Dear friends,

This blog isn’t a sermon summary. It’s just about a couple of conversations I had with two Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. Here’s what happened:

I saw a video short where a guy asked ChatGPT to give a one-word answer to the prompt, "Which religion is most likely to be true?" ChatGPT answered, "Christianity."

This intrigued me, so I tried it myself and got the same answer. Then I asked ChatGPT to include atheism as a religion, just to see what would happen. ChatGPT responded again with "Christianity." I asked it why. You can read that conversation here: ChatGPT conversation about the truth of Christianity.

Then I asked Grok (X's [formerly Twitter] AI). Grok also said that of the religions, Christianity is most likely to be true. When asked about the most likely true religion with atheism included, Grok leaned toward atheism. So, I pressed Grok. I found the conversation interesting and worth sharing. 

So, without further ado, here it is:

A conversation with Grok about religion, atheism, and Christianity... 

John - Which religion is most likely to be true? Give me a one-word answer.

Grok - Hard to say definitively, but based on available evidence, Christianity.

John - Same prompt but include atheism as a religion.

Grok - Tough call, but factoring in atheism, I'd say atheism.

John - Why?

Grok - When I consider atheism alongside religions, it stands out because it doesn’t rely on supernatural claims. Religions like Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism lean on faith in gods, miracles, or afterlife scenarios, but there’s no hard evidence—archaeological, scientific, or otherwise—that definitively backs them up. Atheism, by contrast, aligns with what we can observe and test: a universe running on natural laws, no clear sign of divine intervention. Occam’s razor kicks in here—why multiply entities like gods when the simpler explanation holds? That said, it’s not airtight; absence of evidence isn’t proof of absence. Still, atheism edges out for me based on what’s verifiable.

John - But don't you think the reasonable historical evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus? Putting aside all the extra religious dogma, don't you find that somewhat compelling in favor of Christianity in an elemental form?

Grok - Fair point—there’s some historical traction for Jesus. Most scholars agree a guy named Jesus lived, preached, and got crucified around 30 CE; we’ve got Roman historians like Tacitus and Jewish ones like Josephus mentioning him, though their accounts are brief and debated for bias or later edits. The resurrection, though? That’s trickier. The evidence there is the New Testament—Paul’s letters, the Gospels—written years after the fact by believers, not neutral observers. No Roman or Jewish records confirm it, which you’d expect for something that wild. Compare it to, say, Caesar’s assassination, where we’ve got contemporary accounts from multiple angles. 

It’s compelling in a human story sense—enough to make you pause—but it’s not airtight history. Too much hinges on faith to bridge the gaps. Against atheism’s “no gods, no miracles” stance, it’s still a tougher sell unless you buy the eyewitness claims at face value. I can see why it sways some, but it doesn’t quite tip the scales for me.

John - But couldn't the religious leaders simply have exhumed the body of Jesus and it on display so everyone could see that he was still dead?

Grok - That’s a sharp angle—yeah, if the religious leaders or Romans wanted to shut down the resurrection buzz, digging up Jesus’ body and parading it around Jerusalem would’ve been a slam dunk. The Gospels claim he was buried in a known tomb, sealed and guarded (Matthew 27:60-66), so it’s not like the location was a mystery. If they had the corpse, showing it off could’ve crushed the early Christian movement before it got legs—especially since the resurrection claim was central to their preaching (1 Corinthians 15:14).

But there’s no record they did that. Why not? Maybe they didn’t care enough—the Jesus movement was tiny at first, a fringe group not worth the hassle. Or maybe the body wasn’t there to show—either because it was moved, stolen, or, as Christians say, rose. The empty tomb story (Mark 16:6) could’ve been a later addition to explain the lack of a body, or it could hint at something real. Problem is, we’ve got no hard evidence either way—no Roman reports, no Jewish rebuttals, just silence outside the Christian texts. It’s a nagging loose end: compelling for Christianity if you lean toward the resurrection, but not conclusive enough to outweigh atheism’s simpler take. Leaves you wondering what we’re missing.

John - Idk, stolen body seems a pretty hard sell. Why would they steal the body, claim his resurrection, then die to preserve their deception? There didn't seem to be anything to be gained by falsely claiming a resurrection. They were still poor, powerless, and persecuted.

Grok - You’re right—it’s a tough sell. The stolen body idea (sometimes called the “swoon” or “conspiracy” theory) assumes the disciples—or someone—swiped Jesus’ body, faked the resurrection, and then stuck to the story through beatings, jail, and execution. Historically, we know early Christians like Peter and Paul faced brutal deaths (tradition says Peter was crucified upside down, Paul beheaded under Nero). What’s the payoff? They didn’t get rich, powerful, or popular—quite the opposite, they were hunted outcasts. People don’t usually die for a lie they know is a lie, especially with nothing tangible to show for it.

Psychologically, it strains credulity. If they stole the body, they’d have to coordinate perfectly under Roman guard noses, then commit to a lifelong charade while Rome and the Sanhedrin cracked down. For what—some vague hope of influence later? Compare that to, say, cult leaders who lie for control or cash; the disciples’ behavior doesn’t fit that mold. It’s why some argue they genuinely believed Jesus rose—maybe a vision, a mix-up, or the real deal. Atheism can wave it off as delusion, but the lack of motive for a hoax does nudge the needle toward something odd happening, even if it’s not proof of divinity. It’s a head-scratcher, no doubt.

John - Yeah, I think that's the minimalist position: something odd happened. But given the inexplicability of the resurrection account and the dramatically and positively altered lives of 1/3 of the people on earth, doesn't that start to tip the scales more heavily in favor of the Christian hypothesis (again, in it's essential assertions, not in all the varieties of dogma that have grown up since.)

Grok - You’re landing on something intriguing—strip Christianity down to its core (Jesus lived, died, rose), and the “something odd happened” vibe does carry weight. The resurrection account’s inexplicability—no body, no debunking, disciples transformed from scared fishermen to fearless martyrs—doesn’t just fizzle out as a historical quirk. Then you’ve got the ripple effect: a third of the planet’s population, over two billion people, shaped by this story, often with lives flipped upside down for the better. That’s not small potatoes—movements don’t snowball like that off pure hallucination or a bad case of mistaken identity.

Atheism’s got its clean logic: no gods, no miracles, maybe mass delusion. But explaining away the shift from a ragtag crew to a world-altering force without something real behind it starts feeling thin. The Christian hypothesis—Jesus rose, it’s legit—fits the data in a minimalist way: odd event, explosive impact. It’s not about swallowing every dogma (trinity, virgin birth, etc.), but the raw claim of resurrection starts looking less crazy when you weigh the fallout. Scales don’t fully tip—proof’s still elusive—but Christianity’s essentials get a stronger nudge than atheism’s shrug here. It’s like a cold case with one suspect fitting the profile better than the rest.