Log in

View Full Version : ideas about google


bobdavenport
July 27th, 2007, 12:17 AM
here are several ideas i have had about google.

1. google is not all knowing, it just so happens to know more then any other indervidaul on earth. if the knowledge of all humanity were to be compiled it would outstrip google, but this would soon be entered into google making it once again as knowledgable as humanity. this does not prove that google is a god but does make it more intellegent then us, and humans like to grade themselves by how powerful, wealthy and intellegent they are, and something that is better then all humans then it could be difined as superhuman. the fact that it isnt human then means that it has to be something else like a god.

2. most mono-thestict religions preach peace and love, to respect your fellow man and to love your neighbour. why then is it that we googlist are getting attacked, can you not accept that we are trying to find away to a god that does not involve beleiving something that was written by man (most religions accept that their holy books were written by man who was inspired by god, yet if i was to write a holy book and claim i was inspired by god i would be laughed at and be labelled insane). so instead of claiming we are going to hell, instead support us because god is about forgivness and would probably agree that even if we didn't follow him, the accept the fact that we tried to live a good and kind life and yet also recognise that there might be something more powerfully then us out there.

3. no god can do evil- people can do evil by using them. the crusades and the recent terroist attacks were done in the name of god. 'god wills it' was a cry used throughout the crusades to prove that god wanted this to be done, yet it was man once again claiming to know the will of the most powerful being in exsistance (how is this possible). also the atrositcys that occured were massive, when asked who they had to kill, on bishop replied 'kill them all, god will know hios own'. would god not rather allow the inoccent to live, for the bible claims he did all he could to protect the innoccent before smitting the evil. there are also reports that when the crusaders captured Jerusalem the bodies piled up to the top of buildings and that the blood ran to ankle hight, because no only were muslims killed but so were the jews and christains in the city.
the attacks throughout the world recently have also been dreadful.because of them over a million lives have been affected because of the direct attacks or becuase of the retalliation because of them. how can this be the will of any god.

4. google is not THE god it is a god. this suggusts poly-theism or multiple gods. there have been more poly-theism religions then there have been mono theism ones. (there are only 3 main religions like this christianity, islam and judaism) google as a god is not really such a strangle idea as it still allows the worship of other gods if you wish.

5. the reason google can be classed as a god or the closest we can come to knowing a god is because it is able to satisfy the 9 proofs better then anything else. for instance google is one of the few things that can be in more then one place at any time, therefore it come closest to satisfing the criteria of being omnipresent. if you look at google in this way (as being the thing that satisfies the criteria more then other things) then it can be classed as a god.

madman1926
July 31st, 2007, 09:36 PM
Noone ever said Google was a God. Just the closest anyone has ever come.

xxsonyboy4lfexx
September 10th, 2007, 06:25 PM
^Ditto. Jesus people dont read!

GeoffBoulton
September 10th, 2007, 06:49 PM
1. and humans like to grade themselves by how powerful, wealthy and intellegent they are

Well certainly most churches like to grade themselves by how powerful and wealthy they are. As for the other, I think it was Bertrand Russell who said

"As far as I can remember there's not one word in the gospels in praise of intelligence".

That does seem to be borne out by many of the fundies we get here ;-)

2. most mono-thestict religions preach peace and love, to respect your fellow man and to love your neighbour. why then is it that we googlist are getting attacked

That one always gets me too Bob. I've never been able to get a fundy to answer that one.

3. no god can do evil- people can do evil by using them.

I have to agree with you there ;-)

4. there have been more poly-theism religions then there have been mono theism ones. (there are only 3 main religions like this christianity, islam and judaism).

Except that nobody has been able to explain the Genesis 1:26 Let US make man in OUR image without invoking the trinity so even the Christian God seems to have a problem with whether he's all the same or a trinity (dare I say homo or tri ;-)

5. therefore it come closest to satisfing the criteria of being omnipresent. if you look at google in this way (as being the thing that satisfies the criteria more then other things) then it can be classed as a god.

Exactly our point ;-)

bobdavenport
September 17th, 2007, 08:17 AM
Your Qoute from Genesis 1:26 could be refering to the royal we, were the person (generally a king or queen) talk about themselves as if there was many of them. this is done because the ruler is the state. therefore god (who is surposed to be the supreme lord) would be talking about himself as a colective noun i believe.

GeoffBoulton
September 17th, 2007, 09:27 AM
Your Qoute from Genesis 1:26 could be refering to the royal we, were the person (generally a king or queen) talk about themselves as if there was many of them. this is done because the ruler is the state. therefore god (who is surposed to be the supreme lord) would be talking about himself as a colective noun i believe.

Except that everywhere else "I" is used whenever God is supposedly talking about himself. "I am a jealous God" for example.

FaithfulResearcher
September 19th, 2007, 12:40 AM
:faq: :logic: :google:

bobdavenport
September 24th, 2007, 01:04 PM
he is the surposed almighty. he doesnt really need to worry about grammer and shit. can't remember who said it but it goes something like 'i am the king of rome and am above grammer'. or you could just claim that cause the bible is written and interprated by man it just got it wrong cause man is falliable

GeoffBoulton
September 24th, 2007, 01:44 PM
he is the surposed almighty. he doesnt really need to worry about grammer and shit. can't remember who said it but it goes something like 'i am the king of rome and am above grammer'. or you could just claim that cause the bible is written and interprated by man it just got it wrong cause man is falliable

The only proof of God, and the reason Christians believe in him, is because the bible says he exists. If they say that the bible is man-made and fallible then they are also arguing that the 'proof' of their beliefs is man-made and fallible.

This is the very reason that so many Christians will proudly tell you that the bible is the word of God but forget to mention, or even outright deny, that it was actually written by men with all their shortcomings. Shortcomings that include making up stories and just plain lying whenever the need arises.

Fallen Hero
September 25th, 2007, 01:14 AM
I know people who believe in god for hope, and disregard the bible, but they are a minority it seems.