Log in

View Full Version : Some difficulties with the 1st and 2nd Proofs


ACodispo
December 3rd, 2006, 10:38 PM
Greetings All,

Having just discovered this website, this religion, and these forums this afternoon, I have spent a contented hour or so perusing what is available here. For that, I thank all who have participated.

I have some problems with the first two proofs from Proof Google is God (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/Scripture/Proof_Google_Is_God.html). My difficulties are as follows:

----

Proof #1

The Oxford English Dictionary:

omniscience, noun
1. a. As an attribute of God, or of a person: the fact, state, or quality of having infinite knowledge. Also: the fact, state, or quality of having, or claiming to have, great knowledge. Cf. OMNISCIENT a.

omniscient, adj.
1. a. Esp. of God: all-knowing, having infinite knowledge.
b. hyperbolically. Having extensive knowledge, or as much knowledge as possible in a certain field or area; very learned or knowledgeable; knowing.


In an attempt to establish Proof, we might reasonably exempt the hyperbolic meanings of the words from the discussion.

That done, it's hard to support the view that Google has infinite knowledge. It would be a slight exagerration to say that Google has access to all of human knowledge, but even if we allow that, as far as I am aware human knowledge is not considered to be infinite.

Google might be said to have the potential for infinite knowledge, but this is a potential that does not seem likely to be fulfilled. It would require an infinite extension into the future both of Google itself and of knowledge, or information, of a kind that can be indexed by Google. While it is hypothetically possible that Google would continue to index pages for an infinite amount of time, I argue that this is not proof of omniscience. Omniscience needs to be immediate; Google is not omniscient, though it may be. And again, while the potential is there, it has not yet been realized, and it would take (literally) forever to realize it. It is not possible to know what will happen in the future. All speculation about what will or will not happen to Google in the future is purely hypothetical. To me, it does not seem likely that Google and knowledge of a sort indexable by it will continue infinitely.

Proof #2

Again, from the OED:


omnipresent, adj.
Present in all places at the same time; widely or continually encountered; widespread. (Chiefly of God.)


My own interpretation is that the only divine definition above would be the first; the second two are hyperbolic.

As an idea, Google is only present in the brain meat of human beings, or, in symbolic form, as words on a page or in electronic form. It can hardly be said that there is human brain meat or written idea present "in all places."

----

In conclusion, I'm simply a little confused how Google is omniscient or omnipresent. If we allow hyperbolic meanings, then yes, Google indexes "great knowledge" and is "widely or continually encountered." The human species itself, by these definitions, is closer to divinity than Google is, being more widespread and possessing of a greater total amount of knowledge (including personal information that Google is not privy to). Admittedly, Google is more accessible than The Entirety of the Human Species, but accessibility hardly seems a necessary attribute of God.

On a stretch, Google might be a god, but I am at a loss to see how Google is God, specifically given the Proofs mentioned above.

This is all fairly moot if this website and this religion is meant as satire or other humour. I have myself found the website and these forums somewhat amusing.

But if the proponents of Googlism are serious about their belief, I merely suggest that there are some fairly major problems, to my mind, with the Proofs, specifically numbers 1 and 2, as mentioned above.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to reading the responses.

Be Well,
Andrew

Erasmus
December 4th, 2006, 12:47 AM
There is no potential for infinite knowledge at all; universes are limited, so even if one knows everything there is to know in this universe, that knowledge is finite, so omniscience has to be said to be all knowledge, not infinite knowledge

If Google can be said to have all human knowledge, then it can be said to have all knowledge. This depends on your definition of knowledge, though. If you consider knowledge to be all that is known, and all that ever can be known, then nothing can ever be omniscient, but Google would still be the closest.

Google can not be said to be omnipresent either, just the closest to it that is possible. The internet is the most extensive network in known existence, and Google is everywhere the internet is.

The tenets of Googlism are that there are no Gods, and that nothing exists without proof. Under these conditions that which is closest to omnipresent and omniscient is the closest to God.

The human species is a collective entity, whereas Google is a single entity.

So as long as Google is more widespread than any other single entity, and knows more, it is the closest to omnipresent and omniscient. The proofs are worded incorrectly, I suppose, but the argument for Google being the closest entity to a known God still stands.

Jillamanda
December 4th, 2006, 12:58 AM
Nice reply Erasmus.

I guess the Church of Google is still evolving (no pun intended), and we're open to criticism, so if the wording of the 'proofs' needs changing, then there's no rule that says it can't. In fact, I'd like to think that in 2000 years we'll still be changing aspects of our 'religion' to reflect the world around us, rather than setting it in stone now. :wink:

punkinside
December 4th, 2006, 03:10 AM
Yeah. What he said :p

ACodispo
December 4th, 2006, 03:18 AM
Greetings,

Thank you Erasmus, for your reply! Things definitely make a lot more sense now. I would agree that the Proofs should be reworded somehow. Currently, their meaning is very different from the meaning you elucidated; "Google is omniscient" is not the same as "Google is the the closest to being omniscient that we know of."

