Dan Dennett is known for his "no good reasons for believing" in God argument. — Pantagruel

That’s ‘cause he believes in science, and he thinks it’s one or the other.

That’s ‘cause he believes in science, and he thinks it’s one or the other. — Wayfarer

Right. So I am assuming he probably believes in the possibility of realizing AI. In which case, per my argument, a fortiori, he should believe in the possibility that human consciousness is itself created...

Personally, I do not believe that we will succeed in creating actual artificial intelligence, only a facsimile. Consequently, this proof does not work for me. However I also do not "actively disbelieve" in the possibility of God, in abstracto.

Dan Dennett is known for his "no good reasons for believing" in God argument. — Pantagruel

I haven't heard of it.

However I also do not "actively disbelieve" in the possibility of God, in abstracto. — Pantagruel

Though like I said, I am not familiar with Dennett's argument, this doesn't sound remotely like your 5-word summary of it.

Though like I said, I am not familiar with Dennett's argument, this doesn't sound remotely like your 5-word summary of it. — SophistiCat

I don't need to summarize his argument if his own beliefs demonstrate the contrary, in the context of my argument. (As I said, even the argument itself proves nothing except that he himself fails to find any good reasons for believing. That's another thread, but one obviated by this one).

I don't follow Dennett, but I checked and he seems to be a very active proponent of strong AI. That's all that is required to substantiate my argument.

I don't need to summarize his argument if his own beliefs demonstrate the contrary — Pantagruel

Contrary of what?

I don't follow Dennett — Pantagruel

So you are just making shit up.

This is a worthless OP.

It's the simplest possible form argument. If A believes in the possibility of x, a fortiori, A acknowledges the possibility of y.

Your inability to follow or comment on the actual argument suggest that the problem lies more on your side rather than mine.

It doesn’t follow that because consciousness can be created by humans that human consciousness must be created too.
I can create ice by putting water in the freezer that doesn’t mean ice that I find outside in the winter is also created by someone.
The fact that something can be created doesn’t mean that it can only be created. Your argument is fallacious sir.

It's the simplest possible form argument. If A believes in the possibility of x, a fortiori, A acknowledges the possibility of y. — Pantagruel

And you are saying that Dennett both believes that God is possible and denies the same? Show me, I am not taking your word for it.

And in any case, as you said, this is a trivial argument. Was it worth starting a thread for it?

It doesn’t follow that because consciousness can be created by humans that human consciousness must be created too. — DingoJones

I didn't say must be created. It follows that if you believe consciousness can be created then you believe consciousness can be created.

Ok, so you don’t seem to really be saying much at all then. You haven’t presented a “good reason” for believing, just acknowledging a possibility.
A - that is one possibility out of a virtual infinity of possibilities and demonstrates nothing.
B - it doesn’t refute anything you say Dennett claims.

I’m afraid your argument is still fallacious.

Ok, so you don’t seem to really be saying much at all then. You haven’t presented a “good reason” for believing, just acknowledging a possibility.
A - that is one possibility out of a virtual infinity of possibilities and demonstrates nothing.
B - it doesn’t refute anything you say Dennett claims.

I’m afraid your argument is still fallacious. — DingoJones

What I am saying is that if Dennett (or anyone) believes that consciousness can be created, a fortiori, he must believe that his own consciousness could be created. And since being the creator of consciousness is one of the most important properties (if not the most important) usually ascribed to the concept of God, if Dennett (or anyone) believes that consciousness can be created, he a fortiori believes in the possibility of God.

How is that fallacious?

It’s fallacious as an argument against a position Dennett holds. You started by quoting Dennett, “good reason” being the two key words. You have not provided a “good reason” to believe...something being possible is not a good reason to believe in it. So your argument in no way refutes what Dennett said. Dennett isnt denying the possibility, he is denying that there are good reasons.

It’s fallacious as an argument against a position Dennett holds. You started by quoting Dennett, “good reason” being the two key words. You have not provided a “good reason” to believe...something being possible is not a good reason to believe in it. So your argument in no way refutes what Dennett said. Dennett isnt denying the possibility, he is denying that there are good reasons. — DingoJones

I'm not arguing against Dennett explicitly, as I made clear. What I am doing is presenting my own argument, which amounts to a type of "ontological proof," which establishes Dennett's position as self-contradictory. Hence casting doubt on the whole "reasons for believing" approach in the first place.

i thought that what my main argument was was pretty clear, inasmuch as it was both stated and short.

If Dennett has "good reasons" for believing in strong AI then he as equally good reasons for believing in God.....

No, his good reasons for believing in “strong AI” are not thats it’s possible. There is an entire branch of science that give good reasons to think AI is possible contrasted by no such scientific field to source for good reasons god exists. All believing in god has is naked possibility, like any number of absurd possibilities I could name. You are making a false equivalence between a possibility (not a good reason to believe anything) and good scientific reasons. The former is all belief in god has going for it and the latter has both but more importantly it has a basis in science and rationality.
You have shown no self contradiction to what you have claimed Dennetts position is because your argument is fallacious...a false equivalence is a fallacy.

