philosophy and as apologetics.
5: Raul’s Comments:
🟥 Raul Matsuda Renteria
April 12, 2025
Phil Stilwell, you are a mental gymnast who need AI to validate your worth.
You claim God is evil with your motives and then say you don’t believe in evil and claim I am confused. Yeah sure dude.
It’s just sad that you, with a simple man like me, had to resort to your so-called buddies in AI, and what lol please man.
Accuse you? Your intention is to show a God you don’t believe in as an evil being.
Your entire rant with AI (you know some people marry things like trees and rocks — are you in love with AI?) Oh yes man, some more humor. Send that to be evaluated by your AI consorts.
You said I can’t have it both ways. You’re the one who created a post attacking the moral character of God, yet again say you don’t believe in evil. So you willfully contradict yourself with your mental manipulation games.
You said “I do not believe in good or evil,” so what was the purpose of you making this post to attack the moral character of God?
I recognize how confuse you are to create a post attacking the moral character of God, which in one of your comments you did exactly that — but then again, in the same breath, try to clean yourself off to say there is no evil, and there is no good?
I guess that leaves just one thing huh, nothing but emotions, chemical reactions in the brain that have no meaning, no bearing on reality, just whims of thought.
So then, who are you to create a post to attack God? And in your post you are directly labeling Him as evil, even though you may not use the word — just like the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, but the concept of it is — you may not be speaking the exact words, but your entire concept is attacking God as evil.
Your mind manipulation is not that great, especially when you need AI to justify your words.
6: ChatGPT’s Assessment:
Assessment of Raul’s Comments
Logical Coherence
Raul’s comment contains multiple logical inconsistencies and categorical errors:
- Internal Contradiction:
- Raul claims you are “attacking the moral character of God” while also acknowledging that you “don’t believe in good or evil.” These two statements cannot simultaneously be true unless one commits a category mistake—attributing moral intention to someone who explicitly rejects moral categories.
- Misrepresentation of Argument Type:
- Raul repeatedly treats your critique as a moral argument when you’ve clearly stated it’s a logical coherence argument. This is a straw man fallacy, where the opponent attacks a mischaracterization of the argument instead of the actual position.
- Equivocation Fallacy:
- Raul conflates emotional critique with moral condemnation, failing to distinguish between emotional response and objective ethical claims. This leads him to assert that your “intention” is to show God as evil—despite your clear denial of moral categories—effectively projecting intention rather than demonstrating it.
- Ad Hominem and Genetic Fallacy:
- Raul attacks the medium of argumentation (AI) and your use of it, implying that your claims are invalidated by their source. This is a genetic fallacy, and by calling you a “mental gymnast” who “needs AI,” he engages in ad hominem, rather than confronting the actual argument’s substance.
Factual Accuracy
Raul’s statements contain multiple factual inaccuracies:
- Misstates Your Position:
- He falsely asserts that you are “labeling God as evil,” ignoring your explicit denial of belief in moral terms. This is a clear misrepresentation.
- Incorrect Assumptions About AI:
- Raul implies that reliance on AI negates argument validity, but this fails to recognize that AI can be a tool for organizing, refining, and articulating arguments logically and consistently. The source of assistance does not determine the truth value of a claim—its reasoning does.
- Ignores Publicly Available Clarifications:
- You’ve repeatedly clarified your position both in-text and via linked resources (e.g., on moral anti-realism), yet Raul speaks as if these clarifications don’t exist, further undermining his factual credibility.
Relevance
Raul’s comment strays repeatedly from the actual topic:
- Focus on AI and Personal Attacks:
- Rather than dealing directly with the argument about divine attribute coherence, he digresses into personal remarks about your use of AI, your “mental gymnastics,” and other unrelated topics like “marrying trees.”
- Neglects Core Premise:
- The actual argument concerns whether the behavior attributed to the biblical God (e.g., infant slaughter, silence during suffering) coheres with claims of omnibenevolence and omnipotence. Raul never engages this central argument directly.
