Thanks manarch, and I appreciate being able to discuss this with you, temperately. 😊

I don't think I have any real disagreement with your comments about ChatGPT and its limitations. My interest in this post was to point out that the response of ChatGPT to provide six logical fallacies to the cosmological argument said more about its programmers and the people who agree with its answers than about the validity of the argument itself.

However, what is interesting to me is your view that rational thinking inevitably leads to a belief in atheism. No one approaches this question without presuppositions but a lifelong interest of mine is in the rationality of belief. The primary alternative to belief in God, in my view, is physicalism, the belief that all there is is contained in the physical universe that we can, given enough time and technology and funding, fully understand. I find that belief, and the scientism that typically accompanies it, to be irrational. I could give you my reasons (which I will if you challenge me), but I find others have done much better at this than I possibly could. One example is long-tiome atheist Anthony Flew's book There Is A God. Now I understand that atheists were furious and said that Varghese wrote it and not Flew, but Flew said he stood by everything written in it. Of course, CS Lewis is one of my favorites, and Alvin Plantinga. Oxford theologian Richard Swinburne took on the question very directly and very systematically. Regarding understanding current science in light of theistic belief, Sir John Polkinghorne is particularly good in books like The Faith of a Physicist. Of course, the primary support for rational concluions about the existence of God come from the ancients starting with the Greeks, but including the great thinkers of eastern religion and philosophy. I am not going through this to persuade you and I agree that ultimately faith that lead to conviction that transforms lives requires a leap. But one can make a leap based on rational thinking as a great many have.