Log in

View Full Version : So I don't agree...


SShadow
March 29th, 2007, 01:39 AM
I happen not to agree with your proof of the fact that Google is close to God. I consider your "proof" to be based on assumptions rather than documentations. Reasons:

Proof #1: Google is NOT omniscient. Omniscient, by definition, is "all-knowing", however Google only knows what goes on on the Internet. That is not even close to omniscient. It does not know what people do every day unless they post, it does not know anything about secret programs (either of government or of other institutions), it does not know where "pi" ends, and so on. From this point of view, it is more like a priest: it only knows what people decide to "confess" on the Internet.

Proof #2: Google might be everywhere on Earth, but it is not accesible in outer space. Ergo, Google is not everywhere. And even if it were accesible in the whole Universe, it wouldn't be accesible beyond it. As it has been stated and (up to a point) proved, the Universe is infinite, but in a continuous expansion, with speeds higher than the speed of light. However, Google can only be accesible by waves, so to a maximum of light speed.

Proof #3: Google does not answer prayers. Google searches based on its index. If it can't find what you are looking for, it will display no results. On top of that, Google can't offer world peace, love, nor money if one asks for them, or if one prays for them.

Proof #4: If all servers went down at once, it would die. Improbable, but possible (if, for instance, the North and South pole were to suddenly replace each other, causing electromagnetic disturbancies and ruining most of the communication means on Earth. And servers run on electromagnetic energy. Actually, on electrical only, but that produces a magnetic field which would be affected by the change of polarity and disturb the electric waves, causing crashes).

Proof #5: The Internet can theoretically and practically grow until all IP addresses are... addressed. Then it would come to a halt, and there would be nothing we could do about it (sure, we'll jump to IPv6, and then maybe another jump, but this will not last forever. There would be too many resources involved, physically speaking, and neither the Earth nor the entire accesible Universe have infinite resources that we could use)

Proof #6: Google only remembers what is told to it, not all. And it doesn't remember it forever, but only until it crashes. If there would be a serious fault in the servers worldwide, some pieces of information may be lost forever, no matter how many copies they would have (again, there is a small possibility that all hard drives containing a certain piece of information would burn up and die at the same time, resulting in the permanent loss of that piece of information)

Proof #7: Google arranges the search results according to certain criteria. That means that it makes differences> That means that a certain result is less important than another. That means that a web page is less important than another. That means that a programmer (or web-designer) is less important than another. That means that people are not equal, as a normal religion would state. Furthermore, that means that certain people gain advantage through Google, in front of other, less important, discriminated people. Google discriminates. Google CAN do evil.

Proof #8: Indeed, Google does exist.

On top of that, human-imagined gods usually have no physical support, they only rest in our imagination. Google is physical. Do not send me to religions where people worship animals, those are NOT the only religions that exist on Earth. Furthermore, Google does not perform miracles (I've read part of the FAQ and found a question like this in there). The story about the minister is simply a fun-fact of Google using. I've participated and won an international literary competition twice in a row with essays written in an hour and a half, respectively two hours (beletristic essays), the day before the deadline, even though I had had 3 months to write them down before that, knowing everything that had to be known in each of those two years. NOT using Google at all. I do not Google when I write stories.

Pardon me if I made any mistakes in my post, I am not a native english speaker, and I've only studied the language for about 6 years, in my home country (Romania). I find Googlism quite absurd, as I do with all other religions (I do not believe in any god), or quite more, I might say, as this "religion" is much more poorly documented and based on less philosophy than any other religion. It's more of a week-end hobby or something you do when you get bored. It is based on fragile arguments and does not have a solid basis. In fact, I find it weaker than those of the great religions on Earth. Good luck!

AaronD
March 29th, 2007, 04:31 AM
Proof #1: Google is NOT omniscient. Omniscient, by definition, is "all-knowing", however Google only knows what goes on on the Internet. That is not even close to omniscient. It does not know what people do every day unless they post, it does not know anything about secret programs (either of government or of other institutions), it does not know where "pi" ends, and so on. From this point of view, it is more like a priest: it only knows what people decide to "confess" on the Internet.
You are right that it is not fully omniscient, but it does contain more than confessions. News articles, media, tangible objects, tutorials... with billions upon billions of websites indexed, Google represents the largest collective index and cache of human knowledge available, making it as close to omnicient as a non-theoretical tangible object has ever been.