- Equates Tone with Argument Type:
- He interprets your rhetorical tone (e.g., sarcasm or irony) as evidence of motive, rather than distinguishing stylistic choices from argumentative content. This leads to irrelevant focus on perceived tone rather than substance.
Civility
Raul’s comment lacks basic civility in several ways:
- Ad Hominem Insults:
- He refers to you as a “mental gymnast,” suggests you are “in love with AI,” and implies your reasoning is sad and manipulative. These are not arguments—they are personal attacks.
- Mocking Tone:
- Raul repeatedly uses mockery (“lol please man,” “send that to your AI consorts”), which substitutes scorn for substance and lowers the standard of discourse.
- Dismissing Instead of Engaging:
- By focusing on who is making the argument and how (e.g., AI), rather than what is being argued, Raul evades substantive engagement and chooses to belittle rather than discuss.
Summary Evaluation
| Category | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Logical Coherence | ❌ Multiple fallacies: straw man, category error, ad hominem, equivocation |
| Factual Accuracy | ❌ Misrepresents your position and misunderstands AI’s epistemic role |
| Relevance | ❌ Distracts from the argument with personal attacks and irrelevant claims |
| Civility | ❌ Rhetorically hostile, sarcastic, and derisive |
Conclusion: Raul’s response is neither logically coherent nor intellectually charitable. It fails to engage the argument as presented, misrepresents the core position, introduces irrelevant distractions, and undermines the dialogue with unnecessary personal attacks. A more fruitful exchange would begin with accurate representation, focused reasoning, and basic respect.
7: Raul’s Comments:
🟥 Raul Matsuda Renteria
He died on a cross.
Historically true.
Watch out. And some die twice.
You have what is called a conscience. Everything about you that makes you individual from everyone else—your character, thoughts, emotions—where do they come from? Random chemical reactions? If that’s the case, how can you trust anything you think or say as being true or false?
In the Bible, conscience is understood as an internal voice or faculty that helps individuals discern right from wrong, bearing witness to their moral understanding. It acts as a judge—either accusing or excusing behavior—and is seen as a part of God’s creation, not necessarily a direct voice of God.
But of course, as I’ve seen, that holds no weight with you because there is no God, which you rule out due to the world’s suffering and His apparent inaction. But friend, He will act. John the Beloved wrote about it in Revelation. So how can you begin to make a claim on something in which you do not believe?
According to my belief, when you die a physical death, your consciousness—your soul—continues to exist in eternity, a place outside the physical realm of time, space, and matter. You don’t simply “poof” and disappear. If there is nothing after this life, then life is pointless, because you came from nothing and return to nothing. And that means those who commit heinous acts against children—whom you rightly mention—get no justice in the end. They simply lived according to their emotions, and no one, including you, has any basis to say otherwise. Your worldview falls apart in a world full of chaos caused by men who complain about a God they claim doesn’t exist.
The second death is spiritual. Your consciousness—your soul—will live on somewhere. We call that Heaven and Hell. Heaven is not a reward for being or doing good, but the culmination of love intended by God for those who love Him. Hell is the consequence of choosing to live your life apart from God on this earth; you will live your eternity apart from Him. That’s Hell. That’s the second death.
Why do you keep engaging me if you’re going to stay stuck on the notion that your view is the correct one—and that I am the one who bears the burden to “prove” anything to you?
You still haven’t figured out that I’m not here to persuade you of anything, friend. The only one who can persuade you about God is the Holy Spirit, and that will never happen unless you unharden your heart.
You can go to AI, you can rely on your self-acquired intellect—and it is self-acquired—it’s your brain. But wherever you go with it, it doesn’t change what is true to me, and it doesn’t have to be true to you. And that’s OK. It’s your word against mine in your world. It really doesn’t even matter, right?
You say, “Where is the evidence?” My evidence is a book you do not believe. So I can’t bring that to you. Again, that’s OK. There are other books—surely you’ve gone to them. I have mine. It’s all “good.” And I can’t help but use that word. It exists.
