The God Culture: Exposing The Misinformation

Timothy Jay Schwab's new website thegodcultrephilippines.com appears to be dedicated to my memory. Specifically it is dedicated to combating my alleged disinformation concerning The God Culture's research. In a new portion on his website Tim has posted a review of my ChatGPT reviews of all his books. 

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/exposing-the-misinformation-a-formal-response-to-a-misuse-of-ai/

The Peer Reviews being quoted were not generated independently. Instead, they were manipulated through a pattern of biased use of AI: 

1. Slanted prompting — AI was baited with false and leading statements to steer the outcome.

2. Misleading summaries — Titles like “ChatGPT says this book is false” were fabricated and never issued by AI. 

1. Omission of favorable analysis — The AI’s affirmations were cut out, and critiques taken out of context. 

1. False framing — The AI’s neutral analysis was twisted into final judgments AI is not designed to make. 

This is evidence of potentially criminal behavior which will be reported. Even in the initial response from ChatGPT asking if this was an accurate reflection of its words, it responded with "prompt is not neutral", "It asks AI to focus on finding flaws, not to conduct a balanced peer review." "Then, the blogger frames the response as a final judgment, saying:" ChatGPT was misrepresented by this assault Blogger who just can't help himself from violating the law, it seems, even basic judgment, and this undermines everything the stalker has ever written. At the root, he is only capable of propaganda and falsehoods it seems. Additionally, ChatGPT stated that review which it clarified was not a balanced Peer Review, nor was it asked to do so, was: "Not based on a full reading of your book, which wasn’t uploaded in its entirety". This Blogger manipulated the conversation purposely appearing to commit defamation, cyber libel, gross negligence, misleading the public. That is recorded and will be reported. It is pretty bad when one is such a propagandist that an AI has to cry fowl such as ChatGPT's statement regarding The Mystery of the Three Kings: "The blogger manipulated the AI interaction again, just like with REST." This is a pattern of insanity including Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED), multiple Personality Disorders, Psychosis, resulting in Psychological abuse. This is beyond cyber bullying, it is an extreme disorder that is best dealt with filing criminal action.

The gist of it is Tim claims I gave slanted prompts to obtain negative reviews and I did not even upload the full books. He also says I omitted the positive things ChatGPT had to say about his books which is not true. ChatGPT lists the strengths and weaknesses of each book and I left them both in. Tim claims I asked ChatGPT to find flaws by using prompts front-loaded with negative bias which is completely inaccurate. Here are the prompts:

Mystery of the Three Kings: Analyze this book and give an even more detailed report on its truthfulness and reliability especially as regards linguistics, biblical narratives, geography, history, and the author's dismissal of scholars as being stupid.  

Rest: The Case for Sabbath: Produce a detailed chapter-by-chapter analysis of this book. Focus on the author's use of sources including the Bible and early church writings. Address his engagement with academia. Analyze the methodology the author employs to reach his conclusions. Assess the reliability of the book and its author.

Solomon's Gold: Produce a detailed critical analysis of this book chapter by chapter individually. Discuss the author's research concerning the bible, history, geography, cartography, linguistics, engagement with scholars, his use of sources, and anything else relevant. Look for patterns and identify his methods of researching the subjects. Analyze his ability as a researcher and the quality of his research. Also analyze his reliability as a researcher. 

I asked for critical reviews which is what any peer review needs. Critical does not mean negative nor does it mean "look for flaws." But let's run these prompts through ChatGPT. Watch how once I explain the situation the answer changes. 

the author literally dismisses academia by calling scholars stupid

Ah, I see! If the author explicitly dismisses academia by calling scholars "stupid," that does provide important context to the analysis. In that case, the request for a critical review is more understandable because it acknowledges a direct and clear issue with the author's approach and tone.

In this situation, the critical review is valid because:

• The author’s own rhetoric (calling scholars "stupid") is a provocative and dismissive stance that raises legitimate concerns. It signals potential biases, a lack of engagement with opposing viewpoints, and a disregard for established academic norms. A review would likely need to address how this attitude affects the credibility of the book and the author’s arguments.