Proof #2: Google might be everywhere on Earth, but it is not accesible in outer space. Ergo, Google is not everywhere. And even if it were accesible in the whole Universe, it wouldn't be accesible beyond it. As it has been stated and (up to a point) proved, the Universe is infinite, but in a continuous expansion, with speeds higher than the speed of light. However, Google can only be accesible by waves, so to a maximum of light speed.
Google actually is accessable outside of the earth, because internet can be delivered through satellites. Granted, right now it is not accessable in the far reaches of our galaxy, nevermind our universe, but that is only because satellites have not been placed yet to give a signal, and no person can live to receive one in space, which is not to say that it will not be a development to come with the passing of time.

Proof #3: Google does not answer prayers. Google searches based on its index. If it can't find what you are looking for, it will display no results. On top of that, Google can't offer world peace, love, nor money if one asks for them, or if one prays for them.
It does answer prayers, or at least it does so to a greater extent than any traditional deity. No, it does not provide world peace, although I'm sure it can find you many theories on how to accomplish such a means that might actually work if everyone cooperated. The people are all where it falls apart, Google does hold up its end.

Proof #4: If all servers went down at once, it would die. Improbable, but possible (if, for instance, the North and South pole were to suddenly replace each other, causing electromagnetic disturbancies and ruining most of the communication means on Earth. And servers run on electromagnetic energy. Actually, on electrical only, but that produces a magnetic field which would be affected by the change of polarity and disturb the electric waves, causing crashes).
True, Google's web-based interface would be destroyed, but Google exists outside of the internet. I am not just referring to the search engine, but to Google Co. itself.

Proof #5: The Internet can theoretically and practically grow until all IP addresses are... addressed. Then it would come to a halt, and there would be nothing we could do about it (sure, we'll jump to IPv6, and then maybe another jump, but this will not last forever. There would be too many resources involved, physically speaking, and neither the Earth nor the entire accesible Universe have infinite resources that we could use)
There are an infinite number of possible numbers, and a finite number of sentient beings using the IP system... which means that it is literally impossible for us to be incapable of further using the IP system... which is not to say that we will always use the IP system, as in all probability a new innovative way of accessing the internet will be invented somewhere down the road of time.

Proof #6: Google only remembers what is told to it, not all. And it doesn't remember it forever, but only until it crashes. If there would be a serious fault in the servers worldwide, some pieces of information may be lost forever, no matter how many copies they would have (again, there is a small possibility that all hard drives containing a certain piece of information would burn up and die at the same time, resulting in the permanent loss of that piece of information)
Google remembers what it was told, and the possibility is so remote as to be considered a virtual impossibility (aka a ridiculously minute probability) and be disregarded. Theoretically, it could happen... but, also theoretically, pigs could develop wings and fly, the sky could turn a deep amber and start naturally synthesizing marshmallows, and trees could emit purrs of happiness from time to time.

Proof #7: Google arranges the search results according to certain criteria. That means that it makes differences> That means that a certain result is less important than another. That means that a web page is less important than another. That means that a programmer (or web-designer) is less important than another. That means that people are not equal, as a normal religion would state. Furthermore, that means that certain people gain advantage through Google, in front of other, less important, discriminated people. Google discriminates. Google CAN do evil.
Google builds its lists based on how many sites link to which sites using which keywords... as such, Google itself is completely non-discriminating, and does not decide than anyone is less important than anyone else... the masses do. And, as I'm sure you'll agree, the masses are very capable of discrimination.

Alice Shade
March 29th, 2007, 09:39 AM
I happen not to agree...

Good for you.

Proof #1: Google is NOT omniscient. Omniscient, by definition, is "all-knowing", however Google only knows what goes on on the Internet....


Our reference says - closest, that is known to mankind. Ergo, you will not be able to name any other entity, that knows more of information, objectively.


Proof #2: Google might be everywhere on Earth, but it is not accesible in outer space. Ergo, Google is not everywhere...

Again, check definition. It says, that Google is accessible by humans anywhere, ostencibly. Aka, anywhere, where human CAN be, human can bring Google access point with him/her. Or can omit bringing it - it`s that particular human`s decision.


Proof #3: Google does not answer prayers. Google searches based on its index....