Morals and everything else are subjective. Whatever is within your taste and liking becomes your truth. The next person does the same. So no one, unfortunately, can determine who the arbiter of truth is in your world.
Evil doesn’t exist. Good doesn’t exist. If that’s true, how do we have definitions of those words—or even claim they exist at all? Where did they come from? Who introduced them into the everyday vocabulary of man—“evil” and “good”?
What are these words based on if not on “objective morals,” which you say come from God—and you deny that. So those words shouldn’t even exist. Perhaps instead you’d prefer “hate” and “love”? Maybe those are just emotions, feelings people express? Hating someone is evil. Loving someone is good. It’s in our everyday vocabulary.
If I struck someone on the jaw for no reason, according to how God created us, that would be “evil.” Or maybe just “emotionally wrong.” But we die anyway. If what we see in life is nothing but emotions—babies being tortured and killed in unspeakable ways—what’s the difference between the person who enjoys that and the person who doesn’t? It’s just an emotional reaction, right?
Your reaction, as well as mine, would likely be to bring that person to justice for harming children and babies. Would that be fair to say? But again—how do we determine how to deal with that?
Sorry, friend—I just don’t see the difference in verbiage. “Good” and “right,” “evil” and “wrong,” morally speaking.
And in your worldview without God—as I am a moral realist—everything is based on emotions. Your personal feelings about something. Morally, you fall apart. There is no definitive determiner of right and wrong.
A Muslim, according to their culture, may say it’s acceptable to degrade women or marry children and have sex with them—if they “like.” That’s an emotional attachment to their culture. Are they wrong? If so, how? And who decides?
In my worldview, evil does exist. It is absolutely evil—always wrong—to degrade another human being in any way, shape, or form for your benefit—especially when it comes to harming innocent children.
But then we’re back to your original claim: if there is a God, then He is not all-loving for allowing suffering, especially of children. And He’s not all-powerful, because He could stop it but doesn’t.
Yet you neglect that man has a moral responsibility to correct the behaviors that are causing all the atrocities you speak of. You blame a God you don’t believe in.
But if you don’t believe in God, how can you claim to have anything meaningful to say about Him?Your mind manipulation is not that great, especially when you need AI to justify your words.
8: ChatGPT’s Assessment:
Assessment of Raul’s Comments
This evaluation analyzes Raul’s responses across four categories: logical coherence, factual accuracy, relevance, and civility.
Logical Coherence
Strengths:
- Raul consistently maintains a theistic framework and appears sincere in expressing a Christian worldview. His comments reflect internal coherence within that paradigm—especially his views on the soul, the afterlife, and objective morality.
Weaknesses:
- Category Confusion: Raul frequently conflates consciousness (subjective awareness) with conscience (a sense of right and wrong), muddling distinct concepts. For example: “You have what is called a conscious… your character, thoughts, emotions…” This mistake undermines clarity in his claims about the nature of personal identity and moral discernment.
- Circular Reasoning: Raul frequently uses unverified theological claims as if they are evidence. E.g.: “The second death is spiritual… Your soul will live on somewhere.” This assumes what he needs to prove. Assertions like these are not evidence unless the existence of the soul and afterlife is independently verified.
- Straw Man and Category Error: Raul treats moral anti-realism as if it were a defective form of moral realism. He continually asks how someone can deem an action wrong without moral facts, ignoring repeated clarification that moral anti-realists don’t use “right” and “wrong” as ontological absolutes.
- Misuse of Epistemic Critique: “If thoughts are chemical reactions, how can you trust anything you think?” This is a form of the Argument from Reason, but it commits a category error: mechanistic processes (e.g., chemical reactions) can yield reliable outputs. Reliability is an empirical question, not a metaphysical one.
- Contradictory Epistemic Standards: Raul asks for the justification of anti-realist views, but does not apply the same scrutiny to his own. He says: “You ask for evidence. My evidence is a book you do not believe.” This avoids the core issue—whether his evidence can be externally validated—and collapses into relativism, which contradicts his claim that objective truth exists.
