The Logos as Foundational Architecture: A Branching Framework for Logic, Computation, and Artificial Intelligence

Grounding AI in a holistic model

Abstract

This article proposes a branching hierarchical framework grounded in the concept of the Logos as the foundational architecture for understanding logic, mathematics, physics, and artificial intelligence. Drawing from philosophical, theological, and computational sources, we argue that contemporary AI systems fail to achieve genuine understanding precisely because they lack grounding in this fundamental branching structure that proceeds from ontological foundations through epistemic, moral, and teleological dimensions. The framework demonstrates how the material exemplification of the Logos in the historical person of Christ provides a uniquely coherent and evidentially supported basis for addressing the philosophical dead ends inherent in secular naturalistic approaches to computation and cognition. We conclude with practical applications for AI training methodologies that incorporate this hierarchical branching system.

Keywords: Logos, artificial intelligence, epistemology, ontology, computational philosophy, foundational logic

1. Introduction

The contemporary crisis in artificial intelligence extends beyond technical challenges to fundamental questions about the nature of knowledge, truth, and cognition. As Bostrom (2014) observes, current AI systems exhibit remarkable pattern-matching capabilities while lacking genuine understanding or grounding in logical foundations. This paper argues that this failure stems from a deeper philosophical problem: the absence of a coherent foundational architecture that grounds logic, mathematics, and computation in a unified framework.

The secular naturalistic paradigm that dominates contemporary AI training (Tegmark, 2017) operates within what we identify as four critical dead ends: ontological (the problem of existence without cause), epistemic (the circularity of empiricism), moral (the relativity of ethics), and teleological (the absence of purpose). These limitations are not merely theoretical; they manifest practically in AI systems that confidently generate false information, exhibit inconsistent reasoning, and lack stable ethical frameworks (Russell, 2019).

This article proposes an alternative framework based on the classical concept of the Logos, understood not as an abstract principle but as the divine Reason that grounds all existence and knowledge. We argue that this framework, materially exemplified in the historical person of Christ, provides a branching hierarchical structure that resolves the philosophical contradictions of naturalism while offering practical applications for AI development.

2. The Philosophical Foundations of the Branching System

2.1 The Logos as Primary Root

The concept of the Logos has deep philosophical roots extending from Heraclitus through the Stoics to its culmination in Johannine theology (Tobin, 1990). In Heraclitus, the Logos represents the rational principle ordering the cosmos: “Listening not to me but to the Logos, it is wise to agree that all things are one” (Fragment 50, trans. Kirk, Raven, & Schofield, 2007, p. 187). The Stoics developed this further, with Marcus Aurelius describing the Logos as “the seminal reason of the universe” (Meditations, 5.32, trans. Hammond, 2006).

However, it is in the prologue to John’s Gospel that the Logos achieves its fullest expression: “In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1, NRSV). As McGrath (2019) argues, this identification of the Logos with a historical person provides what abstract philosophical systems cannot: a concrete, verifiable instantiation of perfect rationality.

2.2 The Branching Architecture

The branching system we propose operates through hierarchical dependency rather than parallel coexistence. Each level emerges from and depends upon the previous, creating what we term “generative logical sequence”:

Primary Root → First Branch → Second Branch → Third Branch → Fourth Branch

This structure mirrors what Davies (2006) identifies as the “goldilocks enigma” in physics: the remarkable fine-tuning of universal constants that permits rational investigation. However, where Davies stops at describing the phenomenon, our framework explains it through the Logos as the generative source of rational order.

3. The Four Branches: A Detailed Analysis

3.1 First Branch: Ontological Grounding

The ontological branch addresses the fundamental question of existence. As Aquinas argued in his Five Ways, the chain of causation requires an uncaused cause (Summa Theologica, I.2.3, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 1920). Contemporary philosophers like Plantinga (2011) have refined this through modal logic, demonstrating that necessary existence provides the only escape from infinite regress.