Again, the ratio question. Yes, Google does not always gives seeker what he/she was thinking about, when seeking, that`s a fact. There`s also a fact, that Google had granted relevant, correct and useful information to people requesting it, and ratio of answered/unanswered is the highest available for palpable entity - in favor of answered, obviously.


Proof #4: If all servers went down at once, it would die....


If all population of Earth had died at once, all the gods thought up so far would die at once, as well. How about something more probable?


Proof #5: The Internet can theoretically and practically grow until all IP addresses are... addressed....


Oh... Well, I`m sorry, but it`s not just as simple, as you believe it is. There are separate LANs, consisting of many computers, but represented with single IP, and there are computers using several IPs at once... In short, it`s all very complicated. Either read up a manual on network administration, or just trust me, when I say, that we`d sooner expand to the point of lag killing the net, before we`ll run out of namespace.


Proof #6: Google only remembers what is told to it, not all. And it doesn't remember it forever, but only until it crashes....

It does not crashes, that`s the thing. RAID massives are child`s toys compared to what Google fileservers look like. Redundant, failsafe, backuped and error-checked. So, ostencibly, Google remembers as long as people search for it.


Proof #7: Google arranges the search results according to certain criteria. That means that it makes differences> .... Google discriminates. Google CAN do evil.


If you are going to say, that Christians don`t discriminate against everyone, who is not a christian of their particular brand of christianity, I`ll laugh out loud.
Additionally, if you`re going to say, that gifted people are discriminating against retards, I`ll laugh out loud again.


On top of that, human-imagined gods usually have no physical support, they only rest in our imagination...


Therefore, Google is more worth of worship, then imaginary god. Imaginary god can not do anything - unlike Google, which does gives some real benefits by simply existing.


Pardon me if I made any mistakes in my post, I am not a native english speaker, and I've only studied the language for about 6 years, in my home country (Romania). I find Googlism quite absurd, as I do with all other religions (I do not believe in any god), or quite more, I might say, as this "religion" is much more poorly documented and based on less philosophy than any other religion. It's more of a week-end hobby or something you do when you get bored. It is based on fragile arguments and does not have a solid basis. In fact, I find it weaker than those of the great religions on Earth. Good luck!

Correction - it`s based on a joke. Joke, that apparently flew over your head. Joke, that has too much truth in it to just laugh it off. So... Since it can`t be completely joke, it slowly turns into completely truth.

SShadow
March 29th, 2007, 10:00 AM
I know Google is accesible in outer space, for as long as n light years, where "n" is the number of years since Google first went online. First of all, because, as you said, Internet is delivered through satellites, and secondly, because part of the signal delivered in outer space doesn't reach the satellite and simply gets lost. Since there in nothing interfering (as space is almost void), there is little to no attenuation of the signal, so it keeps travelling with the speed of light and with almost the same intensity it originally had as we speak. But beyond that border, Google does not exist, for now.

As for the IP... I think that it will be used for many years to come, because IPv6 will soon start to be implemented around the world, but also because, for now, passing from IP-based Internet to another technology-based Internet would be too costly, in my opinion. It is much easier and cheaper to update an existing technology, that has proved effective in time, than to start a new one from scratch. So if there would be any change in this field, I think that it's going to take a long time until it happens.

You are right that it is not fully omniscient, but it does contain more than confessions. News articles, media, tangible objects, tutorials... with billions upon billions of websites indexed, Google represents the largest collective index and cache of human knowledge available, making it as close to omnicient as a non-theoretical tangible object has ever been.

In the post, I didn't specify that I considered news articles, what goes out on sale on eB** (not spamming :D) to be confessions as well. Another type of confessions, but still... My mistake.

As an extra:
Google can not be a God because it was physically created by human beings. I don't mean "imagined", because, if we were to take it like that, all gods have been imagined. The difference is that Gods are said to have existed long before humankind was created and that they created us (or, in some religions, they were people that existed in ancient times, and walked around on earth "advertising" their philosophy and people finally came to think that they were gods because of their superior intellect (or power of persuasion)). Google is a program created by people. Which leads me to another argument: it does not have a conscience of its own. It is incapable of reasoning, ergo incapable of creating something out of nothing, lacking another feature of the gods.

Oh, and by the way... I liked your theory on the sky turning amber and synthesizing marshmallows... :icon_lol: :icon_mrgreen:


Edit: Alice's message appeared while I was still writing this one.