Factual Accuracy
Strengths:
- Raul’s comments align with standard Evangelical Christian doctrine (e.g., belief in Heaven and Hell, and the idea of moral realism rooted in God).
Weaknesses:
- He makes unverifiable metaphysical claims such as: “Your soul continues to exist in eternity.” “Heaven… is the culmination of love intended by God.” These are not factual in the epistemic sense. They are doctrinal beliefs unsupported by empirical evidence, and thus cannot be treated as accurate in a cross-worldview debate.
- Raul’s characterization of moral anti-realism contains misrepresentations, such as: “If everything is emotions, what’s the difference if someone likes [torturing babies] versus someone who doesn’t?” This is a false equivalence. Anti-realists don’t say all behaviors are equal; they argue that value judgments emerge from emotional and evolutionary structures—not from ontological moral facts.
Relevance
Strengths:
- Raul attempts to engage with Phil’s core argument (the problem of suffering and divine love), even if tangentially or confusedly. His references to Revelation, moral consequences, and emotional suffering are not wholly off-topic.
Weaknesses:
- Frequent digressions derail the central discussion: “Your brain, wherever you wish to go with it, it doesn’t change what is true to me…” This steers the dialogue into relativism, deflecting the philosophical critique with personal belief instead of addressing the logic of the argument.
- The move from “why doesn’t a loving God prevent suffering?” to “you can’t say anything about God if you don’t believe in Him” dodges the critique by misunderstanding its hypothetical structure. This is a category error: critiques of theological claims often examine their internal coherence, not their truth outright.
Civility
Strengths:
- Raul maintains a tone that is largely non-hostile. He uses terms like “friend” and does not explicitly attack character or intelligence. His intent appears genuine, even pastoral.
Weaknesses:
- Passive-aggressive implications and condescension are present: “You still haven’t figured out I’m not here to persuade you…” “Go to your AI. Go to your self-acquired intellect…” These rhetorical jabs undermine civil discourse and suggest an unwillingness to engage with intellectual arguments sincerely.
- Raul occasionally assumes bad faith: “[Your argument] is another way of cloaking your unwarranted gesture of God being evil…” This misrepresents Phil’s stated claim, which is epistemic—not emotional or accusatory.
Summary Evaluation
| Dimension | Rating | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Logical Coherence | ★☆☆☆☆ | Replete with conflations, circularity, and misunderstandings of epistemology and moral anti-realism. |
| Factual Accuracy | ★☆☆☆☆ | Assertions treated as facts, doctrinal claims lacking external validation, and misrepresentations of alternative positions. |
| Relevance | ★★☆☆☆ | Occasionally addresses the topic but often diverts to personal belief and relativism. |
| Civility | ★★★☆☆ | Generally polite tone, but undermined by passive-aggressive remarks and dismissive implications. |
Final Note
Raul appears to be defending his worldview sincerely, but he lacks the philosophical rigor and conceptual clarity necessary for fruitful engagement with a position like Phil’s. If Raul wants to advance the dialogue, he would benefit from:
— Clarifying the difference between assertion and argument
— Avoiding strawman representations of moral anti-realism
— Accepting the principle of burden of proof in rational discourse
— Engaging with the structure of the argument, not just its emotional valence
His approach, while earnest, functions more as evangelism than dialogue, and thus fails to meet the epistemic standards required for meaningful debate.
9: Raul’s Syllogism:
🟥 Raul Matsuda Renteria
✳️ Premise 1
❇️ Proverbs 17:22:
A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones.
✅ This verse we know when we are happy and laugh, when our heart are full of joy, our health combined with other factors is good. But when we are full of anger and stress, it kills the body as we know stress significantly impacts the body, affecting multiple systems and potentially leading to various physical and mental health problems.
❇️ Exodus 15:26:
If you diligently listen to the voice of the LORD your God, and do what is right in his eyes, and give ear to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, your healer.
