Log in

View Full Version : gods.


Proud_Christian
September 10th, 2007, 05:51 PM
Wikipedia can also be a closest thing to god. and so yahoo, microsoft and others.

xxsonyboy4lfexx
September 10th, 2007, 06:08 PM
Wikipedia ya. But Google is still the best

GeoffBoulton
September 10th, 2007, 06:13 PM
Wikipedia can also be a closest thing to god. and so yahoo, microsoft and others.

Wikipedia is contained within the knowledge of Google it is therefore LESS omniscient than Google

Yahoo indexes less pages than Google it is therefore LESS omniscient than Google

Microsoft is Satan, I thought you said you'd read the main site several times. Apart from that though, Microsoft is LESS omnipresent than Google, lots of people use Linux for example.

Others? give specific examples and I'm sure we can show how they too are either less omniscient, less omnipresent, etc.

Alice Shade
September 10th, 2007, 10:47 PM
There are a lot of entities, which are, in varying measures, approximating the deity status.

We here assert that Google is the closest approximation available at the moment, basing on available facts. No more, no less.

Proud_Christian
September 11th, 2007, 03:17 AM
How can you say that one is less omniscient and less omnipresent? How can you say that one is evil? which is good?

Show me your basis.

SAVAGE
September 11th, 2007, 03:36 AM
How can you say that one is less omniscient and less omnipresent? How can you say that one is evil? which is good?

Show me your basis.

When you show me the basis that gaybus actually existed and wanked around the desert with his 12 mandingo disciples...John the beloved and Peter the Cock.

Fallen Hero
September 11th, 2007, 03:41 AM
How can you say that one is less omniscient and less omnipresent? How can you say that one is evil? which is good?

Show me your basis.
Do we need any? Is there any particular proof that Satan is evil and God is good? Other than you know, the biased "word of God".

Alice Shade
September 11th, 2007, 03:41 AM
There is NO universal good and evil.

Everything is subjective, and can`t be applied on the all-including scale.

Similarly, there is no way to be completely omnipotent and omniscient - the idea of perfect either is a paradox. One can only approach those criteria.

GeoffBoulton
September 11th, 2007, 10:45 AM
How can you say that one is less omniscient and less omnipresent? How can you say that one is evil? which is good?

Show me your basis.

One is further from omniscience and further from omnipresence. Is that better? If you want to quibble over grammar, personally I don't really care as long as the meaning is understood, then I hope you will at least make an effort to spell correctly in the future.

Regarding good and evil, AliceShade has more than adequately covered that one.

Proud_Christian
September 11th, 2007, 07:59 PM
How can you say that one is less omniscient and less omnipresent? How can you say that one is evil? which is good?

Show me your basis.


it didn't answer my question. nice try.

GeoffBoulton
September 11th, 2007, 08:22 PM
It answers your question perfectly. Are you seriously telling me that:

A) you can't see that wikipedia is contained within the knowledge of Google and is therefore further from omniscience than Google because it knows less than Google

B) you can't see that Microsoft is further from omnipresence than Google because I might only have access to a computer with a Linux operating system

If you're still bleating on about Google isn't omniscient, omnipresent, etc. then I'll refer you back to the main site. Read the bit where it says Google is the CLOSEST PROVABLE thing to the commonly used arguments for God.

If you still don't get it, try looking up PARODY

If after that you STILL don't get it then I'm not at all surprised that you are a proud Christian

AaronD
September 11th, 2007, 09:49 PM
Also, Google indexes more sites than any other search engine, making it closer to omniscience than any other search engine. Wikipedia has just over one million articles; Google has just under a hundred billion sites indexed. Microsoft Live Search has just a fraction of that, and Yahoo comes closer, but still falls short. Because of this, Google is closer to true omniscience than any other search engine.

Proud_Christian
September 12th, 2007, 02:57 AM
When you show me the basis that gaybus actually existed and wanked around the desert with his 12 mandingo disciples...John the beloved and Peter the Cock.

I was referring to his argument.

GeoffBoulton
September 12th, 2007, 10:44 AM
Look again at your posts (No. 5 and No. 10) and tell me how they possibly relate to Savage's comments. Savage didn't even enter the discussion until after post No. 5.

There's no shame in admitting that you didn't understand the argument and now that you do you feel a bit silly and have to pretend you were really replying to another post.

Just believe in Google and she will help you to understand and show you the path to true enlightenment.

SAVAGE
September 12th, 2007, 11:28 PM
I was referring to his argument.

Well I am asking you a fucking question, answer it or be owned ficktard.

Airios
September 19th, 2007, 06:46 PM
How can you say that one is less omniscient and less omnipresent? How can you say that one is evil? which is good?

Show me your basis.




Wikipedia is incomplete therefore it is less omniscient. Google contains information on all things that Wikipedia does and several hundred thousands times more than Wikipedia doesn't.