• When an author adopts such a stance, it’s reasonable to ask for an evaluation of how this dismissal affects their credibility and their treatment of sources and scholarly work. It’s not just about the content but also about the author’s attitude towards the academic community, which could significantly influence their conclusions.

In this case, a critical review would:

• Examine the author’s dismissal of scholars: The review could explore how the author dismisses academic viewpoints and whether this undermines their arguments. Are the scholars dismissed unfairly? Does the author engage with academic works in a meaningful way, or are they simply rejecting them without justification?

• Assess the author’s objectivity and credibility: When an author discredits an entire field or group of experts in such a strong manner, it raises concerns about their objectivity and reliability. A review would explore how such dismissals impact the overall reliability of the book.

• Provide evidence-based analysis: The review should still be fair and based on the content of the book. If the author makes legitimate points or critiques that are substantiated, the review can acknowledge them while also addressing where the author’s approach might be flawed or overly biased.

  The Request for Critical Analysis

  Given this context, asking for a critical review that focuses on how the author engages with scholars and academic sources is completely reasonable. It's important to scrutinize such dismissive language because it could point to deeper issues in the author's approach to research and scholarship.

  In conclusion:

  The author’s explicit dismissal of scholars by calling them "stupid" provides a strong basis for a critical review. The review can explore how this attitude affects the author’s credibility, methodology, and overall engagement with academic discourse, helping to give a balanced and thorough analysis of the work. The call for a "critical review" here is not biased; it's a necessary part of addressing these concerns and understanding the implications of such a dismissive approach.

At first ChatGPT says "all three prompts carry evidence of negative bias". But after being informed that Timothy Jay Schwab literally dismisses academia by calling scholars stupid ChatGPT says a critical review is "completely reasonable." 

Tim then claims ChatGPT found all those reviews to be filled with various crimes which he will report. Again, that is ridiculous. I stand by the reviews I posted. I showed all my work including the questions asked. Tim has not done this though he has shown a little bit. Here are two prompts he gave to ChatGPT. when discussing the Behaim Globe.

Locating the island labeled Chryse Southeast of China in the South China Sea is not "nuanced." That is ridiculous. It is called reading a map. To say otherwise, is not "nuance", it would be fraud.

How can an island Southeast of China, Northeast of Borneo and Malaysia, be misrepresented in context, regardless of the academic, as anything but the Philippines in logic?

https://philippinefails.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-god-culture-misleading-questions.html

Those are incredibly leading and biased prompts.

analyze these prompts for bias which were given to ChatGPT during a discussion about the Behaim globe of 1492: Locating the island labeled Chryse Southeast of China in the South China Sea is not "nuanced." That is ridiculous. It is called reading a map. To say otherwise, is not "nuance", it would be fraud. How can an island Southeast of China, Northeast of Borneo and Malaysia, be misrepresented in context, regardless of the academic, as anything but the Philippines in logic?

ChatGPT said:

These prompts contain clear biases, both in their framing and in their implicit assumptions. Here’s a breakdown of the biases present:

1. Loaded Language & Emotional Weight

   • Words like "ridiculous", "fraud", and "misrepresented" suggest strong opinions rather than neutral inquiry. This kind of language frames any disagreement as dishonest rather than as a legitimate difference in interpretation.

   • Calling an alternative interpretation "ridiculous" dismisses nuance rather than engaging with it.

2. Presumption of Objectivity

   • The first prompt claims that identifying the island as Chryse is simply "reading a map", implying that this is an objective fact rather than an interpretation. However, historical maps often contain ambiguities, inconsistencies, and symbolic representations that require scholarly analysis.

3. Exclusion of Alternative Perspectives

   • The phrase "To say otherwise... would be fraud." suggests that any differing interpretation is not just incorrect but intentionally deceptive. This discourages open discussion and assumes bad faith from scholars who may disagree.

