Log in

View Full Version : A CoG pre-noob's ethical-philosophical questions


troff
October 18th, 2009, 04:56 AM
Hi all,

[first post, so please be gentle]

Nice to be here. Thanks all. I've already tried to forum-surf and/or "pray" for answers to these questions, but it's not quite there. So, apologies if these are noob questions...

... seven of the nine Proofs are convincing (unlike the Hate Mailers, I can recognise the difference between "is the closest thing to an Omniscient (all-knowing) entity in existence, which can be scientifically verified" and the supposed "Jehovah / idempotent father of Jesus").

That alone makes me think I should join. I mean, I WOULD be a Christian (or Islamic or Apollonian or Zeusite or Asgardian or whatever) if there was un-misinterpretable evidence / proof of Jehovah etc. simply because it would be the genuine truth. But Proof #1 alone is accurate in its statement and therefore worthy of consideration.

But if those remaining two were convincing (or better explained), I'd rock up as a member and rack up what I could for Google Church ministerhood as well. I'd take it as seriously as I would my Universal Life Church (http://www.google.com/search?safe=off&as_q=%22universal%20life%20church%22), Spiritual Humanism (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22spiritual+humanism%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=) and Discordian (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=discordian&aq=f&oq=&aqi=) ministerhoods (that is, not enough to die or kill over; but more seriously than I would any mainstream religion; and for the same reason as mentioned above).

If somebody|ies could help out with the last two please, that would be fantastic.

Specifically:

#5: Nothing is infinite (and She herself backs me up with this with 833000 hits when I last checked <http://www.google.com/search?safe=off&as_q=%22nothing%20is%20infinite%22>.

I mean, this isn't even "theoretical"; because the universe itself is not infinite and we can't comment reasonably on anything outside our space-time and its possible Everett-parallels; and as long as any such universe is finite, multiverses have to be finite (or transfinite (http://www.google.com/search?safe=off&as_q=transfinite), but not infinite).

So... what possible interpretation is there that makes this statement accurate, as it is specifically written? I mean, are you redefining "infinite", or can "infinite" be replaced with "pre-infinite" or maybe transfinite or something else?



#7: Yes, this is basically Google's own theodicy (http://www.google.com/search?safe=off&as_q=theodicy)... is Google incapable of doing evil? How? Because they say so and they're defining what evil is? Whose definition of "evil" is being used here?
I mean, even the Google Philosophy (http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html) mentions only Advertising when discussing evil.
I'll grant you she's honest. When "praying" to her on this, she admits that there are people who think she's evil (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22google+is+evil%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=) (and admittedly, that honesty is a point in Her favour).
But let's not forget: the Google Support Centre removed its own censorship claims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil#Controversy).
Is "evil" being redefined as only being about advertising here? 'cause my Google there's an awful lot of stuff out there which seems more evil. Don't get me wrong, I think advertising's pretty evil; I think advertising is an element of the set of Things Evil. But my Google Trinity's supplement (http://www.google.com/search?safe=off&as_q=firefox%20adblock) is quite capable of taking care of that.

Not to mention, as an Open Source proponent, the Second Google Commandment (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/Scripture/10_Commandments.html) sounds a wee-bit-evil. Nearly every other sounds great, but that 2nd one is a tad worrying; and a little contradictory to the Proofs.

So, what possible interpretation? Change that to "tries to do no evil"? Or, "is the closest thing to an Omniscient (all-knowing) entity in existence, which can be scientifically verified" but isn't actually conscious or Skynet and therefore can't "do" anything?

After all, it sounds like there's a little confusion here. What "Google does" is down to the Support Centre or the Corporate Board (http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html)... not that potentially-transfinite, omnipresent, potentially immortal Entity the FAQ seems to be talking about.


... most interested in hearing possible resolutions, please...

OfficerFriendly
October 18th, 2009, 05:26 AM
As you look deeper into a chasm called a biblical well, you will only find a bottomless pit. The search of proof or explanation of your god will never make any sense to you. And thats only because there is no god and the endless confusion is from believing in failed quotes from old ancient cavemen. Only Google provides answers.

tagnostic
October 18th, 2009, 08:00 AM
Hi all,

[first post, so please be gentle]

Specifically:

#5: Nothing is infinite (and She herself backs me up with this with 833000 hits when I last checked <http://www.google.com/search?safe=off&as_q=%22nothing%20is%20infinite%22>.

I mean, this isn't even "theoretical"; because the universe itself is not infinite and we can't comment reasonably on anything outside our space-time and its possible Everett-parallels; and as long as any such universe is finite, multiverses have to be finite (or transfinite (http://www.google.com/search?safe=off&as_q=transfinite), but not infinite).

