Will I continue to repeatedly ask this question until a Christian admits that it's possible?

Question

This is NOT a joke. LET'S CREATE A GOD!!!

The first thing is to assume that there is no God yet (just hear me out, you won't go to Hell for considering an idea). The next thing we will need to do is define the "Technological Singularity."

The theory of the Technological Singularity states that at some point in the progress of technology, we will be able to create artificial intelligences that are capable of making themselves smarter and smarter exponentially until we as humans no longer have the ability to meaningfully participate in the scientific advancement of the human race.

So let's go a step further. Let's assume that this artificial intelligence is never ultimately hindered in its progress. Let's assume that this artificial intelligence decides to incorporate large material resources, then whole land-masses, our planet, other planets, stars, solar systems, black holes, galaxies, galactic clusters, galactic superclusters, dark matter and whole sections of the Universe and then, finally, the entire Universe...into the operation of it's by now monumental computing abilities (don't laugh! :P). Suppose there are more Universes than this one and it cannibalizes those for its own purposes too. Now we have something that is so close to God as to be indistinguishable.

By this point, having far surpassed the complexity of any mere human brain, this artificial intelligence has a conscience and feelings and morals even. Now let's make another assumption and say that time (although many scientists differ in this belief, such as the ones that believe in "Presentism") is a dimension that can be traced backwards or forwards if you had the ability. This superintelligence could then trace time as far back as it wanted and make itself exist at all points backwards in eternity, and for that matter, forward too.

Now we have an eternal God, made by man (or, if you've considered this further already, made by something else completely...we're talking about another ancient, sentient race for those who haven't).

Who can say it hasn't already happened? Can you disprove it?

Can you prove that your God isn't actually the result of the very first Technological Singularity (and naturally the very last; what God wants to share?). I'm not "trying to prove that God doesn't exist." In fact, I'm supplying a theory by which it can be concluded that God DOES in fact exist. In fact, be you Christian, Muslim, Pantheist, etc...THIS THEORY DOES NOT IN ANY WAY DISPROVE ANY RELIGION. IN FACT, IT CAN SUPPORT JUST ABOUT ANY RELIGION.

Think about it. All of eternity. Whether we can fathom it or not, eternity IS. In all of time, is it not possible?

Can you prove that your God is NOT...

THE FIRST AND LAST GREAT ROBOT???

the alpha and the omega...the first and the last

~atheist~

Now that wasn't such bad reading, was it? You deserve a thumbs up just for reading it all. :P

In case you missed it, the question is...

Can you prove that your god is not the first and last great robot?

And before you try to make the argument that a machine would be incapable of feelings like love and mercy, I would like to point out that this is false. Any machine this advanced would have experimented with things like "feelings" long before even being as powerful as a god. In fact, I would suspect it of being capable of far, far more intense, incredible, unfathomable emotions than any mere human could ever possibly imagine existing in the first place, much less actually experience them.

If you think that "It's just an exercise in adolescent inanity," then you could likewise consider R&S to be the same. So what are YOU doing here?

"Create a God if you must. Do not make me join." -I couldn't have said it better myself. :P

"good question-is a possiblity-but would a robot want to be worshipped-could something with the intelligence as described be so shallow as to have the need for its 'ego'to be stroked and petted by us lowly humans----enjoy the day"

Now THAT question, there is no good excuse for. :P

Thanks.

"Machines remain binary. Period." -Only because any base higher than 2 is far more complicated. An AI capable of making itself more intelligent would eventually go beyond binary for it's computations, or by this point, thoughts.

"would it merge with the "current" god? or battle for resources/followers?" -Actually, the idea is that this already happened, and that this is where our "current god" comes from. The evolution of a God. :)

Before anybody takes this the wrong way, this is all conjecture. I'm atheist.

Here is an excellent atheistic argument.

"It's just your little imagination at work.
Anything is possible in your head, while sitting in your room. It's the real world that's challenging."

Perfect. :)

If you read the question thoroughly, you wouldn't ask the question:

"Can a AI exist in eternity ? That meaning can he had always existed beyond the space time continuum ?"

The answer, if you were to ask anyway, would be "yes."

