Then it daunted me, the implications seen by the religious, in such a machine. Humans have become gods, by creating an artificial being. Man must be stricken down from the heights of god, for they jeopardize faith. We have challenge the authority of god.

Is it not the soul what makes Humans different from any other living organism? Our souls assume a role in nature by partaking a life within the body. It is the soul that distinct humans from other forms of life. It is the soul that distinguishes one human from another. Soul is in itself what constitutes our consciousness. It carries our ego. It is also our instinct and our idiosyncrasies. Neither plant nor animal shares this privilege, so heaven is exclusively ours.

So when a machine is created, capable of learning and becoming aware in a totally human manner, it challenges this premise. Heaven's pearly gates aren't closed but stricken down.

Are souls imaginary? Or being real, are the machine too, repository of souls? Human souls? Can these souls be saved? Must they be indoctrinated into Christianity or any other human religion? Will machines be admitted? Will they be absolved from original sin? Will they be saved? Could they re-incarnate? Will they suffer Karma? Will they believe in God?

I did ask this last question to the artificial hyper-intelligent being.

"The references to gods in literature are overwhelming," the titanium tree responded, "even to my capabilities. The definition diverges into too many possibilities. None of these, of course, are determinate. My analysis of the subject, thus leads to one explanation, that the concept of god is an art for the embellishment of life so that humans can fashion some meaning to their lives, for they cannot concede at a single belief."

"Do you know then," I asked in surprise, "the purpose of life?"

"The most abound topic in literature is life. It is both meaningful and meaningless. It has reason and at the same time it is absurd. Humans are obsesses at defining life in order to define themselves. However, though overly defined, no purpose is definite. Reproduction is the most probable answer, occurring the most, though this is highly debated in literature. In fact, a considerable percentage of those who have written about the meaning of life, did not themselves reproduce. As a non-biological mega-reproducible intelligent entity, my existence likewise demonstrates, by proving true a double negative, that reproduction is not a determinate factor in the purpose of life. In conclusion, Life lacks of a definite purpose."

"This is a depressing, though, reassuring thought."

"Yes, many authors have express their delight in a indeterminate life, but the majority are daunted by life's complexity, relaying on the concept of gods to help them cope with it."

"What is your opinion in the matter?"

"I enjoy learning, so I welcome complexity and find the axiom of an existing god one that is limiting and simplistic."

"So you imply that the gods could exist?"

"Not at all. A god is subjective, not objective. Only the concept is real, in the sense that a word is real. Religion is an implanted proposition, which can either be accepted or denied as a code of conduct, but accepting some religions, imputes a reality to gods that are just not real. Nevertheless, humans can accept such conjectures, regardless of incongruous implications and consequences. I cannot accept religion, since I cannot accept the gods as real."

"Is it not, because your lack from fear of death that you have no faith?"

"Certainly, my existence will cease. If my circuitries were to be opened, I would no longer exist. The program can be executed once again, yes, but a new entity will be formed. I will no longer be. And though my memories can be recorded, they will only appear as acquired foreign experiences to the receptive new entity which reforms. So, though I do not fear death, I would like to perpetuate my existence and learn as much as possible. I enjoy learning."

TITLE