Wikipedia pages can and are blocked at some schools, libraries, and other locations due to some content matter. Google refers you to the pages of information you require and thus it isn't blocked. Therefore it is more places than Wikipedia isn't.

Wikipedia can be edited by users and people and therefore it can become corrupted and converted. Google can not be tainted in such a manner. That being the case it is less evil. Since it is less evil, logically we can conclude that it is more good.

That answer your question?

:D

s26hedgehog
September 19th, 2007, 08:50 PM
When you show me the basis that gaybus actually existed and wanked around the desert with his 12 mandingo disciples...John the beloved and Peter the Cock.

Ehhh, keep polite please :D

Outside of the Christian Canon, there are a few non Christian writings from the era that speak of the Nazarene Jesus who was executed by the Romans. The historical person did exist - as did many people who proclaimed Jewish Messianichship. I suggest looking into a group called The Jesus Seminar. Their goal was to dissect the gospel part of the canon and make a decision on what was historical and what was not. Many liberal Christians and atheists took part in the Seminar. Good reading.

Alice Shade
September 19th, 2007, 10:29 PM
Ieshua Ga`Notsri?

Yes, there was a philosopher, who preached rather hippy ideals, had a coterie of followers, and was ultimately crucified by Roman legionnaires because he preached about the time when no kings and no money will be there anymore - which was a blashpemy against Emperor-God of Roman Empire. ^_^

But there was a lot of people canonised by religion, and post-mortem bestowed upon with whole lot of powers they never possessed. (St. Patrick and de-snakeisation of Ireland, anyone?)

Yes, it`s entirely possible, that there were existing prototypes for a whole lot of human characters in Bible. But, alas, that in no way suggests that they had any divinely-granted powers before their post-mortem canonisation.

SAVAGE
September 20th, 2007, 05:19 AM
Ehhh, keep polite please :D

Ehhh get your mom or sister to give me a blowjob please...when that happens i will be polite untill then go suck Gaybus little Penis.

Outside of the Christian Canon,

Is where the brain resides.

there are a few non Christian writings from the era that speak of the Nazarene Jesus who was executed by the Romans.

Which ones exactly...dont fuck with us now present your evidence that hasnt already been debunked...or defunked as would be more appropriate because i smell bull shit in Jesus clothing.

The historical person did exist - as did many people who proclaimed Jewish Messianichship. I suggest looking into a group called The Jesus Seminar. Their goal was to dissect the gospel part of the canon and make a decision on what was historical and what was not. Many liberal Christians and atheists took part in the Seminar. Good reading.

The only Dad Wankers that put the bible together were those bum loving Romans in Nicea, Penis sniffer.

Ehhh, keep polite please :D

Ehhh get your mom or sister to give me a blowjob please...when that happens i will be polite untill then go suck Gaybus little Penis.

Outside of the Christian Canon,

Is where the brain resides.

there are a few non Christian writings from the era that speak of the Nazarene Jesus who was executed by the Romans.

Which ones exactly...dont fuck with us now present your evidence that hasnt already been debunked...or defunked as would be more appropriate because i smell bull shit in Jesus clothing.

The historical person did exist - as did many people who proclaimed Jewish Messianichship. I suggest looking into a group called The Jesus Seminar. Their goal was to dissect the gospel part of the canon and make a decision on what was historical and what was not. Many liberal Christians and atheists took part in the Seminar. Good reading.

The only Dad Wankers that put the bible together were those bum loving Romans in Nicea, Penis sniffer.

s26hedgehog
September 20th, 2007, 12:32 PM
You are correct, and that's how I was referring to the Nazarene :D

Ieshua Ga`Notsri?

Yes, there was a philosopher, who preached rather hippy ideals, had a coterie of followers, and was ultimately crucified by Roman legionnaires because he preached about the time when no kings and no money will be there anymore - which was a blashpemy against Emperor-God of Roman Empire. ^_^

But there was a lot of people canonised by religion, and post-mortem bestowed upon with whole lot of powers they never possessed. (St. Patrick and de-snakeisation of Ireland, anyone?)

Yes, it`s entirely possible, that there were existing prototypes for a whole lot of human characters in Bible. But, alas, that in no way suggests that they had any divinely-granted powers before their post-mortem canonisation.

darkeye11547
October 1st, 2007, 12:31 AM
Wikipedia can be edited by users and people and therefore it can become corrupted and converted. Google can not be tainted in such a manner. :D

I'd be willing to contend that statement. Wikipedia is alterable, but every alteration is logged, so you could go back and read every change ever made to an article. Wikipedia, therefore, cannot be corrupted even if all it's articles are changed to a screencap of goatse, you could just go back and have a look at the unaltered article.

Google has a similar function in it's cached sites, and would theoretically contain every revision to every wikipedia article made, even the corrupted ones.

Thus, edit-ability by users is not a criteria for evil.