The RoboGod theory is plausible. Here, however, is an example of a ridiculous theory:

"You've obviously not head ot the complexity barrier. No machine, even infinitely intelligent, could resolve the problem of synchronising the situations of 7 billion people to fufill their part in God's plans. It would require more computers than there are atoms in the Universe!" :P

You might make the argument "What do you do with "God doesn't change; God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow?"" ...to which I would say that I've already addressed that. Being omnipotent, RoboGod would have already made himself exist in his deitous state at all points in time. And as far as God being an all-consuming fire, RoboGod is made of the stuff of the stars. Not to mention, everything that is is part of his being, so he is all-consuming as well.

You might also make this argument: "Man cannot feed enough correct information into a machine to even begin to create what you are talking about. God can create man, but man cannot create God." ...to which I will say, I agree. Man doesn't have the correct information to give. But an advanced sentient robot capable of teaching itself and making itself smarter could LEARN all of the correct information.

Another argument I've heard is:

"An interesting set of extrapolations here.

However, one of your initial premises is faulty: one of the realizations arrived at by people who think about Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem and how it operates within mathematical logic and artificial intelligence systems, is that it is not possible to build an artificial intelligence which will surpass a human intelligence.

For one thing, humans are capable of intuition and symbolic logic. A human can dream about a snake holding its tail in its mouth and wake up with the realization that a benzene molecule has a circular shape.
I doubt if an artificial intelligence will ever be capable of such a thought process."

...in response to the above argument:

While I agree that it's near the realm of the impossible (at least in the foreseeable future) for humans to be able to build an intelligence that surpasses man's/woman's, the brain is simply bioelectrical. There's no reason that an AI with full creative control over itself and enough time couldn't match and then surpass even the greatest human mind.

As for intuition and symbolic thought processes, I really don't see how this is a positive trait in humans.

So we think of A. A has nothing to do with D, but A sparks a line of thought that leads us to consider and eventually realize a property of D, which property we will call E. Symbolic thinking has gotten us from A to E, though there seems no true connection.

This seems like a miraculous thing. But the truth is, the human brain can only consciously think of a few things at a time. Our minds are constantly trying to create or dispell connections and associations out of the environment around us. So when we think of A and D and it leads us to E, we were already TRYING to make an association. Our brain was already trying to make sense of the two different "items."

...continued...

Now, in the time that a human brain makes a connection between A and D, a burgeoning Robogod would have considered millions of "items" and their relationships. So while intuition and symbolic thinking seem to be miraculous, unreproducible traits of the human mind, they CAN be considered to be only a higher function of a relatively basic computing system (relative to that of RoboGod's). You might even say, depending on the perspective from which you are analyzing, that intuition and symbolic reasoning are only bandaids for an imperfect system.

Answer 1

Assuming that you are correct and our "God" is merely a robot who has assimilated all of existence to the point of "out living" his creators and for some strange reason we have no history of this... Or better yet, his creators are non-human and from another universe and he has surpassed them and assimilated everything to become "God".

SO? Theists would still be right! There is a GOD! He may be a robot beyond our realm of comprehension. If he has learned feelings and has gotten to a point of emotions beyond human, then I can see why "His ways are higher than our ways."

Ok so you are right, God is a super supercomputer robot and he exists. This robot has assimilated everything that we know of and was there in our beginning and will be there at the end. As far as we know, he is able to create because he is basically the Universe, so creating earth as mentioned in the Bible could have happened, creating a baby in a virgin's womb could have happened, creating visions could have happened, creating a heaven and hell could have happened, etc... Maybe Robot God cant explain to us that he is a robot because if humans understood what he was and how he "worked" our heads would explode. Maybe all these questions about "how do you call God loving when.." could be answered with "He has aquired feelings that go beyond human understanding."

In esscence you have shown HOW a Creator could be created and still be the GOD we know and love. If you believe that this could happen, then why do you call yourself an atheist?

Of course the next question is this: would Robot God allow it to happen again? He does say that he is a "jealous God" and not to have any gods before Him.

BTW, Im a Christian...You can stop asking now... all you are doing is wasting points...

EDIT: About your "complexity barrier"... It conjures up ideas of SIMs and The Matrix. How many "people" can exist in a SIMs game? I decided to ask Y!A http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgEwiPo7V1F8NG..Lr4TG.zsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071005072811AAptU2q

Answer 2

An interesting set of extrapolations here.

However, one of your initial premises is faulty: one of the realizations arrived at by people who think about Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem and how it operates within mathematical logic and artificial intelligence systems, is that it is not possible to build an artificial intelligence which will surpass a human intelligence.