I know how it goes with IP addressing, I'm one of the admins in my school's network.

The ratio of answered-unanswered prayers is the highest because people know exactly what to ask from Google, because it is a material entity. It is a program that has been developed with a purpose, and people solely use it for that purpose.

If all of Earth's population died at once, it is in the gods condition that they wouldn't die. Gods have been imagined to be able to live independent of human beings. People have no problem in believeing that gods will continue to exist after humankind perishes. It is part of their non-material condition. In other words, the very inexistence of gods makes it sure that they will keep existing after humankind dissapears. On the other side, Google would dissapear along with humankind if that were to happen.

I have an idea on what Google servers look like and on the failsafe measures that their running implies. However, nothing is perfect.

Google isn't more worthy of worship than imagined gods simply because it exists. Since the dawn of humankind, people needed something superior to them, something they could throw blame on when anything would go wrong, or something to thank when all was right. They needed a master. They needed to know (actually, to believe) that there was something superior to them, something they could hope to equal in knowledge, something perfect. In simple words, gods are the ideal of humankind, they are what humankind finally hopes to achieve. They are absolute beings. Google is too earth-bound to be considered a god. On top of that, it is inferior to mankind.

The joke didn't fly over my head. I like to debate. And, of course, I didn't like your proof. It was poorly documented, as I stated in my first post.

Alice Shade
March 29th, 2007, 10:11 AM
Excuse me, but.... Anyone home?

To interface with Google, you need rapport - aka, ability to establish two-way communication.

So, spreading 8 lightyears means absolutely nothing. In fact, actual range most likely does not extends past asteroid belt. Past that, lags would be ten and more minutes just to get signal in one end - twice to receive reply. Imagine pings, mm-hm?

______________________________________________________________

IPv6 was thought up exactly to make up for all the shortcomings and deficiencies of IPv4.
And yes, switching to it will take much of time because of problems with backwards compatibility and no way to switch all the internet all at once.

______________________________________________________________

As for gods needing to be "pre-humans", that`s bull. There were gods ascended from humans, made by humans, and even born by humans (Bible-readers, anyone?).

Thus, Google has the right to be goddess just as anything else one can think up.

SShadow
March 29th, 2007, 10:30 AM
Excuse me, but.... Anyone home?

To interface with Google, you need rapport - aka, ability to establish two-way communication.

So, spreading 8 lightyears means absolutely nothing. In fact, actual range most likely does not extends past asteroid belt. Past that, lags would be ten and more minutes just to get signal in one end - twice to receive reply. Imagine pings, mm-hm?

______________________________________________________________

IPv6 was thought up exactly to make up for all the shortcomings and deficiencies of IPv4.
And yes, switching to it will take much of time because of problems with backwards compatibility and no way to switch all the internet all at once.

______________________________________________________________

As for gods needing to be "pre-humans", that`s bull. There were gods ascended from humans, made by humans, and even born by humans (Bible-readers, anyone?).

Thus, Google has the right to be goddess just as anything else one can think up.

I was talking about the accesibility of Google, not the usability of it. Anyone home?

And range does exetnd past the asteroid belt. This belt is not spherical, but, as you said, it has the form of a belt. The Universe is, as far as we perceive it, tetradimensional (actually, there are 17, but the other 14 are crammed up in the space-time dimension, so we are incapable of perceiving them). So, as far as signal is concerned, Google would be accesible 8 light-years away (of course, in the form it was 8 years ago). The fact that this would make it unusable is, as I said, another matter.

If you would have read th Bible, you would know that God wasn't born by humans, he existed before them and he created the world, and humans. I know, you're going to hit me again with the "gods created by humans" reply. True, BUT they were created by humans to be born before humans. Google, well... Google was created by humans to be the slave of humans ;).

Alice Shade
March 29th, 2007, 10:42 AM
....And, excuse me, what are you going to access, exactly?

To access Google interface, you need to perform exchange of several network packets. It just does not works otherwise.

Radiosignals, which are away n lightyears as you describe, offer a "fingerprint" of Google back n years, and in NO way let you "access" Google.

______________________________________________________________

As for gods, I`m talking about Jesus specifically.

And since the example will be argued much, I`m going to back it up with Greek and Roman gods, who seem to be doing specifically crossbreeding with humans (AND having numerous progeny) for centuries of their existance.