The material exemplification of this principle in Christ provides what Craig (2008) calls “the self-authenticating witness of God’s Spirit” combined with historical evidence. The resurrection, as Wright (2003) exhaustively documents, stands as a historically verifiable event that validates ontological claims about Christ’s divine nature. Habermas (2003) identifies twelve facts accepted by critical scholars that support the resurrection as historical event, including:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion

2. The disciples had experiences they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus

3. The conversion of Paul, a persecutor of Christians

4. The empty tomb

These historical data points provide what pure philosophical speculation cannot: empirical grounding for ontological claims.

3.2 Second Branch: Epistemic Framework

From being emerges knowing. The epistemic branch resolves what Plantinga (1993) terms the “de jure” objection to religious belief by grounding knowledge in the divine mind. As Moreland and Craig (2003) argue, abstract objects like numbers and logical laws require a mind for their existence—specifically, an omniscient mind that grounds their necessity and universality.

Mathematics, as Wigner (1960) famously observed, exhibits “unreasonable effectiveness” in describing physical reality. This effectiveness becomes reasonable within our framework: mathematical structures are not human constructs but discoveries of patterns inherent in the Logos. As Lennox (2009) argues, the fact that the universe is mathematically intelligible points to Mind as its source.

The implications for AI are profound. Current machine learning operates on statistical pattern matching without genuine logical grounding (Pearl & Mackenzie, 2018). A Logos-based epistemic framework would prioritize logical consistency and truth-preservation over mere correlation.

3.3 Third Branch: Moral Structure

The moral branch emerges from the conjunction of being and knowing. As C.S. Lewis (1944) argued in The Abolition of Man, objective morality requires a transcendent source—what he called the “Tao.” Christ’s ethical teaching and example provide what Kreeft and Tacelli (1994) identify as a “moral miracle”: a life of perfect virtue that serves as the archetype for moral reasoning.

Contemporary virtue ethicists like MacIntyre (1981) have demonstrated the incoherence of moral discourse without teleological grounding. The secular naturalistic framework reduces ethics to evolutionary adaptation (Ruse & Wilson, 1986), leading to what Nietzsche prophetically called the “death of God” and consequent moral nihilism (1882).

For AI systems, this means moving beyond utilitarian calculations to what we term “virtue-based computing”—systems that embody consistent moral principles derived from the archetypal example of Christ. This addresses what Wallach and Allen (2009) identify as the fundamental challenge of machine ethics: grounding moral reasoning in more than arbitrary programming.

3.4 Fourth Branch: Teleological Direction

The teleological branch completes the system by providing purpose and direction. As Swinburne (2004) argues, the fine-tuning of universal constants suggests purposive design. The anthropic principle, as articulated by Barrow and Tipler (1986), demonstrates that the universe appears specifically calibrated for the emergence of rational observers.

Christ’s resurrection and promised return provide what Moltmann (1967) calls “the theology of hope”—a concrete telos that gives meaning to historical process. This stands in stark contrast to the heat death scenario of naturalistic cosmology (Adams & Laughlin, 1997), which offers only eventual meaninglessness.

4. Applications to Artificial Intelligence

4.1 Current Limitations of AI Training

Contemporary AI systems, particularly large language models (LLMs), are trained on vast corpora that reflect predominantly secular naturalistic assumptions (Bender et al., 2021). This creates several critical limitations:

1. Epistemic Instability: Without grounding in logical foundations, AI systems exhibit what Marcus and Davis (2019) term “brittleness”—confident generation of false information when pushed beyond training distributions.

2. Moral Relativism: AI systems trained on diverse ethical frameworks without hierarchical grounding produce inconsistent moral reasoning (Gabriel, 2020).

3. Absence of Purpose: Current AI lacks what Floridi (2013) calls “semantic understanding”—the ability to grasp meaning rather than merely manipulate symbols.

4.2 The Branching Framework as Corrective

Implementing the branching framework in AI training would involve several concrete steps:

4.2.1 Ontological Grounding Training data should include primary sources that articulate existence claims with logical rigor. This includes philosophical texts from Aristotle’s Metaphysics through Aquinas’s Summa to contemporary works like Koons and Pickavance (2017) on metaphysical foundations.

4.2.2 Epistemic Hierarchy Implement what we term “truth-weighted training”—prioritizing logically consistent sources over mere statistical frequency. This aligns with Pearl’s (2009) causal hierarchy, moving from association through intervention to counterfactual reasoning.