No, his good reasons for believing in “strong AI” are not thats it’s possible. There is an entire branch of science that give good reasons to think AI is possible contrasted by no such scientific field to source for good reasons god exists. All believing in god has is naked possibility, — DingoJones

No, this is precisely not the case, which is the entire point of my post. The only germaine possibility is the possibility of creating consciousness. If you hold that human beings can create consciousness, then consciousness can be created. End of story, nothing more is required than that. If AI were created, it would only strengthen the argument for the existence of God. As it is, it validates the possibility to the extent that it is believed to be possible.

You are arguing a strawman.

I’ve reached the limit of my willingness to explain it to you. It’s not remotely a strawman argument I’m making. I suspect you think that because you do not understand the logic of what you are saying so it seems like I’m creating a strawman but unfortunately for your “argument” the premiss and logic I’m using is yours. It’s just that it’s fallacious, as in logically fallacious. You haven’t actually addressed that at all.
Or you just don’t understand what a strawman actually is.

Consciousness is consciousness. There's no equivocation possible.

Brilliant.

I accept that consciousness is created. But who says it is created by god? It could be created by a salamander. Or a black hole in the vast expanse of the universe. They are NOT GOD.

You seem to INSIST that consciousness is created by god. Why are you so sure about that?

I accept that consciousness is created. But who says it is created by god? It could be created by a salamander. Or a black hole in the vast expanse of the universe. They are NOT GOD. — god must be atheist

If consciousness can be created intentionally, then our consciousness could have been created intentionally. All it does is put the concept of god on equal footing with whatever other theories you would care to propound in good faith as having produced consciousness.

Again, I am not conceding that consciousness, can be created intentionally. I believe all AI will ever be is a sophisticated facsimile. It's only if you actually do believe it that this argument has force.

And yes, I am saying that if something has the property "It created our consciousness intentionally", then it matches in a very broad sense a key feature of a god, as we commonly understand it.

Creation involves a creator. One scenario necessarily involves creators while the other doesn’t. I don’t see any contradiction here.

Creation involves a creator. One scenario necessarily involves creators while the other doesn’t. I don’t see any contradiction here. — NOS4A2

Exactly. They are equally possible.

A lot of people believe or think or hope or fear that human beings will be able one day to create artificial intelligence, machine consciousness. I submit, if it is believed possible for humans to create consciousness, why should it be any less possible for human consciousness to be created? — Pantagruel

So the argument is that, if it is possible for us to create machine consciousness, then it is possible that a deity created human consciousness.

Sure. But this goes nowhere towards demonstrating that human consciousness was created by a deity.

SO it's a non-starter as a reason to believe in god.

Unless you happen to believe in strong AI. Which Daniel Dennett demonstrably does. And his 'no good reasons for believing' foundational argument explicitly contradicts that consciousness, what we are, could be created.

Unless you happen to believe in strong AI. — Pantagruel

What?

As in, put your argument together, because as it stands it doesn't work. You seems to have:

There is no good reason to believe in god; Strong AI; if it is possible for us to create machine consciousness, then it is possible that a deity created human consciousness; therefore god exists.

I didn't say that god exists. I said that something that can be described as "the creator of consciousness" possibly exists to the same extent that you believe in strong AI. That's all. However a believer reconciles those two beliefs, if an atheist, is that believer's business. I don't believe the strong AI premise myself.

SO put your argument together. You have a conclusion:

'Something that can be described as "the creator of consciousness"'

You perhaps have as a premiss:

'Human beings will be able one day to create artificial intelligence, machine consciousness'

Can you fill in the gaps?

You're pinning "intentention" on my post as the process of creation of consciousness. That is unfair, although it makes no difference whatsoever.

You say god creates consciousness. (I think you are saying that; correct me if I am wrong, please.) I agree with your\ if you say you believe god creates consciousness. But I highly doubt your authenticity and your being right if you say you KNOW god creates consciousness. An entity that you don't have any clue about (since the entity has never ever revealed anything of the entity's self) is not something that you can hang such an important role on, realistically speaking, as creating consciousness (intentionally or not). God never revealed any of its qualities or attributes; it never even revealed it exists; and yet you speak of an ability of god as god's own private and exclusive ability.

↪Pantagruel You're pinning "intentention" on my post as the process of creation of consciousness. That is unfair, although it makes no difference whatsoever. — god must be atheist

Again, it was strictly a hypothetical, "if you believe in strong AI and if you also believe in atheism" then those positions lead to contradictory conclusions. For me personally, the jury is still out.

I didn't expect so much reaction to the logical form of the argument itself - obviously it isn't as self-evident to others as it is to me!

Dan Dennett is known for his "no good reasons for believing" in God argument. I always found this more or less a cop out on his part. This really amounts to saying that he can't come up with any.... — Pantagruel

Wrong interpretation. He says he has heard pretty much every (traditional and loopy) reason people give and none of these pass standards of reason or evidence. Nothing wrong with that. Most atheists argue this way and use the shorthand phrase "no good reasons for believing". However if you accept the theistic claims made by people who argue from personal experience or mysticism then you may consider Dennett's position vulnerable.