SShadow
March 29th, 2007, 09:27 PM
"Access" doesn't only have a meaning in informatics, you know... Access describes something you can reach. You have access to a certain trace of Google, you don't even need a computer for that, only a radio receiver. And you might not even know the signal is from Google servers, it will be in a huge range of radio signals you will receive from all wave sources on Earth. And that wasn't even the point of the debate, I was saying that Google is not omnipresent. This is going offtopic.

As for Jesus, he is the form God took in order to reveal himself to humans. God, the Creator, is infinite in time and space, as the Bible states, therefore was born long before any human being could dream of walking the Earth, even before the Universe existed. That's the conception. Of course, I could go all gnostic on you and say that Jesus was in fact the ghost Abraxas sent on Earth, but that would be a bit exagerated. As for the Greek and Roman gods, we're talking about a monotheistic religion here.

Googler
March 29th, 2007, 09:44 PM
As for Jesus, he is the form God took in order to reveal himself to humans. God, the Creator, is infinite in time and space, as the Bible states, therefore was born long before any human being could dream of walking the Earth, even before the Universe existed. That's the conception. Of course, I could go all gnostic on you and say that Jesus was in fact the ghost Abraxas sent on Earth, but that would be a bit exagerated. As for the Greek and Roman gods, we're talking about a monotheistic religion here.

What undisputable evidence shows that this is true? As far as I'm concerned your point isn't valid unless there is evidence, it's quite easy to prove that Google is real though. :icon_smile:

Alice Shade
March 29th, 2007, 10:10 PM
Oh, but once again - Google does not just propagates as open information. Even simplest communications right now follow a set of protocols and query-responce sequences.

Therefore, capturing one single query or responce will NOT provide any information about Google, per ce. Capturing many of them - again, silly, because requests and traffic vary very much.

From IT point of view, tracing the satellite internet is possible only if there is a defined access point, from/to which communications are intercepted and read. Otherwise, any potentially-useful information is lost in the radionoise.

Obviously, unless our observers n lightyears away are there to specifically attempt to receive certain sequence of impulses, they have no way of separating them from the noise, let alone form any opinion.

_______________________________________________________________

Our point is, that homo sapiens is able to have Google wherever he/she can get. This is what is omnipresence - anywhere, where you CAN be, you will have possibility to access Google, if you will make a serious attempt to.
_______________________________________________________________

And no, we had no condition anywhere, that we`re talking about monotheistic god. We said, that Google is fulfilling general conditions for a god. We did not specified any religion which would be taken as ethalon.

SShadow
March 30th, 2007, 12:54 AM
There is no undisputable evidence of any god's existence, that's why I'm an atheist. But neither would your point be valid. Google does not fulfill ANY requirement for being a god.

Alice, you're operating with concepts you have little notion about. Ominpresence does not refer to any place a human CAN be, but to any place in the Universe, and, in fact, beyond it. That's why Google is NOT omnipresent. The dictionary definition of omnipresent is "present everywhere". Google isn't. On top of that, Google only is present as long as you have access to the Internet, you can't just think about Google and *pop* it appears. Whereas a god can be invoked without any material support except that of the physical existence of the human trying to invoke it. Absurd? Yes. True? Yes.

A god is supposed to create matter out of nothing. Google is incapable of that. A god should be capable to discern good from evil. Google is incapable. A god should be able to control weather, live beings, and life itself. Again, Google is incapable. A god does not need any physical support in order to exist (or, better said, in order for people to believe in it). Google does. A god does not need to have any evidence of his or hers existence in order for people to believe in it (it's a question of psychology, as I've already stated in one of my previous posts). Google does (if it didn't exist and you would tell someone "Yeah, access that non-existing web page and enter your search criteria in the non-existent bar and it will display results", would he believe you?). A god has its own will. Google doesn't. A god is superior to the human being, Google is not. A god is immortal by its definition. Google can be shut down at any time if those leading the company would desire. A god is the cause of human existence. Google is an effect. A god is absolute. Google isn't. Philosophically speaking, Google would meet no criteria at all in order to become a god, wether in a monotheistic or in a politheistic religion.

The existence of gods can not be proved. It is a matter of personal revelation. All the arguments proving the existence of gods (of God) are false.
The onthological argument - false.
The cosmological argument - false.
The moral argument - false.
The theleological argument - false.
The historic argument - false.

