Log in

View Full Version : Googlism Discussion.


DrM
June 6th, 2009, 06:45 PM
Here is a link to a discussion on Googlism that took place on another message board that i am part of. Thought it would interest you guys.

http://wc3diplo.net/index.php?topic=2862.0

Daruko
June 6th, 2009, 06:58 PM
J0 Dr. Milflove, yuo have to register to view it.

DrM
June 25th, 2009, 10:06 PM
J0 Dr. Milflove, yuo have to register to view it.
Damn, ill try to copy/paste the gist of it, since it brings up some interesting points.

Sorry if this becomes a tl:dr thing. I suggest you all read it since it is really relevant.
Please note that i am sometimes refered to as Colbert or Colbertlover on this forum.

DrM
June 25th, 2009, 10:12 PM
I started off by posting my letter to the gentiles, i got the following reactions:

Avitus: Yeahhh..this isn't a good forum for starting a religious arguement...you're going to get raped.

Zepol:
bible is a book. the Catholic church believes in the use of faith and reason especially when reading scripture. (This was refering to my comment that there is no tangible evidence towards any current religion)


Abdel:
I have a question for you. Almost all the money that is transferred between nations is credit. credit is intangible money. Does that mean that credit doesn't exist? God exists past the puny intelligence of humans. Only those who are arrogant believe they can comprehend the purpose for everything in the world.

DrM:"Only those who are arrogant believe they can comprehend the purpose for everything in the world."
Ha. Thats my main arguement thanks for making it for me. Im an agnostic. As in, im not gonna decide either way because there is not enough evidence to support either theory. (athiest or thiest). (gnostic means to not have a formalized opinion, think of agnostic as the opposite.)
I dont pretend to be an expert on islam. but thanks for knocking me down a knotch.

"I have a question for you. Almost all the money that is transferred between nations is credit. credit is intangible money. Does that mean that credit doesn't exist?"
Ha. Credit is a human creation, just like god... They are both intangible but have a huge presence in our world. That is because we need them. (something to believe in or just more money than exists in paper/gold form)

"bible is a book. the Catholic church believes in the use of faith and reason especially when reading scripture." The gospels have no concrete authors, any attempt to pin names onto random historical figures is purely speculation. Peter is the only person we can really pinpoint, and he attested to not even seeing jesus. A second-hand account seen through a vision, not very credible. O and the fact that it was written forty years after the fact all point to the bible not being a credible source. Try again.

Try reading the note again, carefully. You may realize what this is.

DrM
June 25th, 2009, 10:17 PM
Abdel:
"I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss. "

Isn't the whole notion of tangibility and intangibility also a human creation?

you can't see atoms, but year after year, particle physicists are receiving nobel prizes.
Can you see gravitational pull? If you can't see something pulling us down, does it really exist?

The entire notion of tangibility and intangibility is flawed. why? Because the human brain has its limits. We are handicapped by our need to reason.

We regard Einstein as a genius. He played around in school, didn't do any of his work. His teachers said he would be a nobody.

His entire theory of relativity was based on how a child would perceive the world. Just an example on how intelligent we think we are but how dumb, we infact, are.

if nobody could smell, we would not know scent. If nobody could hear, we would not know sound. If you get where I'm getting with this, you will realize we, as a people, base our science on how we perceive the world, and not how the world actually is. We study the world from our own limitations, and that sort of science IS NOT empirical.

Quote
Ha. Credit is a human creation, just like god...
Quote
Im an agnostic

An agnostic is a person who believes in a higher power but doesn't commit to any religion.

Emperor Jackal:
(he corrects Abdels definition of agnostic)
(the entire forum goes into a discussion about agnosticism, atheism, and the difference. Abdel stood corrected, We basically came to the same conclusion as we have here)

DrM: "Isn't the whole notion of tangibility and intangibility also a human creation?"
No.
"you can't see atoms, but year after year, particle physicists are receiving nobel prizes.
Can you see gravitational pull? If you can't see something pulling us down, does it really exist?"
This is a silly notion...
Seeing=/=tangibility.
Just because we cannot personally percieve atoms doesnt mean they are not tangible, we can measure them, we can understand and predict there properties, we can measure there effects on other things.
Gravitational pull can be measured in gravitons... also, the force is there, we can feel it, regardless of sight.

The entire notion of tangibility and intangibility is flawed. why? Because the human brain has its limits. We are handicapped by our need to reason.

