I am not very impressed with theological arguments whatever they may be used to support. Such arguments have often been found unsatisfactory in the past. In the time of Galileo it was argued that the texts, 'And the sun stood still... and hasted not to go down about a whole day' (Joshua x. 13) and 'He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not move at any time' (Psalm cv. 5) were an adequate refutation of the Copernican theory.

A man provided with paper, pencil, and rubber, and subject to strict discipline, is in effect a universal machine.

The original question, 'Can machines think?' I believe to be too meaningless to deserve discussion.

One day ladies will take their computers for walks in the park and tell each other, "My little computer said such a funny thing this morning".

In attempting to construct such (artificially intelligent) machines we should not be irreverently usurping His (God's) power of creating souls, any more than we are in the procreation of children,” Turing had advised. “Rather we are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates.

We are not interested in the fact that the brain has the consistency of cold porridge.

If a machine is expected to be infallible, it cannot also be intelligent.