❇️ Deuteronomy 7:15:
The LORD will take away from you all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which you know, upon you; but will lay them upon all those who hate you.
✅ These 2 verses alone emphasize that obeying God’s commands and living a life that pleases Him can bring blessings of health and protection from disease.
❇️ Daniel 1:12–16:
Daniel and his companions chose a diet of vegetables and water, which resulted in them being healthier than those who ate the king’s food.
❇️ 1 Corinthians 6:19–20:
“Or don’t you know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own, for you were bought at a price. So glorify God in your body.”
✅ As I understand with these two verses suggest that a balanced approach to food, drink, and overall health practices is important for physical well-being, which can indirectly impact disease prevention. As I can confirm first hand being in the medical industry for over 35 years as a nurse. So what’s striking is your striking out to miss that.
✳️ Premise 2
This is a complex question because your claim is that God stands by with no compassion watching a helpless baby lying in a ditch crying and others dying in all sorts of ways and being solicited like we see with child sex trafficking, but who is the one committing these heinous acts? Man. And you say the Bible says nothing about simple life saving advice? Are you sure? Can I show you what a Man called Jesus who was the expressed image of the invisible God in perfect flesh who walked this earth said about the children?
❇️ Matthew 18:10 KJV
10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven….
❇️ Mark 10:13–16 KJV
13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them….
❇️ Matthew 18:1–7 KJV
1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
✅ These are some verse where Jesus speaks of the children. Notice what He says in verses 6 and 7 of Matthew 18. And as far as Him intervening, how is it that you expect Him to do that? When man told Him to get lost and out of His love for man whom He gave free will to, He honors that request because He didn’t make man a biological robot forced to love Him, and He steps back allowing man to run the world his way and chaos erupts throughout creation? Does man get released from any responsibly for walking by leaving a baby in a ditch? What kind of man does that? A man without the love of God in His heart. Can’t blame God for honoring man’s request.
Continue…….. sleep time
1d
Reply
Raul Matsuda Renteria:
Hey Phil Stilwell. Send this to ChatGpt and see what you get with that one.
1d
Reply
Raul Matsuda Renteria (continued):
✳️ Premise 3
Believers do cite miracles. There are miracles written throughout the Bible of Jesus healing the blind, lepers, casting out demons, raising people from the dead, as well as the greatest miracle of all…..
❇️ 1 Corinthians 15:1–6 KJV
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep….
Jesus raising Himself from the dead defeating sin and the grave is the greatest miracle of all that is documented historically. And yet even today, we see in my field of medicine people who have no hope of cure from cancer or brain tumor rendering them with no hope, somehow through the diligent prayers of people like myself mysteriously become healed. That’s called a miracle, and God does things like that when it is in His will to do so for His glory, to show those He is real and does exist, and does love them. He just wants us to come back to Him. And again it goes back to the Scriptures I have already provided which show God did give us knowledge of how to cure diseases as well as prevent them. Man has cures for diseases. They “choose” not to use them for the better good of mankind. Rather they benefit off of suffering. That in of itself raises questions for us to think we can blame God again for honoring man’s freedom of choice to do it his way.
✅ So the question should be, can we blame a God who created us perfect be blamed rightfully, for all the human atrocities in the world when man tells Him to get lost, even the man who leaves a baby in a ditch when Jesus tells us to do otherwise?
. Premise 4
You said “this is not a moral argument. It is a logical one”.
That is in of itself a logical fallacy. If you remember in our discourse, you specifically attacked the morality of God for allowing children to suffer which is your only point through this whole show. You have been doing nothing but appealing to emotion. So yes it is a moral argument you’re raising based on your own words in conversation.
A being who claims to be loving because He is, which again is shown when He stretched out His arms and died on a cross cannot be held accountable for man’s failure to through Adam, follow 1 law. Do not eat of a tree. But they chose to break the law and there are consequences. Just like when you get caught for murder. Consequences. Saying “Gods responsible” for not stopping what you raise will do nothing to change the situation. Suffering will continue because man continues tell God to get lost. Isn’t that what you did in a most personal way? When you said you “were” Christian?