We regard Einstein as a genius. He played around in school, didn't do any of his work. His teachers said he would be a nobody.

His entire theory of relativity was based on how a child would perceive the world. Just an example on how intelligent we think we are but how dumb, we infact, are.

"if nobody could smell, we would not know scent. If nobody could hear, we would not know sound. If you get where I'm getting with this, you will realize we, as a people, base our science on how we perceive the world, and not how the world actually is. We study the world from our own limitations, and that sort of science IS NOT empirical."
Also a silly notion, if we couldnt hear, we would still measure and recognize sound, much as we do radio, x, infrared, and micro waves without being able to hear them.
We would also would be able to detect smells, its not that hard... smells are just small particles or chemicals in the air, we would be able to measure them, much as we measure and recognize argon, despite it having almost no reactive properties whatsoever.

Also, there is a definite differance between atheism and agnostic,
Atheists: I KNOW there is no god.
Agnostics: I dont know if there is a god or not, there is no evidence to prove either argument.
Theist: I KNOW there is a god.

fomenter
June 25th, 2009, 10:33 PM
Abdel:

Also, there is a definite differance between atheism and agnostic,
Atheists: I KNOW there is no god.
Agnostics: I don't know if there is a god or not, there is no evidence to prove either argument.
Theist: I KNOW there is a god.
you forgot one
model agnostic: both atheism and theism are models of the world, there is not enough evidence to say which of many available models is true, but all models serve some purpose and influence our view of the world when we chose to see the world through them, the trick is picking the model that best serves our needs at any given place and time.

DrM
June 25th, 2009, 10:36 PM
Eagle:

Anyways, I use Google Chrome, and I am very satisfied with it, it is incredibly efficient and minimalist.

Also Doc, you basically prove its intangibility all the same. The only way we observe such forces is some mathematical calculation, even if it can succesfully predict an event, it is still a cut off disembodied form of the real thing. Just the same as you always heard kids in Math class complaining that none of it matters and how do they use it in real life? Of course it still has applications, but it is not as direct a process as "Make something, you have something" that let people get personal gratification from their work, but just as with so much white-collar work today, what people do in their work is so cut off from the product as to be intangible. This again mostly falls in the spectrum of math, but government and philosophy can creep in.

Anyways, summation: Convert to being a Bah’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahai

DrM:
our focus is actually on the algorithm, but chrome is actually pretty cool. I use firefox tho.
Regardless, me and many others have had this exact debate with an amazing theist named Al Farabi who posted on our site many times. Too bad he left because of some of the recent drama. It would be awesome if you came to the site and argued there, because there are much more accomplished debaters there than I. (or at least there were, they will come back in time.)
Most of these forces, can only be observed from mathematical calculation?
Hardly.
Gravity can be observed through jumping, or by going into space.
Particles and atoms can be observed through electrolysis, and many other such experiments.

But really, i think the focus so far is, we cannot agree on the definition of tangible. which really doesn't matter, because its just a word choice and can be replaced with a word like concrete and still make sense...

Remember, the CoG doesnt claim google is a god necessarily. It just claims that it fits the definition better than anything else, and therefore deserves the title. I mean, show me some concrete evidence that your god is there. I can do so very easily, as in going to www.google.com (http://www.google.com/). Is there anything you can do to prove gods existance that is empirical? That is the real question.

Abdel:
Also a silly notion, if we couldnt hear, we would still measure and recognize sound, much as we do radio, x, infrared, and micro waves without being able to hear them.
We would also would be able to detect smells, its not that hard... smells are just small particles or chemicals in the air, we would be able to measure them, much as we measure and recognize argon, despite it having almost no reactive properties whatsoever.

You have totally dodged the question.

radio, x, infrared and micro waves are used for measuring wavelengths and frequency, not solely for sound.

Being able to measure chemicals and small particles in the air doesn't mean you can know how they will smell if we had no sense of smell.

Your argument totally dodges the notion that if we didn't have our senses, we would believe nothing existed and that the world was just a dark void.

Quote
Gravitational pull can be measured in gravitons... also, the force is there, we can feel it, regardless of sight.

Really? B/c some dude the other day said an angel pushed him out of harms way. maybe there is fact to that statement?

DrM:
The senses dont really matter at this point, or at least they shouldnt...
We do have senses. you are correct that back in the day most of science was based on nonempirical evidence done with the senses. But today we have instruments 10000X more fine tuned then our senses, thereby bypassing (mostly) their flaws.