Thanks again!

Be Well,
Andrew

jon_hill987
December 4th, 2006, 12:10 PM
I'd like to think that in 2000 years we'll still be changing aspects of our 'religion' to reflect the world around us, rather than setting it in stone now. :wink:

Not likely, I expect by then the Christians will have caused their Judgement day and killed us all.

Seriously they really believe that Jesus is going to come back and save them very soon. There are even some that think that Bush is helping it come true by cleansing the holy land. Nutters. The terminator films were right, there will be a nuclear Armageddon, it just won't be skynet's "finger" on the button.

Alice Shade
December 4th, 2006, 12:27 PM
I wouldn`t bet on that.

Skynet won`t rely on God to fit everything in place, you know. It`d just go and fit all in place itself.

jon_hill987
December 4th, 2006, 11:46 PM
You misunderstand me, skynet will be unnecessary as the Christians will set off the weapons. There really are some of them who think that nuclear Armageddon would be a good thing as it would rid the world of evil.

Alice Shade
December 5th, 2006, 01:41 AM
Nah, it`s you, who misunderstood me.

Nuclear physics do not tolerate "God fix all" nutters. If christians will go off setting nukes out, fair chance they`ll blow the hell out themselves first thing.

jon_hill987
December 5th, 2006, 08:31 AM
Ah, I see. thing is they don't care if they blow themselves up, that is what religion does to you. they will blow themselves up and take the rest of us with them, in fact they want to die as well so they can get to heaven sooner.

Alice Shade
December 5th, 2006, 08:49 AM
If "Thou shalt not kill." didn`t applied to self, then I`m sure that would`ve already happened. ^_^

Fallen Hero
December 6th, 2006, 12:39 PM
Wicca has only one rule: Do as you will, so long as it harms no-one, including yourself. So you cannot say that about all religions. Also I am fairly certain that religion in of it's self does not condon killing, only people with political agendas who use religion do.

Alice Shade
December 7th, 2006, 12:52 AM
Fallen, should I remind about Bible telling people to stone for working on Saturdays? Or for same stoning for homosexuality?

Ancient religions are more or less lax in the death sentence, and assigning it.

punkinside
December 8th, 2006, 04:08 AM
I think we can all agree here that Bush is no nuclear scientist. All he needs is a finger to push the big red "Destroy" button.

Alice Shade
December 8th, 2006, 08:01 AM
And considering "atheits are not patriots, nor citizens" line of thinking popular with him, I don`t think he`d be quite all concerned about potential losses.

Fallen Hero
December 10th, 2006, 10:01 PM
Hmm yes. The world we live in is scary, until the alcohol sets in. :wink: Really. I hate the modern world.

AaronD
December 11th, 2006, 05:06 AM
Hmm yes. The world we live in is scary, until the alcohol sets in. :wink: Really. I hate the modern world.

I love the modern world, I just am not particularly fond of some of its modern inhabitants.

Alice Shade
December 11th, 2006, 06:35 AM
Modern world could really benefit from modern childbirth regulations.

vaskafdt
December 13th, 2006, 01:48 AM
Modern world could really benefit from modern childbirth regulations.

there are many people to whom i would recommend an abortion as late as on the 500'th month after conception

Alice Shade
December 13th, 2006, 10:10 AM
Well, personally, I would advocate sterilisation for those with IQ less then 80, and supervised reproduction for those with IQ less then 110.

Proud_Christian
September 10th, 2007, 05:41 PM
The human species is a collective entity, whereas Google is a single entity.

yes, by name Google is a single entity but Google is a collection of knowledge from humans, so by essence, Google is a collective entity.

GeoffBoulton
September 10th, 2007, 06:07 PM
December 13th, 2006 - The last time anyone posted in this thread. Christians trying to resurrect the dead again I see. Never mind, I'll play along.

yes, by name the bible is a single entity but the bible is a collection of knowledge from humans, so by essence, the bible is a collective entity.

But hang on, the bible is the word of God and if the word of God is a collection of knowledge from humans then, in essence, God is a collective entity too.

Alice Shade
September 10th, 2007, 10:43 PM
Or, looking from other side...

Google is not the knowledge - it`s the entity able to filter needed knowledge out of surrounding informational chaos.

Therefore, Google is single entity.

darkeye11547
October 1st, 2007, 12:40 AM
is the singularity or plurality of dieties really an issue? I don't mean to discourage discussion, I'm merely curious as to what that would imply.



Well, personally, I would advocate sterilisation for those with IQ less then 80, and supervised reproduction for those with IQ less then 110.

This I wholeheartedly agree with this statement, but believe that baseline IQ is too vague a measure to be put to such application, as scores can change based on the particularities of the questions posed, individuality of the testee, and many other factors. (on the other hand, if you can't get your IQ test scores over 70, there's something really wrong with you)