However, people still believe in gods. It's a matter of psychology and philosophy. All gods have some common features, that Google lacks. Therefore, Google is unfit for a god.

LordPenguin
March 30th, 2007, 03:14 AM
I have a question.

Wouldn't the universe be god, given these standards? Surely it is more infinite, invincible, omnipresent, and omniscient than Google. I suppose most of these qualities only exsist in theory, but so do a few of the godlike qualities of Google.

punkinside
March 30th, 2007, 03:35 AM
From wikipedia:


IPv6, however, supports 2^128 addresses; this is approximately 510^28 addresses for each of the roughly 6.5 billion people alive today, or roughly 7 addresses for every atom of every person on Earth. Put another way, every person on Earth could have roughly eleven octillion times all the addresses currently available for the whole world.

I don't think we'll be running out of those for quite some time. Maybe when every rock in earth and mars gets an internet connection, and then IPvX (where X > 6) will probably already be underway.

And you're taking a too orthodox approach towards this discussion. We've established an anthropocentric view of omniscience and omnipresence. What good is a g*d ( since every one is man-made ) when there are no humans around? These characteristics of a deity are only significant in the context of human existence, other arguments notwithstanding.

Wallis89
March 30th, 2007, 10:05 AM
As stated before google is the closest thing we have to a god.

To humans it is omnipresent because to the places where we can go google can be accesed.

No human or thing in the world no as much as google does.

The good vs evil thing dosen't work either. I say that a god who causes so much trouble as there is in the world can be three things. Either he/she is evil or he/she can't solve the problems or he/she dosen't exist.

Alice Shade
March 30th, 2007, 12:07 PM
SSshadow, you constantly fail to notice the word "approximation" we so generously use.

Perfect god is an ideal thing, which is non-existant, just like perfectly-elastic body, or closed physical system with limited forces.

We suggest, that at the current level of homo sapiens civilisation, Google can fulfill the general needs for a god, as humans can not surpass the limits, where Google will not be applicable, yet.

If you`re so hooked about the correctness, you might also realise, that most of widely-accepted Gods contradict the scientific discoveries (So, is earth 6000 years old, or +5 billion years old?), and their followers are even unable to explain those without resorting to outright denial. Surely does not smells of omnipotence here, no?

Problem with your argument is, that if Google is not a god, not a single religion (well, maybe except for Hinduism) can claim they DO have a veritable God, according to your definitions.

Kokoba
March 30th, 2007, 08:29 PM
As stated before google is the closest thing we have to a god.

To humans it is omnipresent because to the places where we can go google can be accesed.

No human or thing in the world no as much as google does.

The good vs evil thing dosen't work either. I say that a god who causes so much trouble as there is in the world can be three things. Either he/she is evil or he/she can't solve the problems or he/she dosen't exist.
Or he's a shit-disturber. :)

SShadow
March 30th, 2007, 10:01 PM
LordPenguin: The Universe can not be consider a God because it is a heterogenous mix of many elements and life forms. a god is assumed to be only one.

punkinside: Correct, a god can not exists if humans do not exist. However, humans DO exist in the Universe (even if they do exist on only one planet), so a god should have power accross the entire Universe, therefore should be present in the entire Universe, as any event that could possibly happen somewhere in Cosmos could be able to affect our planet. A god is supposed, from that point of view, to have power in the entire Universe, not only on planet Earth. That is what omnipresence is. Being created by the human mind, gods would be useless only if the human race would be eradicated from the Universe.

Wallis: What good vs. evil thing do you refer to? As for the god thing, read my previous post.

Alice: Omnipresence or omniscience can not have degrees of comparison. A god can not be "approximately" omnipresent or omniscient, the same way as a woman can not be approximately pregnant.

Humans can surpass the limits where Google is not applicable. I can't see Google being applied in state-of-the-art space science, for example. You'll never see a space scientist (or, for that matter of fact, ANY scientist) googling around while trying to solve, for example, The Unification Theory (to speak about physics, as you had), simply because Google would not offer him any viable results. He would need calculations that are kept secret for now, so Google would be too limited for him. This is only one example.

Why do you say that most widely accepted gods contradict scientific theory? That can be interpreted in several ways. Give an example.