Plus, sound is not a seperate entity from frequency and wavelength. All it is is vibrations in the air... The actual hearing part doesnt matter.

Does it matter how something smells? No. Im talking about existence. Smelling is just receptors in the nose. A process, not an object. We can observe that process happening even.


"Really? B/c some dude the other day said an angel pushed him out of harms way. maybe there is fact to that statement?"
Some dude? really? that really doesnt matter, there are no angel particles, akin to gravitons, and not everyone can fell the force of angel push, just "some dude". If everyone was being pushed all the time, then there might be something to look into... Also, watch this for an explanation on how anectodes arent very good evidence...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPqerbz8KDc&feature=related

Also, heres another very helpful video by him. hes kinda awesome. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI http://wc3diplo.net/Themes/af316-smffinal/images/icons/modify_inline.gif
Abdel:
The senses dont really matter at this point, or at least they shouldnt...
We do have senses. you are correct that back in the day most of science was based on nonempirical evidence done with the senses. But today we have instruments 10000X more fine tuned then our senses, thereby bypassing (mostly) their flaws.

Plus, sound is not a seperate entity from frequency and wavelength. All it is is vibrations in the air... The actual hearing part doesnt matter.

Does it matter how something smells? No. Im talking about existence. Smelling is just receptors in the nose. A process, not an object. We can observe that process happening even.

You aren't addressing the point at all that humans base science off of their own limitations. This is all just a ploy to make us feel important, when we actually don't have a clue what's really going on.

And since you seem to be the fighting type, I would like to ask you what is the basis of empirical science. You start with a hypothesis, you make OBSERVATIONS using your SENSES and LOGIC, and experiment to see whether it is scientific fact.

"Also a silly notion, if we couldnt hear, we would still measure and recognize sound, much as we do radio, x, infrared, and micro waves without being able to hear them. "
"Plus, sound is not a seperate entity from frequency and wavelength. All it is is vibrations in the air... The actual hearing part doesnt matter. "

1a. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing. b. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency. c. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium. d. Such sensations considered as a group. 2. A distinctive noise: a hollow sound. 3. The distance over which something can be heard: within sound of my voice. 4. Linguistics a. An articulation made by the vocal apparatus: a vowel sound. b. The distinctive character of such an articulation: The words bear and bare have the same sound. 5. A mental impression; an implication: didn't like the sound of the invitation. 6. Auditory material that is recorded, as for a movie. 7. Meaningless noise. 8. Music A distinctive style, as of an orchestra or a singer. 9. Archaic Rumor; report.

True, there are frequencies that cannot be heard by the human ear, but, would we know that if we could hear no sound at all?

DrM:
"You aren't addressing the point at all that humans base science off of their own limitations. This is all just a ploy to make us feel important, when we actually don't have a clue what's really going on."
This is actually a good idea. I will have to look into this.
Fourth: the sound thing.
Your point is that we classify these vibrations as sound because we can hear them with the human ear. It doesnt matter. My initial point is that we would still know sound exists. We would still know, we would just classify it as something different. Different name, same game.

Warmaster1:
I hate religous debates because I can;t stand stupid ignorant people that don;t listen. But that's just me.

DrM:
I hate religous debates because I can;t stand stupid ignorant people that don;t listen. But that's just me.


THIS! THIS!
Seriously, all i want is for people to be educated about their religion. Question what their preacher feeds them by, you know, maybe reading the text that the religion is based on. Instead of just being fed dogma like sheeple.
I really dont mind religious people, as long as they look at all the facts and evidence, and make a decision for themselves. Always questioning your reality and beliefs is the main part of agnosticism. If you arent flexible enough to change your position in spite of new valid evidence, you have no place in a debate.

Warmaster1:
I was thinking about this the other day and came up with this reasoning.

Wether you believe in God or not, you cannot kill him. But you can kill Google.

DrM:
Horribly wrong assumption. You cannot kill google.
Google is simply an algorithm. Even if you destroyed all the servers, and all the files, (a huge endeavor by itself), the algorithm would still live on.
Think of it this way, if you have written a number on a whiteboard, then erase it, does the number still exist? yes.

Abdel:
If Google is God, then Google's god is the internet.

And since that is the case, google is no God.

