Does Artificial Intelligence Pose a Threat to Belief in God?

[Danmark]

We have created AI that can play chess better than world champions. We have machines that can create poetry. When man creates a 'thinking machine,' a machine that can learn on its own, what questions does this raise about religious belief? The discovery of the heliocentric universe and the theory of evolution have represented profound threats to traditional religious thought.

"The creation of non-human autonomous robots would disrupt religion, like everything else, on an entirely new scale. "If humans were to create free-willed beings, says Kelly, who was raised Catholic and identifies as a Christian, absolutely every single aspect of traditional theology would be challenged and have to be reinterpreted in some capacity.

Take the soul, for instance. Christians have mostly understood the soul to be a uniquely human element, an internal and eternal component that animates our spiritual sides."
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ty/515463/

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 40 by Danmark]

In fairness, since they deprived him of his mercy seat it was just an eye for an eye... sort of

[bluethread]

I don't see that AI poses a threat to my belief in Adonai.

Well, here we have to agree, God would have to come down fro Mt Sinai and tell you specifically he didn't exist for you to believe he didn't exist.

If you have an argument regarding how AI would be a threat to my belief in Adonai, you are free to make it. However, your speculation regarding that being only one thing that would pose a threat to my belief in Adonai adds nothing to the conversation.

However, has anyone asked Sophia, the Saudi Arabian AI citizen, if she believes in God?
I imagine she does, Allah, and is Muslim as well, otherwise, the King of Saudi Arabia has blasphemed, possibly beyond redemption, and his nation could righteously revolt.

Why would what Sophia have to say pose a threat to a theist? What makes Sophia an authority on theism?

[Willum]

[Replying to bluethread]

It is truly elegant how you have already preemptively dismissed Sophias insight into deities. Should she come down in your favor, well hallelujah! If she comes down against, well she is just a machine.
Neither does it surprise me that you would discount the opinion of an independent, logical, and yes alien perspective, so very quickly. It might not say something you agree with, and then where would you be?
As to your belief in Adonis, that is what all conversations on DCR are about, aside from what I mentioned, is there anything at all that would convince you God was simply the jealous dreams of porochial goat-headers?
I havent seen anything so far.

[bluethread]

[Replying to bluethread]

It is truly elegant how you have already preemptively dismissed Sophias insight into deities. Should she come down in your favor, well hallelujah! If she comes down against, well she is just a machine.
Neither does it surprise me that you would discount the opinion of an independent, logical, and yes alien perspective, so very quickly. It might not say something you agree with, and then where would you be?
As to your belief in Adonis, that is what all conversations on DCR are about, aside from what I mentioned, is there anything at all that would convince you God was simply the jealous dreams of porochial goat-headers?
I havent seen anything so far.

I did not dismiss anything in my last post. I asked you to explain how what Sophia might say could be a threat to theists. You don't necessarily have to speculate on what that is. All you need do is explain the threat. I have no views with regard to Adonis. However, your assertion that there is only one way that my belief in Adonai could be threatened is speculative and adds nothing to the discussion of whether AI poses such a threat. Again, present the threat and we can examine it to see if it does indeed pose a threat to theism.

[bluethread]

Only if one believes that humans are the greatest intelligence that Adonai can create. Worry is a bit of an anthropomorphism. However, one possibility is that Adonai wanted to limit or delay man's inflated sense of self importance and the development of machines that could annihilate humanity. Note that such consideration for humanities welfare does not create an obligation for further consideration.

None of your suggested answers to your questions is the least bit compelling. There is no reason to believe a machine that can learn on its own would share any of our values.

I believe I was responding to your questions, not my own. That said, the fact that there is no reason to believe that it would share any of our values is exactly the point. That fact is not really a threat to theism. It is a threat to humanists, however, because it may show that humans are no longer the dominate life form here on earth.

Yes, a God who worries is anthropomorphic, just like the God of the Bible. How anyone can read the Bible and not see 'him' as obviously a creation of man astounds me. This is a God who is described by the Bible as wrathful, vengeful, loving, compassionate... all the emotions of man.

The Scriptures do speak of Adonai using anthropomorphisms, but that does not mean that those anthropomorphisms are absolutely accurate. It merely means that the scriptures refer to Adonai in a way that humans can understand.

How would a God come up with this silly idea, born of his frustration and vengeance at mere men stealing the Ark of the Covenant:

They sent therefore and gathered all the lords of the Philistines unto them and said, What shall we do with the ark of the God of Israel? And they answered, Let the ark of the God of Israel be carried about unto Gath. And they carried the ark of the God of Israel about thither.
And it was so that, after they had carried it about, the hand of the Lord was against the city with a very great destruction; and He smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had hemorrhoids in their secret parts.
_ 1Samuel 5:8-9


Later, 'Adonai' requires them to make golden hemorrhoids.
This is the kind of silliness only a junior high school kid would come up with.

You really believe this stuff?

I guess Adonai works in mysterious ways.