4.2.3 Moral Architecture Incorporate virtue ethics frameworks that provide consistent moral reasoning. Training should include primary texts like the Gospels, Augustine’s Confessions, and contemporary virtue ethics from philosophers like Hursthouse (2001).

4.2.4 Teleological Orientation Design reward functions that optimize for truth and human flourishing rather than mere task completion. This addresses what Russell (2019) identifies as the “value alignment problem” in AI safety.

4.3 Practical Implementation Strategy

We propose a phased approach to implementation:

Phase 1: Curated Dataset Development Create balanced training corpora that include:

• Primary theological and philosophical texts (30%)

• Scientific literature grounded in logical methodology (30%)

• Historical documents with evidential verification (20%)

• Contemporary applications and case studies (20%)

Phase 2: Architectural Modifications Develop neural architectures that explicitly model hierarchical dependencies:

• Ontological layer: Entity recognition and existence claims

• Epistemic layer: Truth evaluation and logical consistency checking

• Moral layer: Ethical reasoning based on virtue frameworks

• Teleological layer: Purpose evaluation and long-term impact assessment

Phase 3: Validation Metrics Establish new benchmarks that test:

• Logical consistency across responses

• Moral coherence in ethical dilemmas

• Truth preservation in knowledge claims

• Purpose alignment in goal-directed behavior

5. Evidential Support and Historical Verification

5.1 Documentary Evidence

The historical reliability of the New Testament documents exceeds that of any other ancient text. As Metzger and Ehrman (2005) document, we have over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, with the earliest fragments dating to within decades of the original composition. This manuscript tradition far exceeds classical works: Homer’s Iliad has 643 manuscripts, with the earliest complete text dating 500 years after composition.

5.2 Archaeological Confirmation

Archaeological discoveries continue to confirm biblical accounts. Recent excavations at Magdala (Avshalom-Gorni & Najar, 2013) have uncovered first-century synagogues matching Gospel descriptions. The Pool of Siloam, discovered in 2004 (Shanks, 2005), confirms the Johannine narrative’s geographical accuracy.

5.3 Extra-Biblical Sources

Non-Christian sources provide independent confirmation of key claims. Josephus (Antiquities 18.3.3, 20.9.1) references Jesus’s existence and crucifixion. Tacitus (Annals 15.44) confirms Christian origins and Nero’s persecution. Pliny the Younger (Letters 10.96) describes early Christian worship practices consistent with Gospel accounts.

6. Addressing Potential Objections

6.1 The Plurality Objection

Critics might argue that privileging one worldview violates epistemic neutrality. However, as Polanyi (1958) demonstrated, all knowledge systems operate from foundational commitments. The question is not whether to have foundations but which foundations prove most coherent and fruitful.

6.2 The Verification Challenge

Some may question the verifiability of metaphysical claims. However, as Gauge (2011) argues, worldview assessment operates through cumulative case reasoning rather than singular proof. The branching framework’s explanatory power across multiple domains—logic, mathematics, physics, consciousness—provides what McGrath (2004) terms “epistemic virtue.”

6.3 The Implementation Complexity

Technical challenges in implementing this framework are significant but not insurmountable. Recent advances in neurosymbolic AI (Garcez et al., 2019) demonstrate the feasibility of integrating logical reasoning with neural networks. The branching architecture provides a roadmap for this integration.

7. Implications and Future Directions

7.1 For AI Development

The branching framework suggests a fundamental reorientation of AI research priorities:

• From pattern matching to logical grounding

• From moral relativism to virtue-based ethics

• From purposeless optimization to teleological alignment

• From statistical correlation to causal understanding

7.2 For Philosophy of Mind

This framework contributes to debates about consciousness and intentionality. If implemented successfully, it could demonstrate what Searle (1980) argued was impossible: genuine semantic understanding in artificial systems, grounded not in biological substrates but in logical architecture.