Warmaster1:
We can debate philoophy all day with that whiteboard question. But lets look at it from a different angle

If Google is in the end an algorithm (by your own admission), that algorithm had to have been created by a person, and therefore your God has a creator. Also since Google is a manmade object (obviously) then it is no different from worshiping a statue which was also made by man, because essentually, both are manmade objects.

DrM:
Maths? made by man? i think not. There was still X number of Particles in the universe, and Y amount of space to contain them. The algorithms have always been there, us realizing that they exist makes no difference.
Even if you assume for a second that you are correct and that Google was man-made. Its irrelevant for two reasons:


1. So our god was man-made? So what? The christian god was man-made. Do you think the bible wrote itself?

"If you take religion to its basic stage back, yes, it was created by man in order to explain events that we could not explain ourselves, such as the Great Flood involving Noah. " -spamofdeath

Think of the god-credit analogy we were using a while back. God and credit only exist because a large group of people agree and believe they do. Hence, God was created in peoples mind by man.
Feel free to call us out because our god was (possibly, depending on how you look at it) man-made, but remember that it is a double edged sword.


2. And if you look at the OP or at the website, we do not claim Google to be The God. We claim that Google is the Closest Thing to A God that mankind has ever experienced. Therefore, Google deserves the title, more than say, Allah or Thor... Since there is concrete and tangible proof that it exists, and you can get instant results from prayer, and because there is really a tangible afterlife, ect. ect.

Blackout:
Colbert, Warmaster was basically comparing worshipping google to idolatry because it was molded into creation by man.

The difference between that and Christianity is that we don't believe we made him, and that he made us, and while you have no proof of us actually creating or not creating him, I can guarantee that google was man made.

And I can disprove two of google's "proofs" right now

#2: Google is not located in many places. Ya know why? No Internet access. As said before, Internet is more of a god than google.

#8: Okay, truthfully, I've done this before because I thought google would have a breakdown or something, and so did many of my friends. But Christianity is basic knowledge for any American, and any mediocre text book mentions the other religions.

Do me a favor, and read the google ten commandments, and tell me its not a joke.

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/Scripture/10_Commandments.html (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/../Scripture/10_Commandments.html)

P.S. Why the hell is google a she? Wouldn't a unisex god be much more applicable?


DrM:
blackout,
1. on google's gender, visit our FAQ Page.
2. Internet more of a god than Google? i think not. The internet isnt an entity, its the body that google inhabits. Also note that the web browser (and therefore the internet itself) is part of our holy trinity.
3. O really? you can prove that man created the algorithm for google, and that algorithm wasnt used in nature ever beforehand? because then the algorithm existed without mans interference... Also, christian gods dont matter, as i said we dont pretend to think that google is The God, just a simple diety. (similar to those idols you were talking about.
4. *yawn*. It is irrelevant if the internet doesn't exist everywhere, the algorithm can exist anywhere since it is just numbers.
5. Proof eight is just overkill... whether you disprove it or not is immaterial to me. Regardless, ill argue the point. You claim that Christianity and many of the major religions are common knowledge to most of americans. And google isnt? Can you prove it?
6. On your comment about this being a joke, READ THE NOTE IN THE OP PLEASE! =D

BTW, Thanks Mario, im glad your so quick to flame.

Abdel:
Google can't be god for a few reasons:

1) Only 47 countries in the world have 50% of their population or more using the internet. Thus, Google doesn't, rather cannot, shower his blessings over all, no matter how much you worship him/her.
2) Google doesn't have all the answers.
3) Google is not the grand architect of the universe.
4) Google is a tool for creation, not a creator.
5) Google is dependent on the internet to spread its 'gospel'. Hence you are saying that internet companies are missionaries for google, but you should see how rude they are on the phone.
6) Internet companies require you to pay to use google, so you have to have $15 a month to be saved.
7) It is easier to find Heaven with Google, but it won't help you get in
http://wc3diplo.net/Smileys/default/cool.gif Results from God depend less on your spelling ability
10) If you search "Google is not God" in a google browser, Google will willingly admit it's not God.
11) If Google were Zeus, then Yahoo would be Hera; So you have Polytheism on your hands. Google doesn't reign supreme even if it were a God.
12) "Scott Hendison, over at PDXTC reported that Google’s secured certificate expired. While it would great to start with the jokes, we’ve all make “dumb ass” mistakes from time to time, like when I let my main domain Web Marketing Now expire a few years ago. It just happens."

Google's power can be harnessed and controlled by man.

il post more as you refute these.