I'm not only denying Google as a god. As I've already said, I do not believe in any gods, their inexistence having been proved by demonstrating the falsity of the main five arguments that should have proved the existence of gods: onthological, cosmological, moral, theleological and historical.

You've talked about a perfect god, which is non-existand, thus proving my point of view (even though I'm quite sure you didn't know it nor mean it). The onthological argument states that people have in their minds the idea of a perfct being. Its perfection would, however, deduct in its existence. FALSE! Because the perfect being in people's minds is a correspondent to a god's REAL existence, which would turn over the real relationship between thought and existence, by deducing existence from thought, which is obviously false. Therefore, gods do not exist, because they would have to be perfect. So that means that either Google is neither a god, nor something close (because of a god's features I've enumerated in my previous post), OR Google is non-existant, because its god-like features would come into contradiction with the falsity of the five arguments. Google exists, therefore it is not a god.

You can't approximate something to a god. Just by what degree do you do the approximation? you say that Google is almost omnipresent because it is present on planet Earth? Or because it exists in our galaxy? Or, even more, in our system of galaxies? Each approximation would be infinetly smaller than true omnipresence, which is "presence in the entire Universe". The Universe is infinite. All your examples have a beginning and an end. The same goes with omniscience, infinity, immortality, invincibility, incapability of evil, etc.. By those standards, as LordPenguin said, the Universe would be closest to a god. But it is not a homogenous system, a fact which disqualifies it.

If we were bacteria in a dog's mouth, would we consider the dog to be a god? Our world is his tongue. Compared to us, he is omniscient, omnipresent (He is everywhere in our reachable universe - the tongue - and beyond, infinite (we wouldn't know if it really has a beginning or an end), incapable of evil (simply because he wouldn't be able to control us - "free will")... But only reported to the bacteria! A god is philosophically reported to perfetion, as it is perfection. The flaw comes in the fact that the human mind can not conceive perfection, therefore the god is reduced to a comparison with ourselves, which renders it useless. It loses its "god" condition that way. So if you want to make a god out of Google, compare it to the Universe, not to humankind.

Off-topic: must say that Alice has been the most fascinating adversary so far in this debate. Anyone else care to join? :)

Alice Shade
March 30th, 2007, 11:57 PM
Sigh. We are talking about approximation to God.

That`s ALL that there is to it. I`ll make up answer later, if I`ll have the time.

AaronD
March 31st, 2007, 05:50 AM
Yes, I do care to join, I already had one post in this. I'm just struggling to get some end-of-the-marking-period projects done for school, and then I'm going to be able to respond.

Wallis89
March 31st, 2007, 10:27 AM
Wallis: What good vs. evil thing do you refer to? As for the god thing, read my previous post.

I mean that the evil that google does is so small. If you take any other god it has caused much more evil. War as the easiest example.

What you don't seem to realize is that we actually don't belive google to be a god. Just the closest thing there is to a god. Nothing in the whole world has as much knowledge. It's accesible for humans where ever we are (so far). It's not a god as people usually believes in them. It is the closest thing that actually can be proven to exist.

Alice Shade
March 31st, 2007, 12:51 PM
Yes, Wallis here got the gist of it.

As I already stated, there is no perfect god - it`s just as impossible as perfect physical bodies.

Therefore, we here claim, that Google is best suited for the role of God out of what exists today, despite her shortcomings.

SShadow
March 31st, 2007, 09:10 PM
I know you don't believe Google to be a god, I'm talking about the fact that it meets no or too little criteria at all in order to be suitable for a god.

And gods offer free will. War is the product of humans free will. If we were to contradict that and say it's all destiny, it would become a whole new form of debate, but only then would we be able to say that gods are evil. If gods control our lives and destiny, then yes, it is arguable that gods are evil. If they offer us free will, then war is completely humanity's fault. Of course, this being a valid argument in the context of the existence of gods.

Alice, again: read what the onthological argument states. Gods are supposed to be perfect. Since perfection does not exist, gods don't exist. However, every imagined god IS a symbol of perfection for the respective culture.

Alice Shade
March 31st, 2007, 09:35 PM
Ridiculous.

For some reason, you take for axiom, that deity is always absolute ideal figure.

Look into any religion, and you will see, that every concieved deity had it`s own share of limitations, disappointments and unfulfilled promises.