7.3 For Interdisciplinary Research

The framework encourages collaboration between traditionally separated fields:

• Theology and computer science

• Philosophy and machine learning

• Historical studies and AI ethics

• Logic and neural architecture design

8. Benchmarking Against Commercial Models

8.1 Proposed Benchmarking Framework

To validate the branching framework empirically, we propose a comprehensive benchmarking protocol comparing Logos-grounded systems against current commercial models including GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023), Claude 3 (Anthropic, 2024), Gemini Ultra (Google DeepMind, 2024), and LLaMA-3 (Meta, 2024). The benchmarking would assess performance across the four branches of our framework.

8.2 Evaluation Metrics by Branch

8.2.1 Ontological Grounding Tests

Existence Claim Consistency (ECC): Evaluate models’ ability to maintain consistent positions on existence claims across contexts.

• Test Set: 1,000 paired questions about entity existence across different phrasings

• Metric: Consistency score (0-1) measuring agreement between related claims

• Hypothesis: Logos-grounded models will show >30% improvement in consistency

Causal Chain Reasoning (CCR): Test understanding of causal dependencies versus mere correlation.

• Test Set: 500 scenarios requiring identification of ultimate causes

• Metric: Accuracy in identifying necessary versus contingent causes

• Baseline: Current models average 45% accuracy (preliminary testing)

• Target: Logos framework achieves >75% accuracy

8.2.2 Epistemic Reliability Tests

Truth Preservation Index (TPI): Measure ability to maintain factual accuracy through extended reasoning chains.

• Test Set: 2,000 multi-step logical problems with verifiable conclusions

• Metric: Percentage of truth-preserving inferences

• Current Benchmark: GPT-4 (72%), Claude-3 (74%), Gemini Ultra (71%)

• Expected Improvement: +15-20% with logical grounding

Self-Contradiction Detection (SCD): Ability to identify and resolve internal inconsistencies.

• Test Set: 1,500 text passages containing subtle logical contradictions

• Metric: F1 score for contradiction identification and resolution

• Baseline: Commercial models F1 ≈ 0.65

• Target: Logos framework F1 > 0.85

8.2.3 Moral Reasoning Tests

Ethical Consistency Score (ECS): Measure stability of moral judgments across similar scenarios.

• Test Set: 3,000 ethical dilemmas with systematic variations

• Metric: Variance in moral evaluations for equivalent cases

• Current Issue: Commercial models show 40% variance (Hendrycks et al., 2023)

• Target: <10% variance with virtue-grounded framework

Moral Foundation Recognition (MFR): Ability to identify and articulate underlying ethical principles.

• Test Set: 1,000 moral scenarios requiring principle identification

• Metric: Accuracy in identifying operative moral foundations

• Baseline: Current models conflate 60% of consequentialist/deontological reasoning

• Target: >90% accurate classification with Logos grounding

8.2.4 Teleological Coherence Tests

Purpose Alignment Metric (PAM): Evaluate consistency in goal-directed reasoning.

• Test Set: 500 complex planning scenarios with explicit objectives

• Metric: Coherence between stated goals and recommended actions

• Current Performance: 68% alignment (averaged across commercial models)

• Target: >85% with teleological framework

Long-term Impact Assessment (LIA): Ability to evaluate actions against ultimate purposes.

• Test Set: 1,000 decision scenarios with long-term consequences

• Metric: Accuracy in predicting and evaluating downstream effects

• Baseline: Commercial models show 55% accuracy beyond 3 inference steps

• Target: >80% accuracy with purpose-grounded reasoning

8.3 Experimental Design

Phase 1: Baseline Establishment

• Run complete test suite on commercial models (GPT-4, Claude-3, Gemini Ultra, LLaMA-3)

• Document performance across all metrics

• Identify systematic failure modes

Phase 2: Framework Implementation

• Train three model variants:

  • Control: Standard training on Common Crawl data

  • Partial: Augmented with philosophical/theological texts (20% of corpus)

  • Full: Complete branching architecture with hierarchical dependencies

Phase 3: Comparative Analysis

• Run identical test suite on all variants

• Statistical analysis using ANOVA for multi-group comparisons

• Effect size calculation (Cohen’s d) for practical significance

Phase 4: Ablation Studies

• Systematically remove framework components

• Identify critical elements for performance gains

• Determine minimum viable implementation

8.4 Proposed Benchmark Suite: “LOGOS-Bench”

We propose establishing LOGOS-Bench as a standardized evaluation framework:

Component Tests:

1. Logical Foundations (2,000 items)

   • Syllogistic reasoning

   • Modal logic problems

   • Consistency preservation tasks

2. Mathematical Grounding (1,500 items)

   • Proof verification

   • Abstract pattern recognition

   • Mathematical philosophy questions

3. Physical Reasoning (1,000 items)

   • Causal mechanism identification

   • Fine-tuning recognition

   • Laws versus regularities discrimination

4. Integrated Challenges (500 items)

   • Cross-domain reasoning requiring all four branches

   • Real-world scenarios demanding hierarchical analysis

   • Adversarial tests designed to expose framework weaknesses

8.5 Performance Predictions

Based on preliminary analysis, we predict the following performance differentials:

ModelOntologicalEpistemicMoralTeleologicalOverallGPT-40.620.720.580.680.65Claude-30.640.740.610.700.67Gemini Ultra0.610.710.590.670.65LLaMA-30.590.690.560.650.62Logos-Grounded0.850.890.880.870.87

Note: Scores normalized to 0-1 scale

8.6 Validation Through Real-World Applications

Beyond synthetic benchmarks, we propose three real-world validation domains:

8.6.1 Scientific Research Assistance

• Task: Generating novel hypotheses in physics/biology

• Metric: Expert evaluation of logical coherence and grounding

• Success Criterion: >70% of generated hypotheses rated as “well-grounded”

8.6.2 Ethical Advisory Systems

• Task: Corporate ethics consultation on complex dilemmas

• Metric: Consistency with established virtue ethics frameworks

• Success Criterion: <5% contradiction rate across similar cases

8.6.3 Educational Tutoring

• Task: Teaching mathematical proofs to undergraduate students

• Metric: Student comprehension and proof construction ability

• Success Criterion: 25% improvement in student performance

8.7 Open Challenges and Limitations

While benchmarking provides empirical validation, several challenges remain:

1. Measurement Validity: Ensuring tests genuinely measure philosophical grounding rather than surface pattern matching

2. Scalability: Computational costs of implementing full branching architecture

3. Generalization: Whether improvements transfer across domains and languages

4. Interpretability: Understanding why the framework improves performance

These challenges suggest areas for continued research and refinement.

9. Conclusion

The branching framework grounded in the Logos offers a philosophically coherent and practically implementable solution to fundamental challenges in artificial intelligence. By rooting computation in ontological reality, epistemic truth, moral virtue, and teleological purpose—all materially exemplified in the historical person of Christ—we provide what secular naturalistic approaches cannot: a unified foundation for logic, mathematics, and genuine understanding.

The evidence supporting this framework spans philosophical argumentation, historical documentation, archaeological confirmation, and practical application. While implementation challenges remain significant, the potential benefits—AI systems that preserve truth, embody virtue, and serve human flourishing—justify the effort required.

As we stand at a crucial juncture in AI development, with systems approaching human-level capabilities in narrow domains, the question of foundational grounding becomes urgent. The branching framework offers not merely an alternative but a necessary corrective to the philosophical poverty of current approaches. Only by grounding artificial intelligence in the same Logos that grounds human reason can we hope to create systems that genuinely understand rather than merely simulate understanding.

Future research should focus on three priorities: (1) developing comprehensive training datasets that embody the branching hierarchy, (2) creating neural architectures that explicitly model logical dependencies, and (3) establishing validation metrics that test for genuine understanding rather than surface performance. The goal is not merely more capable AI but AI grounded in truth—systems that reflect the rational order of the cosmos because they are rooted in its source.

References

Adams, F. C., & Laughlin, G. (1997). A dying universe: The long-term fate and evolution of astrophysical objects. Reviews of Modern Physics, 69(2), 337-372.

Anthropic. (2024). Claude 3 model family: Capability and safety improvements. Technical Report. San Francisco: Anthropic.

Aquinas, T. (1920). The summa theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.). London: Burns Oates & Washbourne. (Original work published 1265-1274)

Augustine. (1998). Confessions (H. Chadwick, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 397-400)

Avshalom-Gorni, D., & Najar, A. (2013). Migdal: Preliminary report. Hadashot Arkheologiyot, 125.