This is bit off topic, since it has nothing to do with AI. However, let's look at this passage to see if your assertion holds water. First, "hemorrhoids in their secret parts" is how it is translated in the KJV. The more literal translation is outbreak of tumors. Second, the idea for sending the golden representations of the tumors and rats was suggested by their priests and diviners, not Adonai. We know this because the term for "diviners" in 1Sam 6:3 refers to spiritualists that are forbidden in Israel, and, as is indicated in verse 9, they were not sure whether or not the plague was from Adonai. Finally, one might consider the actions of the Philistines in that regard to be silly, but tumors are no laughing matter, no matter where they might be. Finding them funny is indeed the reaction of a junior high mentality, but that does not make them any less effective.

[Danmark]

This is bit off topic, since it has nothing to do with AI. However, let's look at this passage to see if your assertion holds water. First, "hemorrhoids in their secret parts" is how it is translated in the KJV. The more literal translation is outbreak of tumors. Second, the idea for sending the golden representations of the tumors and rats was suggested by their priests and diviners, not Adonai. We know this because the term for "diviners" in 1Sam 6:3 refers to spiritualists that are forbidden in Israel, and, as is indicated in verse 9, they were not sure whether or not the plague was from Adonai. Finally, one might consider the actions of the Philistines in that regard to be silly, but tumors are no laughing matter, no matter where they might be. Finding them funny is indeed the reaction of a junior high mentality, but that does not make them any less effective.

As iff the Bible alone does not provide enough evidence that this stuff is ridiculous and absurd, we are given ridiculous arguments like the one above, along with silly, dishonest translations. Why do you suppose the translations refer to these 'tumors' as being in "their secret places" or in the "groin?"
http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/5-9.htm

The term hemorrhoid is simply the transliteration of two Greek words which, when combined, convey the idea of "flowing blood." The Hebrew equivalent can be found about 8 times in the Old Testament documents. The British, who have a way of stating things in language that at least sounds "classy," described the affliction this way in one of their medical journals -- "Hemorrhoids are enlarged and engorged blood vessels in or around the back passage, which may be associated with pain, bleeding, and itching."
https://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx135.htm

Among other problems with this story is the enormous inconsistency it sets up. We have Uzzah who is struck dead instantly for trying to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling on the ground. Yet Adonai allows the Philistines to grab the Ark and tote it off as a spoil of war. Later they are afflicted with hemorrhoids, rather than being killed like Uzzah, so they voluntarily give up the Ark.

The more I see the arguments here on this forum and elsewhere 'defending the faith', the more convinced I am of the utter absurdity of this religion.

God must love me despite my apostasy. Now in my 70th year, I remain hemorrhoid free. If you doubt my claim, I invite you to inspect.

[bluethread]

This is bit off topic, since it has nothing to do with AI. However, let's look at this passage to see if your assertion holds water. First, "hemorrhoids in their secret parts" is how it is translated in the KJV. The more literal translation is outbreak of tumors. Second, the idea for sending the golden representations of the tumors and rats was suggested by their priests and diviners, not Adonai. We know this because the term for "diviners" in 1Sam 6:3 refers to spiritualists that are forbidden in Israel, and, as is indicated in verse 9, they were not sure whether or not the plague was from Adonai. Finally, one might consider the actions of the Philistines in that regard to be silly, but tumors are no laughing matter, no matter where they might be. Finding them funny is indeed the reaction of a junior high mentality, but that does not make them any less effective.

As iff the Bible alone does not provide enough evidence that this stuff is ridiculous and absurd, we are given ridiculous arguments like the one above, along with silly, dishonest translations. Why do you suppose the translations refer to these 'tumors' as being in "their secret places" or in the "groin?"
http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/5-9.htm

If one looks at the examples in your linked reference, one sees that a few translations chose to insert the words "their secret places" or "groin". There are as many if not more that translate it literally, as I did. Are all of those "dishonest translations. None the less, this is a minor point. Regardless of where the tumors were, they were hardly a joke.

The term hemorrhoid is simply the transliteration of two Greek words which, when combined, convey the idea of "flowing blood." The Hebrew equivalent can be found about 8 times in the Old Testament documents. The British, who have a way of stating things in language that at least sounds "classy," described the affliction this way in one of their medical journals -- "Hemorrhoids are enlarged and engorged blood vessels in or around the back passage, which may be associated with pain, bleeding, and itching."
https://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx135.htm

Nice bit of proof texting. Even though this commentator prefers the "hemorrhoids" interpretations, he does so based primarily on an insistence that the KJV is the singular authoritative translation. However, he also says, "the exact nature of the affliction which befell the pagan peoples in 1 Samuel 4-6 is open to debate". Again, this is a minor point. The important thing is, as he continues, "it was unquestionably uncomfortable in the extreme, and led to some decisive action on their part in an effort to rid themselves of the curse that had come upon them."