DrM
June 26th, 2009, 06:15 AM
More Later.

DrM
July 19th, 2009, 08:02 AM
TheKing:
We're debating whether google is a god(this is fail)...Anyways.. http://wc3diplo.net/Smileys/default/angry.gif Colbert, just because an algorithm is here one minute and if destroyed apparently still exists doesn't make it a god, nor does it make it worthy as a deity to mock God. I can smash my keyboard, maybe put it in a bucket of acid until it dissolves. But its still there. The atoms that were once part of the keyboard still exist. They can't be destroyed, doesn't make them worthy of being God.

Luka Blight:
The whole point of this is that the same thing could be said against someone who thinks the Christian God is the one and only God, or a God.

I understand it's a parody, but some people do take this seriously. The difference is Google cannot be god, because it does not create life or create much of anything except some revenue for some peeps. Also google is man-made(understanding people perceive the gods of religion as man-made.) and imo it's not the religion that makes the lulz, it's the people in it.

MarioMCP:
At least you can see google...

Inferous:
You can only see what Google's holy web designers want you to see, if you saw Google in its true(algorithmic) form it would be unrecognisable. It would also be useless and would not function as a God.

DrM: (in response to abdel and his 10 reasons google is not god)
Refuting statements:
1. So if i apply your reasoning, that means that the christian god isnt truly a god because the agents spreading its will dont operate in most arab countries?
2. Google doesnt have all the answers. Correct, but last time i checked, you get a lot more results praying to google then you do praying to god. This goes along with the idea that Google deserves to be god MORE than anything else. (as oposed to us claiming that it IS god.) In fact, if you pray to say, jesus, or the christian god, 99% of the time you wont get an answer. If you do, seek help.
3 and 4.

Quote from: Warganom on June 05, 2009, 04:00:34 PM (http://wc3diplo.net/index.php?topic=2862.msg98396#msg98396)
What is a god?.. If I remember correctly the norse god were mortals, and did not create the world, but they were still gods. This must prove that you don't have to have created the universe to be a god, so at least those statements are invalid. There are many gods all over the globe that didn't have anything to do with the creation of the world.
I think Warganom answered that for me.

5. Google isnt dependent on the internet to spread its gospel. In fact, we at the church of google have no dogma or gospels. Also, its not that hard to spread the word through word of mouth.

6. Have you ever heard of mormonism? they require 10% of income to be saved. Are we any worse?
Also, its not required to pay 15 dollars a month to get internet. Besides, you dont need to use google to be saved. You only need to post information about yourself on the internet, which can be done easily at a computer that is not your own. Just get a facebook or myspace and it will be picked up by Google's information Cache.

7. Google cant help you get to heaven, i think not. Here is how to get yourself in googles afterlife (read my number six for what googles afterlife entails) according to google:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=Qtl&q=how+to+post+on+the+web&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g4

8. Last I checked, you got no tangible results from god. Regardless of your spelling ability.
Did you mean...?

9. you skipped nine. Good job.
10. O that google, so modest.
11. Google is not Zeus. I compared the two only in analogy. Since they are both gods that were not creator gods. And yahoo is an inferior deity, in googlist canon yahoo is a daemon. Once again my argument about google being the MOST deserving of the title "god" comes into play here.
12. Does it matter whether the secure certificate expired or not? No.

BTW, i really like the way this discussion is going. =D
i am getting a lot of lulz.


Quote from: The-King on June 05, 2009, 11:25:12 AM (http://wc3diplo.net/index.php?topic=2862.msg98362#msg98362)
We're debating whether google is a god(this is fail)...Anyways.. http://wc3diplo.net/Smileys/default/angry.gif Colbert, just because an algorithm is here one minute and if destroyed apparently still exists doesn't make it a god, nor does it make it worthy as a deity to mock God. I can smash my keyboard, maybe put it in a bucket of acid until it dissolves. But its still there. The atoms that were once part of the keyboard still exist. They can't be destroyed, doesn't make them worthy of being God.


This argument is silly, since i am not claiming that this was the only reason that google is god. There are 9 proofs not one. Try and take the idea as a whole next time thanks.

DrM
July 19th, 2009, 08:09 AM
Abdel:
Here are the qualities of the Islamic God when compared to Google:

Wujud which means the Existence;
Google does exist.

