g- the man said, “I don’t believe AI is possible because only God can make a soul.”
”...If I can make an AI it proves your religion false?”
Somebody in this exchange has equated the making of an AI with the making of a soul. That’s why I would suggest that the words have been confused.
An AI is not a soul would be useful in this discussion because it would clarify that the making of one would not invalidate the existence of the other or the statement that “only God can make a soul”.
Comparing the two notions would not be a problem, equating them is.
You seem somewhat willing to (at least partially)accept the existence of AI based on bizarre hypothesis.
If you would give me some idea of what sort of evidence you would accept for the existence of a soul, I would be happy to supply it if I can.
Thank-you for your interesting comment re: Aumann.
g- the man said, “I don’t believe AI is possible because only God can make a soul.” ”...If I can make an AI it proves your religion false?” Somebody in this exchange has equated the making of an AI with the making of a soul. That’s why I would suggest that the words have been confused. An AI is not a soul would be useful in this discussion because it would clarify that the making of one would not invalidate the existence of the other or the statement that “only God can make a soul”. Comparing the two notions would not be a problem, equating them is. You seem somewhat willing to (at least partially)accept the existence of AI based on bizarre hypothesis. If you would give me some idea of what sort of evidence you would accept for the existence of a soul, I would be happy to supply it if I can. Thank-you for your interesting comment re: Aumann.