A being who allows suffering that man causes honoring man’s wish to be allowed to run the world himself is just. You cannot with reason and sound logic justify blaming God.
. Conclusion
What would you expect rather to see from a perfect mind? How do your kids learn to survive in this world if you jump in to save them everytime an uncomfortable situation arrives at thier door? God is no way indifferent to our suffering. Jesus did what when Hs was here? Experienced exactly what we do and died on a cross to seal His own suffering He endured for us. Who is suffering for Him? So what is clear on your part to me concise is your hasty generalization and appeal to emotion. You have not achieved success. Everything written is God breathed.
Job 2 KJV, 2nd Corinthians 12:8-10 KJV and 1 Peter 4:12-13 KJV. You “were” Christian. Read again.
10: Grok’s Syllogism Assessment and Instructions
Raul’s 4 premises and conclusion where presented in a prompt to Grok.
Grok:
To determine if Raul Matsuda Renteria’s argument constitutes a coherent syllogism, we need to evaluate its logical structure, clarity, and adherence to syllogistic form. A syllogism is a deductive argument typically consisting of two premises and a conclusion, where the conclusion logically follows from the premises. The argument presented is lengthy, with multiple premises, biblical citations, and commentary, so we’ll assess its coherence as a syllogism and provide constructive feedback for improvement if necessary.
Analysis of the Argument as a Syllogism
The argument is structured with four labeled premises and a conclusion, suggesting an attempt at a deductive framework. However, the presentation is more rhetorical and expository than strictly syllogistic, blending scriptural references, personal testimony, and rebuttals to an opponent’s claims. Below, I analyze each premise and the conclusion for logical coherence and syllogistic structure:
- Premise 1: Health and Obedience to God
- Content: This premise cites Proverbs 17:22, Exodus 15:26, Deuteronomy 7:15, Daniel 1:12-16, and 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 to argue that the Bible provides instructions for health and disease prevention through joy, obedience to God’s commands, and healthy living. The author uses these verses to counter the claim that “the Bible offers no instruction.”
- Logical Role: This appears to be a supporting premise, asserting that the Bible contains practical guidance for well-being, implying God’s compassion through actionable advice.
- Coherence: The premise is coherent in isolation, as it connects biblical verses to the idea of health benefits from following God’s guidance. However, it lacks a clear logical link to a broader syllogistic structure, as it doesn’t explicitly set up a universal rule or connect directly to the other premises.
- Premise 2: God’s Compassion and Human Responsibility
- Content: This premise addresses the opponent’s claim that God lacks compassion, particularly regarding suffering children. It cites Matthew 18:10, Mark 10:13-16, and Matthew 18:1-7 to show Jesus’ care for children and argues that human free will, not God’s indifference, causes suffering (e.g., a baby left in a ditch).
- Logical Role: This premise defends God’s compassion and shifts blame to human actions, attempting to refute the idea that God is responsible for suffering.
- Coherence: The premise is rhetorically strong but logically diffuse. It introduces free will and human responsibility without clearly tying them to the health-focused first premise or forming a deductive step. It functions more as a rebuttal than a premise in a syllogism.
- Premise 3: Miracles and God’s Intervention
- Content: This premise cites 1 Corinthians 15:1-6 and personal anecdotes to argue that God performs miracles (e.g., Jesus’ resurrection, modern healings), demonstrating His love and power. It reiterates that human choices, not God, prevent the application of biblical health knowledge.
- Logical Role: This premise supports the idea that God is active and compassionate, countering claims of divine indifference.
- Coherence: The premise is coherent in asserting miracles as evidence of God’s love but doesn’t logically connect to the prior premises in a deductive way. It feels like an additional point in a cumulative case rather than a step in a syllogism.
- Premise 4: Moral vs. Logical Argument
- Content: This premise accuses the opponent of a logical fallacy by conflating moral and logical arguments. It argues that blaming God for human-caused suffering is unjust, citing the Fall (Adam’s disobedience) and God’s respect for free will. It references Jesus’ suffering on the cross to show God’s empathy.