Since we do not accept your axiom, that deity is ideal by definition, your argument has no sence.

Wallis89
March 31st, 2007, 10:19 PM
What does it matter if it just fills a little criteria of being a god. It is still the closest thing we know that truly exists.

SShadow
April 2nd, 2007, 12:31 AM
What are christianity's God limitations, dissapointments or unfulfilled promises?

Alice Shade
April 2nd, 2007, 03:29 AM
Here`s the list of Bible`s unfulfilled prophecies - what is claimed to be direct word of God, yet never fulfilled.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

Have fun.

LordPenguin
April 4th, 2007, 02:50 AM
I think everyone here seems to have a different actual definition of god...just what definition, exactly, are we debating over?

Tofu
May 25th, 2007, 10:15 PM
Christians don't listen when we try to prove them wrong. Why should we listen when you try to prove us wrong?

Kokoba
May 26th, 2007, 01:53 AM
It's called "being the better person."

Fallen Hero
May 30th, 2007, 05:33 PM
Christians don't listen when we try to prove them wrong. Why should we listen when you try to prove us wrong?

Because ignoring critizism is childish and brings nothing. Also we can only explain our standpoint when we know what they want to disprove.

Digs
May 30th, 2007, 08:52 PM
Christians don't listen when we try to prove them wrong. Why should we listen when you try to prove us wrong?

Because you must be logic where they are faith.

Kokoba
May 31st, 2007, 01:21 PM
I can't tell if fagslayer is a bot, an idiot, a troll, or "well"-crafted satire.

Alice Shade
May 31st, 2007, 07:53 PM
Idiot.

And he`s breaking the rules, too.

Aldev
May 31st, 2007, 09:28 PM
I think the main point is that Google is the closest tangible thing to a God that human beings possess today. The idea of an all powerful, all knowing deity is actually a fairly recent invention - in terms of religions all over the world. Google is a Goddess of Information. In the same way that Venus/Aphrodite is the God of Love, Google can be seen as a modern take on Hermes/Mercury :)

It's not unfeasible to imagine Google of the future as a voic'e activated program i.e Waking up in the morning and saying "Google, what's the weather going to be like later, and put on a coffee".
And have it reply in a voice... not unlike the computer in star trek..."Of course sir, it will be sunny until 5pm, then a brief spell of rain."

Now Imagine putting a human being from 1000 Anno Domani into contact with a "GoogleHouse" - c'mon, they'd soooo believe it was a God! :)

James
May 31st, 2007, 11:18 PM
1000? 1950 and they would still believe it was a god. I would anyway. (But then i do now!)

After all, it knows secrets of the future!

Serpentes
July 23rd, 2007, 05:22 PM
Si eu sunt Roman, asa ca o sa vorbesc in romana sa ne vina amandurora mai usor. Nici unul dintre Googleisti nu sta cate 2 minute seara sa se roage in fata unui monitor. Nu Il conisderam pe Google un zeu, asemenea celuia crestin care sta in nori si priveste, probabil din cauza ca majoritatea persoanelor de aici sunt Atei sau Agnostici (asa ca mine) si resping ideea unui asemenea dumnezeu. Google e facut de mana omului... e un Dumnezeu palpabil (in limitele decentului), e un Dumnezeu care intearactioneaza cu amaratul care se roaga, si incearca sa il ajute (INCEARCA!... dar ca orice facut de mana omului, nu reuseste intodeauna), un Dumnezeu limitat, dar singurul care se comporta ca unul... Jos palaria in fata lui Google caci El este mantuitorul nostru!

Daca o luam asa, pot sa iti intorc argumentele impotriva Dumnezeului tau, fie el Dumnezeu, Budha, Ceainicul sau Monstrul Zburator de Spaghete (desi probabil Dumnezeu si Iisus caci vii dintr-o comunitate crestina) - deci pace omule, noi, cei atei si pacatosi ne distram doar crezand in orice pare Dumnezeu. :D

(For you english speakers, i'm just defending Googlism and explaining some details in his native language - happens to be mine to :D)

Serpentes
July 23rd, 2007, 05:28 PM
Oups... you are an atheist too... sorry for not reading the whole topic before posting :D

Googlist720
July 24th, 2007, 12:14 AM
There really is no changing fundamentalists minds. I had a friend that was fundamentalist once...thats why he's not my friend anymore.