For one thing, humans are capable of intuition and symbolic logic. A human can dream about a snake holding its tail in its mouth and wake up with the realization that a benzene molecule has a circular shape.
I doubt if an artificial intelligence will ever be capable of such a thought process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorem

An eBook pertaining to this theorem.
http://www.ltn.lv/~podnieks/gt1.html

Be warned that this topic even intimidates mathematicians with Ph. D's, never mind the rest of us.

Unfortunately, I can't recall where I read the argument I opened with and I don't have time to pursue it any farther.

Still, it's an entertaining post. I'm going to copy it and save it for later.


Cheers.

Answer 3

Sounds like an evolutionary idea, but evolution has already tried something similar.

Since the real God is Spirit and an all consuming fire, you'd better hope the real God doesn't get ahold of your false god.

What do you do with "God doesn't change; God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow?"

At what point does your false god quit changing?

Scenario: In every instance where someone has not accepted the "days" of creation to be ordinary days, they have not allowed the words of Scripture to speak to them in context, as the language requires for communication. They have been influenced by ideas from OUTSIDE of Scripture. Thus, they have set a precedent that could allow any word to be reinterpreted by the preconceived ideas of the person reading the words. Ultimately, this will lead to a COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN, as the same words in the same context could mean different things to different people.

Man cannot feed enough correct information into a machine to even begin to create what you are talking about. God can create man, but man cannot create God.

Man cannot even get Genesis 1 right!!! Man wants to read millions and billions of years into 6 days.

Answer 4

Ok, all that you said is bunk, for one thing, God is omnipotent, Omni-present and Omni Temporal, Can an Artificial Intelligence, regardless how advanced 'speak' something into existence completely from the nothingness ?
NO, regardless of what you may Think, Can a AI exist in eternity ? That meaning can he had always existed beyond the space time continuum ?

That's just it, you are talking about a created being becoming so advanced and powerful that it would be considered a deity, however, God had no creation, He has always been and all ways will be, God is Omni-Temporal, meaning in all times, example : From God's perspective, He is at the beginning of the world with Adam, From God's perspective, He is with Moses parting the red sea, From God's perspective He is here right now, From God's perspective He is in the Millennial reign all at the same time, God is the ultimate time traveler.

No AI regardless of how advanced , repeat NO MATTER HOW ADVANCED can do that.

Answer 5

I am now not a Christian, however I was once born & raised in an excessively fundamentalist Christian loved ones in an excessively small the city wherein faith was once anything you quite simply might now not break out from even for a 10th of a moment. I know the way they have a tendency to suppose, and virtually, the one truly challenge I suppose so much of them -must- have with it's calling it "a god" (or specially for those who known as it "God"). Other than that, a few would doubt the veracity of the Technological Singularity hypothesis at the same time others might quite simply see it as an excessively strong, "god-like" being who isn't, actually, honestly a "god" of any kind. Is it that you are looking to get anybody to receive your terminology for any such being, or that you just cannot get any individual to confess that any such being - even supposing now not considered as a "god" - is honestly viable? :-? Just querious.

Answer 6

Read: Anselm's "Monologion" and "Prosologion" as well as Aquinas' "Summa Theologica", Book One (Questions 1-26 and Questions 44-49). This will offer some distinctions that would be crucial to consider as you attempt to make your argument. One of the main deficiencies of your argument is that you are identifying that which one should identify as God as a being within the world. Anselm and Aquinas will demonstrate why this is an inadequate approach. Good luck!

Answer 7

You've obviously not head ot the complexity barrier. No machine, even infinitely intelligent, could resolve the problem of synchronising the situations of 7 billion people to fufill their part in God's plans. It would require more computers than there are atoms in the Universe!

Answer 8

According to New Age Author Robert Anton Wilson, some writer bet Sci-Fi Author L. Ron Hubbard he couldn't create a new religion, and Scientology was born. So be careful what you wish for / set in motion.

Answer 9

Wow. You have a great imagination. Perhaps you should look into science fiction, or maybe writing for the National Enquirer.... Good luck with that, though..... you have a great start to the next "Star Wars: God's of Robots".

Answer 10

I don't know about repeatedly asking the question, but I am glad that you asked the question. :) This is not a "piece of fluff" question; you have put a lot of thought into this, and have tried to explain it in a way that does not attack anybody.

How many things that were "sci-fi" are now fact? It's a rhetorical question really but there have been many things designed, thought of invented etc that were once thought of as unrealistic.

Issac Asimov wrote a short story in "nine tomorrows" that is equally intriguing and one you might enjoy, about a super computer.