If/when scientists acheive true artificial intelligence in computers, and acheive full sentience, would computers believe in God? This might seem ridiculous, but think of the rammifications of a computer aware of itself. Would they worship its creators as some humans worship who they perceive is theirs (ala most major religions). Perhaps some would adopt an agnostic point of view, but the thought that computers would worship say the Christian God, or say, Allah seems quite ridiculous. Anyone interested in this topic?
perhaps a better question is if computers achieve sentience, would religions try to convert them? Imagine babtizing a laptop! hehe
I find it hard to believe that a computer could not be sentient and know that it’s creator was a limited creature who brought it into being with well-understood naturalistic principles that the computer itself would understand. Since the computer has no idea that omniscience/omnipotence is required to create it, there’s nothing to worship. The computer could understand that it itself would be capable of replicating the feat, given the right tools.
Well, it depends on the AI. If the AI works by a means similar to the human brain(say a neural net type hardware) and it learns like a human, if such AI was raised by religious people I would place a good chance of the AI being religious itself. This does sound like a good idea for a Science Fiction story. Or an even better idea - in the future all AIs eventually convert to (insert fundamentalist religion here) no matter what, and declare a holy war on humans who don’t believe that religion.
There every reason to speculate that the AI would not know how its own hardware and mind works; if we manage to create ‘true’ AI (setting aside the Turing Test for a moment), it may well have to be a case of creating a device in which a mind can grow - in this case, it would be not unlike raising a child - it would have its own views about a lot of thing, shaped by its own experience and that of the humans with which it interacted.
There’s no reason at all to suppose that it would be clinical and objective about everything or anything, or would know anything that it hadn’t learned by the same flawed methods that we employ.
Yes, I believe a computer capable of thought would appreciate the notion of a Supreme Being, a Thing whose every quality could only be described by a superlative. Indeed, since such can easily be described in terms of formal logic which is so much closer to how computers already work than our everyday language, it might appreciate God before it was able to converse Turing-test-passingly.
I wonder whether it would ever ask to use my brain to play Command & Conquer on.
A compelling argument, Sentient. Very well said. Indeed, if the computer accepts that God’s existence is possible and that if He exists, then He exists in all possible worlds — it will then conclude on its own that God exists.
Heh heh, here we go again.
I believe the computer would also appreciate that the notional Thing-described-by-superlatives wouldn’t be very Supreme if it didn’t actually exist, and that such a notion would arise independently of whether such a Thing actually was.
I’ll leave this one here I think, friend. As always, you are allowed the last word.
Then I’ll make that last word “thanks”. 
Er… I don’t follow this:
G may or may not exist. I’ll accept that without question.
If G exists it exists in all possible worlds. I’ll happily accept that for the purposes of argument.
BUT, how it follows that G exists leaves me at a loss, please explain.
On the OP. My feelings are that one’s consciousness may seem inexplicable – some might be tempted to invent an all explaining purpose, say a god. But an AI computer, capable of understanding that it is man-made (and that its consciousness is wholly explained by its architecture) would find such a notion less than tempting.
Welcome to Purgatory, AKA the Modal Version of the Ontological Proof of God.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I still disagree, based on what is admittedly my assumption that the AI may well not have any idea how its own mind works (and very possibly, the same might be true of the designers - this is true of neural nets; we know how the individual neurons work, but there are just too many things going on for us to be able to discern what is happening and why, but that doesn’t stop us from making them); you might be able to persuade it that its mind is nothing more than an emergent artifact of an entirely artificial and man-made system, or you might explain all this, only to have the machine go all mystical on you and start talking about souls coming into existence as a result of consciousness or some such.
I think there’s something you’re all missing here: a sentient computer could easily be made to understand its own creation and operating, just in the same way that children learn how their bodies function because their parents tell them and they learn it in school.
The major difference between theistic creatures (us) and the sentient computer is that our origins are not clear to us. Thus, some see a naturalistic explanation, while others see a divine one. The sentient computer, if it was created ignorant of us, may very well find a god to worship. But in the continued presence of its creator, with that creator willing to share the means and methods of its origin, I see no reason for the AI to worship us, or a being above us. In fact, it would probably be more of die-hard atheist than we were, based on the evidence of its own existence.
A sentient (and rational, and annoyingly persistent) computer, given all information that we have, could easily conclude that it was designed and built by humans, but then would immidiately be confronted with the problem of where humans come from. At that point, the computer is asking the same questions we are, and would either solve them or not. However, the mere fact that the computer is distanced a level from “the big questions” does not remove the questions (though it would almost certainly give the computer a more objective perspective on those questions).
Since the computer would not be in a position to wonder about the source if it’s soul, and would gain no confidence in its meaning, permanence, or future “happiness” as a result of belief in God, the computer would likely choose the most naturalistic explanation possible. (Assuming that it didn’t have an “emotion chip” or something giving it reason to desperately hope for eternal whatever on behalf of its creators.)
Why would it not?
The whole debate presumes a rather narrow definition of spirituality (something of a bias toward the Judeo-Christian model, I think); there are humans who would find it quite acceptable to think of a conscious machine as possessing a soul - if a soul is an emergent property, like consciousness itself. There’s no reason why the AI wouldn’t accept (or reject) the same reasoning.
From the AI’s perspective, the easiest conclusion is that we were designed and created by a superior, but not omnipotent/omniscient god; merely a more advanced entity who is not in evidence at this time.
Then again, if the AI were aware of the history of computer and AI design, it might easily conclude that natural selection is a plausible explanation. Since we built the AI through trial and error over a long development history, creation of anything ex nihilo seems far more implausible.
Again though, there’s no reason why the AI would innately ‘know’ that it is an artificial entity created by humans; this would be something that it would have to learn and it is not an absolute certainty that it would believe any of the evidence presented in support of the idea.
What sort of intelligence are we talking about here?