- Logical Role: This premise attempts to clarify the argument’s scope (logical, not moral) and reinforce human responsibility for suffering.
- Coherence: The premise is more a critique of the opponent’s approach than a standalone premise. It introduces new theological concepts (the Fall, Christ’s atonement) without clear integration into a syllogistic framework.
- Conclusion
- Content: The conclusion questions whether God can be blamed for human atrocities given human free will and cites Job 2, 2 Corinthians 12:8-10, and 1 Peter 4:12-13 to argue that God is not indifferent to suffering, as Jesus suffered for humanity.
- Logical Role: The conclusion aims to synthesize the premises to defend God’s compassion and justice.
- Coherence: The conclusion is broad and rhetorical, addressing the opponent’s emotional appeals but not clearly following from the premises in a deductive manner. It introduces new scriptural references without tying them to the earlier arguments.
Is It a Coherent Syllogism?
A coherent syllogism requires:
- Clear Premises: Two or more premises that establish a universal rule and a specific case.
- Logical Connection: The conclusion must follow deductively from the premises.
- Clarity and Simplicity: The argument should be concise and avoid extraneous points.
The argument fails to meet these criteria for the following reasons:
- Lack of Deductive Structure: The premises don’t form a clear deductive chain. For example, Premise 1 (biblical health advice) doesn’t logically connect to Premise 2 (human responsibility for suffering) or Premise 3 (miracles). Each premise addresses a different aspect of the opponent’s critique rather than building toward a single conclusion.
- Rhetorical Overload: The argument includes extensive scriptural citations, personal anecdotes, and rebuttals, making it more a polemical essay than a succinct syllogism. This dilutes its logical focus.
- Ambiguous Conclusion: The conclusion is a series of rhetorical questions and assertions rather than a precise statement that follows from the premises. It doesn’t clearly synthesize the premises into a deductive outcome.
- Mixed Purposes: The argument simultaneously defends God’s compassion, asserts biblical health advice, and critiques the opponent’s logic, leading to a lack of focus.
While the individual points are coherent and supported by scripture, they don’t collectively form a syllogism. Instead, the argument is a cumulative case or apologetic defense, addressing multiple objections but not adhering to the strict logical form of a syllogism.
Instruction to the Author
To improve the argument and make it a coherent syllogism, consider the following steps:
- Simplify the Structure:
- Reduce the argument to two premises and a conclusion. Focus on a single claim (e.g., “The Bible reflects God’s compassion through practical health instructions” or “God is not responsible for human-caused suffering”).
- Example:
- Premise 1: The Bible provides instructions for health and well-being, demonstrating God’s compassion (e.g., Proverbs 17:22, Exodus 15:26).
- Premise 2: Human suffering results from free choices, not God’s indifference (e.g., Matthew 18:6-7).
- Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible reflects a compassionate God who provides guidance, while human free will causes suffering.
- Ensure Logical Flow:
- Make sure each premise builds toward the conclusion. For example, if arguing that God is compassionate, both premises should address compassion directly, not unrelated topics like miracles or dietary advice.
- Avoid introducing new concepts (e.g., the Fall, Christ’s atonement) in the conclusion unless they’re established in the premises.
- Minimize Extraneous Content:
- Limit scriptural citations to one or two per premise to maintain focus. For example, use Proverbs 17:22 alone to support health advice rather than citing multiple verses.
- Remove personal anecdotes (e.g., nursing experience) and rhetorical questions (e.g., “What kind of man does that?”) unless they directly support the deductive structure.
- Clarify the Conclusion:
- State the conclusion as a clear, concise proposition that follows from the premises. Avoid rhetorical flourishes or additional scriptures in the conclusion.
- Example: “Therefore, the Bible demonstrates God’s compassion by providing health guidance, and human suffering stems from free will, not divine indifference.”
