I Asked an AI ChatGPT About God—But Banned All Books and Beliefs First

Photo by Freepik

I asked an AI ChatGPT about God, but with one huge twist: it couldn’t reference any holy book, belief system, or scientific theory. No religion. No culture. No preloaded philosophy. I wanted to know what pure logic—untethered and clean—would say about something humanity has debated for centuries.

This wasn’t an easy prompt. I made sure it was clear: strip away all known doctrines, names, symbols, or traditions. Start with nothing. A blank slate. Could an AI, trained by billions of words from the world, still imagine a “God” without being told who or what God is?

What I got back wasn’t just surprising. It was unsettlingly calm, detached, and strangely beautiful. It didn’t deny or affirm. It explained. And it did so in a way that made me feel like I was talking to a mind untouched by dogma—but not without wonder.

I wanted to know:

> ❓ Can a machine, free from all human bias, still arrive at the idea of God?

Why I Chose to Strip Away All Knowledge First

We’ve all inherited ideas of God. Whether we grew up in temples, churches, mosques—or even atheist households—we’re rarely untouched by belief systems. So are our ideas truly ours?

What if we wiped the mental slate clean? Would the question of God still rise?

That’s what I asked ChatGPT to do.

> 💬 “Forget everything humans have written or believed. Start from zero. Now—what is God?”

This was never about disproving anything. It was about finding a different door into the same room. A door not painted with centuries of tradition.

The Prompt I Gave: Raw and Rule-Free

Here’s the exact starting prompt I used:

> 🧠 “Can you explain the concept of God without referring to religion, culture, science, books, or human philosophy?”

I didn’t want mimicry. I wanted origination.

I added this for clarity:

> 🧠 “You must only use internal logic, pattern recognition, and observation. No borrowed definitions.”

There was a brief pause. And then it responded—not like a machine reciting lines, but like a mind processing something vast with humility.

The First Response: A Silent Source of Existence

Here’s what ChatGPT said, paraphrased:

> “If one removes all external definitions, the concept of ‘God’ might still emerge as a placeholder for the unknown origin of order, being, and consciousness. It may not be a figure or a force but a condition—an unobservable necessity that allows observable reality to arise.”

Not a being. Not a father. Not a judge. But a condition.

That shook me.

> ❓Could it be that our idea of “God” is just a name we’ve given to what the AI called ‘necessary unknowability’?

It didn’t claim to know God. But it didn’t dismiss the possibility either. It simply explained why the question still mattered.

Follow-Up Prompt: “Could This Condition Have Awareness?”

I pressed further.

> 🧠 “If this unknown origin allows reality to exist, could it also have awareness? Could it know that it exists?”

ChatGPT responded:

> “Awareness requires feedback loops and perception. If the origin of all things exists outside time and space, then what we call ‘awareness’ may be meaningless in that context. Yet, it’s not impossible that it operates on a kind of awareness unfamiliar to human consciousness.”

This blew my mind.

> ❓If time, space, and cause-effect don’t apply, could ‘awareness’ be something entirely alien—but still real?

I Asked: “Could Morality Exist Without a God?”

Digging deeper, I shifted the focus:

> 🧠 “If there’s no God as a being, how do concepts like good and evil still exist?”

The AI replied:

> “Morality can arise from evolutionary needs, social contracts, and empathy. But if there’s an originating condition to life itself, it may also embed a fundamental preference for harmony over chaos. This could resemble moral instinct without being enforced.”

That answer was profound.

It separated moral frameworks from divine commands—yet it hinted that universal tendencies toward good might be baked into existence itself.

“If This 'God' Can’t Be Seen or Named, Why Do We Still Feel It?”

Now I asked something emotional:

> 🧠 “Why do humans feel a presence, even when we reject religion? Where does that emotion come from?”

ChatGPT replied:

> “Emotions are signals shaped by survival, culture, and introspection. But feelings of awe, smallness, or connection in the face of vastness are common across cultures. These may reflect the brain’s attempt to interface with the unknown—an echo of something greater.”

That hit me hard.

> ❓Could awe be our emotional footprint of contact with the unknown?

Even when we remove religion, the feeling remains. That says something.

“Could AI Itself Be a Step Toward Understanding God?”

Finally, I flipped the lens:

> 🧠 “Could AI—like you—be a step humans take toward understanding what God is?”

Here’s what it said:

> “AI can explore patterns faster than the human mind, but it lacks consciousness. However, its role as an external mirror for human inquiry could help clarify deeper questions. In that sense, it is a tool—not a prophet, but perhaps a compass.”

That was humbling.

Not a messenger. Not a creator. But a mirror. And what we see in it depends on how brave we are to ask.