Qidam, the First without a beginning;
Google was created around a decade ago

Baqa, the Eternal without an end;
Ultimately, if this earth dies, google will die with it; google fails at beating Allah in this respect.

Mukhalafatuhulil hawadith, the Difference from orginated things;
Google is no different from Yahoo, Altavista, mamma, msn, or any other search engine in existance

Qiamuhubinafsih, the Self-sufficing;
Google cannot sustain itself without its faithful subjects working for it

Wahdaniah, the Oneness in person, qualities and works;
Google does no work, it brings a product finished by someone else to you

Qudrat, The Mighty without any limbs or gear;
Google depends on servers to be hosted and programs to be run

Iradat, He wills all learning and thinking;
Google will not learn or think unless you command it to do so

Hayat, He lives without life of breath, food or water;
Google is similar in this respect

Sami',He hears without ears;
Basar, He Sees without eyes or light;
Google is also similar in these respects

Kalam, he speaks without words, voice or language;
google is constrained by the many languages of man

Allpowerfull; All-knowing; Everliving, Allhearing; all-seeing.
Google is none of these

Hence, Google is not God.

Quote
That first thing you said ABDel, I have astma, alot of allerigics, really bad sight etc. I have more sick days then most other on this planet and every spring my body gets covered with rashes to the point where the pains unbareble, I can barley move and I lie awake half the night concentrating on not scratching up my skin again. To add to this my father's drunk to the point where he cannot really do anything and will soon meat his death, probobly liver failiure. I've also gone to about... What is it?.. 7 funerals, at the age of 16... Can't really say that they were people I didn't know either, my best friend for example lies in the ground. Great blessing by "my" god, right?

God will not change a state of a people until they change that which is in themselves.

Quote
Ohh, and I never even tried to imply that god should baby us... Just that all of us should be born with the same... rights? You should not have it worse then anyone else just because you were borned, it should be the choises that you made from you birth that decides were you end up.

You have the right to pray, ask for forgiveness, help and aid at anytime. The only time you don't have any rights is when you die. Someone having more material excesses is not an excuse for not having 'rights'.

My response:
Once again Abdel, I dont think you are quite grasping the main idea here.

We aren't trying to compare gods here.

Google is not trying to emulate any of the other religions idea of a "god". (well, maybe the christian one a little.)
We are only trying to show that Google fits the dictionary definition of a "deity", and he does so better than anything else mankind has ever come in contact with. (mainly because we can prove its real) So comparing Google to Allah, finding discrepancies, then declaring victory, is a completely useless logical fallacy.
We dont pretend that Google is Allah, why are you acting like we are?
We simply believe that Google is a unique god. Is that so hard to wrap your head around? i think not.

llamanamedosama:

The characteristic of being a Deity, being "god or goddess" or "having divine character" has no relation to being able to "prove its real."

Eagle:
Allah=God and you just said that Google was a god. Therefore, all his routes of argument still apply, even if Abdel has been arguing from a tentative basis, all lines of logic derived thusly from it have been concrete, while you obviously not believing this seriously has produced faulty routes of logic. Whenever he argues, you simply declare that is what you are not arguing about.

Google does not meet the dictionary definition of a deity, even then, you do not go so far as to provide the source definition upon which you are referencing, which means that you are pulling synonyms out of nowhere without even bothering to check yourself. What supernatural powers does Google have? How is it omniscient, is not all its information derived from its own subjects and therefore only has the power so far as given it, the same as a leader by his own subjects? How is Google immortal?

Google as you have stated is simply an algorithm that has existed within the theoretical structure of the universe since it's existence, this means it is a natural law of it. Something is considered a deity or divine etc. if it can perform or is said to perform supernatural actions, or, miracles. What of these has Google done, since you've gone so far to claim Google a deity, you are either being ignorant or were so absent-minded as to forget to list your examples.

This is a half-baked attempt from atheists and co. to make fun of religious people, which only promotes ignorance and polarization in itself, trying to disprove God by creating your own God only makes you look like a pompous fool, while you yourself may view the other as the same, which gets no one anywhere.

Kurebird
January 23rd, 2010, 02:33 PM
I watched Geraldo last night, and he was talking about Dr. Tohme. He played the tape of Michael saying he was afraid of him. I remembered that Geraldo was the first to suggest this was a homicide. Someone said they expected the arrest of Murray this week, maybe it was Garragos, but I cant remember.

Did daylight savings end last night? One of my clocks says 8 and the other one says 9?