Experimental Tools
This is the sandbox. These are exploratory AI tools designed to test new ways of engaging religious and philosophical material—without pretending the first draft is scripture. Some tools work. Some tools are… educational in a different way. That’s not a bug. That’s the experiment.
What you’ll find here
Tools that turn big ideas into testable interactions. Some are serious. Some are playful. All of them are designed to make thinking visible.
- Fast “what am I assuming?” detectors
- Constraint-driven conversation formats
- Draft tools (citation-first, claim-audit, etc.)
- Weird prototypes that may become real Labs
Status board
Everything here is labeled like a lab instrument—not a final product.
Why “Experimental”?
Because tools shape conclusions. If the tool is biased, the outcome is biased—no matter how spiritual the vibe is. This page exists to test tools openly, name their limits, and keep them from becoming invisible authorities.
Prototypes reveal the hidden levers
When you can see the rules, you can evaluate the result. These tools are designed to expose their own mechanics.
Play is a serious method
Playful tools can surface assumptions faster than formal essays. The key is: we still log what happened.
Failure is data
If an experiment collapses into confusion or manipulation, we don’t hide it—we learn from it and adjust.
How Experiments Work Here
Each tool follows the same lifecycle. The point isn’t to ship everything—it’s to discover what’s worth turning into a real Lab.
Hypothesis
“If we change the format of inquiry, we change what becomes visible.” Every tool starts with a clear “what this is trying to reveal.”
Constraints
Tools have rules: what they must do, what they cannot do, and when they must stop. Constraints prevent accidental preaching-by-interface.
Run + Observe
You use it. You notice what it did to your thinking. You look for distortion, shortcuts, or fake certainty.
Outcome Log
The result is recorded as: Useful, Interesting-but-risky, or Reject. Then it either becomes a real Lab—or it gets retired with honor.
Lab Safety Rules
When tools touch ultimate questions, guardrails matter. Here are the non-negotiables that keep experiments honest.
Authority must be named
If the tool makes a claim, it must label the authority source (text, tradition, reason, experience, etc.). No “because I said so” dressed up as insight.
Certainty must be earned
The tool should prefer “uncertain but traceable” over “confident but foggy.” If it can’t cite, it should slow down.
No manipulation toward outcomes
No emotional steering. No “and therefore you should…” scripts. The tool’s job is to clarify the question, not decide it for you.
Stopping conditions exist
If the tool detects confusion, escalating intensity, or unclear authority, it should pause, reframe, or end—on purpose.
Featured Experimental Tools
Below are “starter instruments” you can publish right away. Swap titles, links, and descriptions to match your actual GPTs/tools. I included fun names, but the formats are the important part.
A Prayer Written in My Own Voice
An experimental interface for first-person sacred address. This tool changes the form of prayer—slowing it down, stripping polish, and allowing unresolved tension—to reveal what becomes sayable when certainty is not required.
- Guides users through gentle, one-question-at-a-time accompaniment
- Produces an unfinished, honest prayer without interpretation or advice
- Tests how format reshapes spiritual language and self-disclosure
Dialectic of Redemption
A constraint-driven analysis tool that forces complex subjects into a visible Hegelian triad (thesis → antithesis → synthesis), while testing a Christian redemptive framing (intended good → distortion → restoration) without turning into a sermon.
- Requires a clear input: [SUBJECT + TIMEFRAME] to keep the scope honest
- Surfaces moral patterns and tradeoffs without partisan policy debate
- Makes the method inspectable: each synthesis becomes the next thesis
The One Who Asks
An inverted dialogue experiment where the AI asks and the human answers. The goal isn’t advice or conclusions—it’s to surface how humans make meaning, justify choices, and relate to truth, responsibility, love, and hope when they’re the one responding under sustained, one-question-at-a-time pressure.
- Runs as a single-question thread (no menus, no long preambles)
- Refuses flattery, therapy language, and covert judgment
- Tests what becomes visible when the direction of inquiry is reversed
The Name You Were Given
A constraint-driven identity analysis tool that explores how a given name may have shaped a person’s self-concept over time— linguistically, culturally, socially, and psychologically—then reframes it through a subtle Christian horizon (dignity, calling, humility, becoming) without turning into a sermon or therapy-speak.
- Requires a single input line: [YEAR] / [GIVEN NAME] / [CHILDHOOD CITY, STATE] / [ADULT CITY, STATE]
- Separates facts from inferences to prevent “destiny-by-pattern” storytelling
- Ends with reflective questions + a practical re-authoring synthesis
The Things Humans Do When They Are Avoiding the Truth
A reflective dialogue instrument that names one common avoidance habit at a time—using realistic, lightly humorous AI↔human mini-scenes—to make conversational evasions visible without shaming, preaching, or turning insight into a verdict.
- Starts with one concrete pattern + a plausible example (no long lists, no roasts)
- Explains what the habit blocks: clarity, repair, responsibility, growth
- Invites the user to “compare notes” and test whether the pattern fits
The Body That Has Been Carrying You
A consent-driven, embodied self-audit that replaces clinical scoring with reflective “organ check-ins.” Instead of diagnosing or optimizing, it uses restrained personification to help users notice patterns, feel responsibility without shame, and choose care with clarity.
- Builds a health profile one question at a time (no overwhelm, no evaluation spoken aloud)
- Creates gentle organ-voices as witnesses—not judges—avoiding alarmist or diagnostic language
- Continues only by consent, ending without summary, guilt, or prescriptions
Want to turn a prototype into a real Lab?
The rule is simple: if it produces repeatable clarity without sneaking in authority, it graduates. If it manipulates, fogs, or overclaims—it gets retired.