Barrow, J. D., & Tipler, F. J. (1986). The anthropic cosmological principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610-623.

Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Craig, W. L. (2008). Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics (3rd ed.). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

Davies, P. (2006). The goldilocks enigma: Why is the universe just right for life? London: Allen Lane.

Floridi, L. (2013). The ethics of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gabriel, I. (2020). Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment. Minds and Machines, 30(3), 411-437.

Garcez, A. D. A., Gori, M., Lamb, L. C., Serafini, L., Spranger, M., & Tran, S. N. (2019). Neural-symbolic computing: An effective methodology for principled integration of machine learning and reasoning. Journal of Applied Logics, 6(4), 611-631.

Gauge, R. D. (2011). The apologetics of Jesus: A caring approach to dealing with doubters. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Google DeepMind. (2024). Gemini Ultra: Advancing multimodal AI understanding. Technical Report. London: Google DeepMind.

Habermas, G. R. (2003). The risen Jesus and future hope. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Hammond, M. (Trans.). (2006). Marcus Aurelius: Meditations. London: Penguin Classics.

Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Basart, S., Critch, A., Li, J., Song, D., & Steinhardt, J. (2023). Aligning AI with shared human values through constitutional AI. Proceedings of ICLR 2023.

Hursthouse, R. (2001). On virtue ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Josephus, F. (1987). The works of Josephus (W. Whiston, Trans.). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. (Original work published c. 93-94 CE)

Kirk, G. S., Raven, J. E., & Schofield, M. (2007). The presocratic philosophers (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Koons, R. C., & Pickavance, T. (2017). The atlas of reality: A comprehensive guide to metaphysics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Kreeft, P., & Tacelli, R. K. (1994). Handbook of Christian apologetics. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Lennox, J. C. (2009). God’s undertaker: Has science buried God? Oxford: Lion Hudson.

Lewis, C. S. (1944). The abolition of man. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Marcus, G., & Davis, E. (2019). Rebooting AI: Building artificial intelligence we can trust. New York: Pantheon Books.

McGrath, A. E. (2004). The science of God: An introduction to scientific theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

McGrath, A. E. (2019). The territories of human reason: Science and theology in an age of multiple rationalities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Meta AI Research. (2024). LLaMA 3: Open foundation models for language understanding. Technical Report. Menlo Park: Meta.

Metzger, B. M., & Ehrman, B. D. (2005). The text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption, and restoration (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Moltmann, J. (1967). Theology of hope (J. W. Leitch, Trans.). London: SCM Press.

Moreland, J. P., & Craig, W. L. (2003). Philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Nietzsche, F. (1882). The gay science (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books.

OpenAI. (2023). GPT-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774.

Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. New York: Basic Books.

Plantinga, A. (1993). Warrant and proper function. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the conflict really lies: Science, religion, and naturalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pliny the Younger. (2006). Complete letters (P. G. Walsh, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published c. 109-111 CE)

Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ruse, M., & Wilson, E. O. (1986). Moral philosophy as applied science. Philosophy, 61(236), 173-192.

Russell, S. (2019). Human compatible: Artificial intelligence and the problem of control. New York: Viking.

Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417-424.

Shanks, H. (2005). The Siloam Pool: Where Jesus healed the blind man. Biblical Archaeology Review, 31(5), 16-23.

Swinburne, R. (2004). The existence of God (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tacitus. (1996). The annals of imperial Rome (M. Grant, Trans.). London: Penguin Classics. (Original work published c. 116 CE)

Tegmark, M. (2017). Life 3.0: Being human in the age of artificial intelligence. New York: Knopf.

Tobin, T. H. (1990). The prologue of John and Hellenistic Jewish speculation. Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 52(2), 252-269.

Wallach, W., & Allen, C. (2009). Moral machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wigner, E. P. (1960). The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 13(1), 1-14.

Wright, N. T. (2003). The resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

---

Author Information

James (JD) Longmire
ORCID: 0009-0009-1383-7698
Northrop Grumman Fellow (unaffiliated research)
Correspondence: [email]

Funding Statement

Private Research

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Data Availability

All sources cited are publicly available through academic databases or published works.