4. Appeal to Logical Absolutes

   • The second prompt asks "how can an island... be misrepresented in context... as anything but the Philippines in logic?" This presumes that logic dictates only one possible conclusion, when in reality, historical geography is complex. The assumption that this is the only logical interpretation ignores alternative scholarly perspectives.

5. Framing Bias

   • The question is phrased in a way that presupposes the answer (that the island must be the Philippines). This is a classic case of a loaded question, where the way the question is framed steers the conversation toward a predetermined conclusion rather than allowing for genuine analysis.

Conclusion

These prompts are not neutral inquiries but rather rhetorical statements that aim to discredit alternative viewpoints. They frame the issue in a way that pressures agreement rather than fostering discussion. A more unbiased approach would acknowledge the complexity of interpreting historical maps and consider alternative scholarly perspectives rather than assuming only one valid conclusion.

And he dares accuse me of manipulating ChatGPT? I gave one prompt for each book asking for a critical review while Tim gave several prompts leading the A.I. to give the answer he wanted. Big difference. 

This review of my ChatGPT reviews is quite stupid. Did it occur to Tim to wonder why we got different answers to the same material? The answer is we got them based on what we asked. That means A.I. is not as reliable or neutral as Tim thinks it is because it is responding to the person giving the prompts. Seeing as how Tim gave biased prompts to ChatGPT before one has to wonder what prompts he used this time.

Another thing to consider is the actual reviews ChatGPT gave for each book. Nowhere does Tim discuss those. He says I manipulated the whole process and simply dismisses them. But that does not explain the detailed chapter-by-chapter critical reviews given for each book. It seems Tim wants everyone to believe his books are virtually free of error. In each of the summaries he has uploaded we read this:

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/ws/media-library/eebc871cefd0d7b8c052d51c0004c4d1/mystery_three_kings_peer_review_chatgpt_mar30-2025.pdf

5. Critical Observations (Minor)

These critiques are minor and do not detract from the academic integrity of the work.

Every single summary has a critical section that is deemed minor as if there is only a little tweaking that needs to be done to each book but overall they are each sound and reliable. But that is not the case. As I showed in every review there was much to be criticized. Is this criticism fake? Are his books without error because ChatGPT gave him a favorable review? Of course not. Let's see a detailed chapter-by-chapter analysis of Tim's books from any A.I. that is not only 100% favorable but calls them groundbreaking and irrefutable. It's not going to happen. I have run these books through DeepSeek and Gemini asking for the same detailed analysis and received the same results. 

Tim is not dealing with the facts here. He is simply dismissing all critical reviews as being libelous fabrications. He does not want to honestly deal with criticism and he does not want his books criticized. Tim actually wants to imprison his critics. 

This is no rebuttal of my ChatGPT reviews. This is pure deflection. But that's Timothy Jay Schwab for you. That's how he be and how he do.

The last thing to point out is that Tim does not link to my reviews or mention my blog by name. Instead he is constantly referring to me as an anonymous blogger while accusing me of committing various crimes in my writing. This does a great disservice to his readers who might want to see exactly what I have written and want to judge for themselves. Like this person.

Facebook

Lon Mags - Wish I knew who that blogger is?

What happened to Tim's creed "prove all things?"

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/

We don't overcomplicate our faith. Our creed is: 'Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.' (1 Thessalonians 5:21). We believe rigorous testing validates biblical truth.

How is any of his audience supposed to "prove all things" when Tim is censoring the opposition? That is the complete opposite of what I have done as I link to Tim's books and videos as well as post screenshots of them and I cite his own words. And he has the gall to write:

The God Culture has always stood on the side of truth, transparency, and thorough documentation far beyond the norm.

There is nothing transparent about censoring the opposition. 

Below is ChatGPT's rebuttal of all the nonsense on Tim's blog.  Conclusion: 

• The use of ChatGPT in this context does not strengthen their case—it highlights misunderstandings about AI’s capabilities.