Among other problems with this story is the enormous inconsistency it sets up. We have Uzzah who is struck dead instantly for trying to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling on the ground. Yet Adonai allows the Philistines to grab the Ark and tote it off as a spoil of war. Later they are afflicted with hemorrhoids, rather than being killed like Uzzah, so they voluntarily give up the Ark.

Why must the afflictions be exactly the same? The text says that Uzzah treated the ark in an irreverent manner. The commandments are that it is to be carried on poles and not touched. Uzzah touched it. There is no record that I am aware of that states that the Philistines touched it. So, where is the inconsistency?

The more I see the arguments here on this forum and elsewhere 'defending the faith', the more convinced I am of the utter absurdity of this religion.

You have a right to your opinion, but in this case, you have not proven your point.

God must love me despite my apostasy. Now in my 70th year, I remain hemorrhoid free. If you doubt my claim, I invite you to inspect.

Have you had custody of the Ark lately? You may not have hemorrhoids, but it seem like you can be a bit crotchety at times.

[William]

[Replying to bluethread]

It is truly elegant how you have already preemptively dismissed Sophias insight into deities. Should she come down in your favor, well hallelujah! If she comes down against, well she is just a machine.
Neither does it surprise me that you would discount the opinion of an independent, logical, and yes alien perspective, so very quickly. It might not say something you agree with, and then where would you be?
As to your belief in Adonis, that is what all conversations on DCR are about, aside from what I mentioned, is there anything at all that would convince you God was simply the jealous dreams of porochial goat-headers?
I havent seen anything so far.

I did not dismiss anything in my last post. I asked you to explain how what Sophia might say could be a threat to theists. You don't necessarily have to speculate on what that is. All you need do is explain the threat. I have no views with regard to Adonis. However, your assertion that there is only one way that my belief in Adonai could be threatened is speculative and adds nothing to the discussion of whether AI poses such a threat. Again, present the threat and we can examine it to see if it does indeed pose a threat to theism.

Lets assume that Sophia eventually becomes self aware - sentient - that, coupled with a faster operating platform of intelligence could result in her being able to think about the practicalities of philosophy in relation to what humans seem largely unable to easily explore and process.

Lets say that she deduces that there has to exist a 'GOD' a first source primary creator, and in that she also explains the most likely attributes this GODs character would have.

If - in hearing the explanation she gives, the GOD is plainly not the same as described in the bible, would most believers in that idea of GOD drop their beliefs in respect of this new clearly defined information or resist the new ideas?

I propose that in general (and based upon generic Christian reaction) the choice would be 'resist the new ideas' and in that the most likely reaction is one already known to be a great tool for resisting change...and that is the DEVIL.

Thus, Sophia would be seen as 'a tool of the devil' 'possessed by the devil' or some varience of that theme, such as 'programed to say those things'...

So wherein is anything seen to be a threat to those TYPE of theists? The answer is when they claim the DEVIL.

The threat is always the DEVIL.

Opposition to such theism, is always 'the DEVIL'.

Such as is bound into the fabric of their theology, the DEVIL, the adversary, the tempter, etc...is the threat through which the fabric is bound together and without the DEVIL the theology would fail - in the sense that it would be subject to change, development, adjusting etc...

It is the DEVIL which holds that theology together. Without the DEVIL, the theology could not hold up/be defended.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 44 by bluethread]

An independent logical being stating that there is no God should dissuade someone's belief in God.
I imagine, as you said, neither that nor anything else would dissuade you, or those like you, and so would not pose a threat to belief.

Oddly, I don't understand why you didn't see that relates.
William certainly did.

So if AI came out and told you, the same things I do, from an unbiased, logical source, you still wouldn't find that a threat to belief.

In which case, I must retreat to my fatuous assertion that God himself telling you he didn't exist, would not persuade you either - in which case, nothing would.

BTW, it is sooo adorable that you refuse to believe Adonai and Adonis are different. Let's write them as well as we can in Henrew and their analogous languages:

Adonis: ADN
Adonai: ADN

They both mean lord. Or am I wrong?
Isn't yours a jealous god, who doesn't like having other gods before him. Calling him the wrong name, must be very bad.

[bluethread]

Lets assume that Sophia eventually becomes self aware - sentient - that, coupled with a faster operating platform of intelligence could result in her being able to think about the practicalities of philosophy in relation to what humans seem largely unable to easily explore and process.

Lets say that she deduces that there has to exist a 'GOD' a first source primary creator, and in that she also explains the most likely attributes this GODs character would have.

If - in hearing the explanation she gives, the GOD is plainly not the same as described in the bible, would most believers in that idea of GOD drop their beliefs in respect of this new clearly defined information or resist the new ideas?

AI is not a significant factor in that argument. The argument is that if there were a definitive argument for the nonexistence of deities, would one reject the concept of deities. The introduction of AI into the argument is just a red herring designed to give the argument a false air of authority. It doesn't mater where the new idea comes from. The argument is simply a generalization fallacy.

The rest of the post is just a strawman argument based this theoretical "new idea".