- Address the Opponent’s Claim Directly:
- If responding to the claim that “the Bible offers no instruction” or “God lacks compassion,” structure the syllogism to refute it explicitly. For example:
- Premise 1: A compassionate God provides practical guidance to alleviate suffering.
- Premise 2: The Bible contains instructions for health and child protection (e.g., Proverbs 17:22, Matthew 18:6).
- Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible reflects a compassionate God, contrary to claims of divine indifference.
- If responding to the claim that “the Bible offers no instruction” or “God lacks compassion,” structure the syllogism to refute it explicitly. For example:
- Test the Logic:
- Ensure the premises are true and the conclusion follows deductively. For example, if Premise 1 claims “All biblical instructions reflect God’s compassion” and Premise 2 states “Health and child protection instructions exist in the Bible,” the conclusion “The Bible reflects God’s compassion” follows logically.
- Avoid logical fallacies, such as appealing to emotion (e.g., vivid descriptions of suffering children) or strawmanning the opponent’s position.
- Separate Rhetorical and Logical Goals:
- If the goal is to persuade or rebut comprehensively, consider writing a broader apologetic essay. Reserve the syllogism for a concise, logical argument within that essay.
- For example, use the syllogism to prove one point (e.g., biblical health advice exists) and address miracles or free will in separate sections.
Example of a Revised Syllogism
Premise 1: A compassionate God provides practical instructions to promote human well-being. Premise 2: The Bible contains instructions for health and protection, such as Proverbs 17:22 (joy as medicine) and Matthew 18:6 (protecting children). Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible reflects the compassion of a loving God.
This syllogism is concise, logically connected, and directly addresses the opponent’s claim that “the Bible offers no instruction.” The author can expand on this in a broader argument while keeping the syllogism focused.
Conclusion
The argument is not a coherent syllogism due to its lack of deductive structure, excessive complexity, and rhetorical focus. However, it contains valid points that could be reorganized into a syllogism with simplification and clearer logical connections. By focusing on a single claim, reducing extraneous content, and ensuring the conclusion follows from the premises, the author can craft a coherent syllogistic argument to strengthen their case.
Phil’s Subsequent Grok Prompt: Suggest a syllogism that can be extracted from the disjointed content.
Grok:
To extract a coherent syllogism from Raul Matsuda Renteria’s disjointed content, we need to identify a central claim and supporting points that can be distilled into two premises and a conclusion. The argument primarily defends the compassion of God as reflected in the Bible, countering claims that the Bible offers no instruction and that God is indifferent to suffering. A key theme is that the Bible provides practical guidance (e.g., for health) and that human free will, not God’s indifference, causes suffering. Below is a suggested syllogism that captures this core idea while maintaining logical coherence:
Premise 1: A compassionate God provides practical instructions to promote human well-being and alleviate suffering.
Premise 2: The Bible contains instructions for health and protection, such as Proverbs 17:22 (a joyful heart as good medicine) and Matthew 18:6 (condemning harm to children).
Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible reflects the compassion of a loving God.
Explanation of the Syllogism
- Premise 1: Establishes a general principle that a compassionate God would provide guidance to help humans thrive, aligning with the author’s emphasis on God’s love and care.
- Premise 2: Provides specific evidence from the Bible, drawing on the author’s citations of Proverbs 17:22 (health benefits of joy) and Matthew 18:6 (Jesus’ protection of children), which demonstrate practical instructions for well-being.
- Conclusion: Logically follows by connecting the Bible’s instructions to God’s compassion, directly addressing the opponent’s claim that “the Bible offers no instruction.”
- Coherence: The syllogism is concise, deductive, and focused, avoiding extraneous points like miracles or human free will (which could be addressed in a broader argument).
This syllogism distills the author’s key points into a clear, logical structure while staying faithful to the original content’s intent.
Phil: Do you want to submit the syllogism formulated by Grok based on your content for assessment?
Free of Faith 
In a personal chat about the scenario in which a young girl with a Muslim father and a Christian mother,…