So... what possible interpretation is there that makes this statement accurate, as it is specifically written? I mean, are you redefining "infinite", or can "infinite" be replaced with "pre-infinite" or maybe transfinite or something else?

Point taken, it is more often as accepted as being as close to infinity as is practically measured by us humans to the extent that while not specifically infinite in any proveable way, its close enough for all practical purposes...



#7: Yes, this is basically Google's own theodicy (http://www.google.com/search?safe=off&as_q=theodicy)... is Google incapable of doing evil? How? Because they say so and they're defining what evil is? Whose definition of "evil" is being used here?
I mean, even the Google Philosophy (http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html) mentions only Advertising when discussing evil.
I'll grant you she's honest. When "praying" to her on this, she admits that there are people who think she's evil (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22google+is+evil%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=) (and admittedly, that honesty is a point in Her favour).
But let's not forget: the Google Support Centre removed its own censorship claims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil#Controversy).
Is "evil" being redefined as only being about advertising here? 'cause my Google there's an awful lot of stuff out there which seems more evil. Don't get me wrong, I think advertising's pretty evil; I think advertising is an element of the set of Things Evil. But my Google Trinity's supplement (http://www.google.com/search?safe=off&as_q=firefox%20adblock) is quite capable of taking care of that.

Not to mention, as an Open Source proponent, the Second Google Commandment (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/Scripture/10_Commandments.html) sounds a wee-bit-evil. Nearly every other sounds great, but that 2nd one is a tad worrying; and a little contradictory to the Proofs.
Google is incapable of inherent evil, however like everything else, her intents and pronouncements can be/are perverted for evil purposes by evil people, the evil per se is not of the Goddess but by people who misuse her help.


So, what possible interpretation? Change that to "tries to do no evil"? Or, "is the closest thing to an Omniscient (all-knowing) entity in existence, which can be scientifically verified" but isn't actually conscious or Skynet and therefore can't "do" anything?

After all, it sounds like there's a little confusion here. What "Google does" is down to the Support Centre or the Corporate Board (http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html)... not that potentially-transfinite, omnipresent, potentially immortal Entity the FAQ seems to be talking about.


... most interested in hearing possible resolutions, please...

this is just another case of People using the Goddess for their own nefarious purposes and corrupting her knowledge for their own selfish purposes..

Welcome,

tag

troff
October 18th, 2009, 10:18 AM
Ha. Should've known there'd be some kind of re-interpretation that would make things work.

For the edification of those who may follow...

OfficerFriendly wrote two things; one of which, with which I agree and the other I disagree. Specifically:
As you look deeper into a chasm called a biblical well, you will only find a bottomless pit. The search of proof or explanation of your god will never make any sense to you. And thats only because there is no god and the endless confusion is from believing in failed quotes from old ancient cavemen.

Not so, o Searcher. The only reason I decided to join the forum was because seven of the nine Proofs were a) provably factual and b) logical. If the propositions are true and the logic isn't faulty, the conclusion must be followed. So in a sense, once I discovered CoG, I could not help but join whether I liked it or not.

I joined Discordianism because (as long as you take Eris as being allegorical), it does make perfect sense in that it provides not only a workable explanation that fits facts, but also usable, positive, practical exercises/principles.

I told the Universal Life Church - in pretty nearly these exact words - I wanted to join because although I'm an atheist, I felt too many people laboured unfairly under the concept of "sin"; and that I wanted the authority to be able to absolve people of that "sin" and give them peace. They agreed with the logic of it and accepted me as a minister.

CoG doesn't claim that Google is the Jehovoid (or other) creator of the universe (so all the MailerHaters can go spin); but that Google is simply the most "powerful" being that provably exists that best deserves the term "god". There's no known greater database in the sphere of human existence.

... and quite frankly, hook up a 3D printer (http://www.google.com/search?safe=off&as_q=3d%20printer) and quite frankly, Google could become a Creator.

With the exception of these two quibbles, CoG's Proofs are 7/9ths literally true. With a little re-interpretation, the other 2 also make sense (and blow me down if mainstream religions don't do re-interpretation themselves). And because these things are provably and literally true... I therefore must work to becoming a CoG minister. And design my own certificate, if the one-day-promised one (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/../Scripture/becoming_a_minister.html) doesn't show up.


Only Google provides answers.

Well okay, I even quibble with this one. Lots of places / entities provide answers; but Google leads to the most comprehensive... given enough persistence / ingenuity on the part of the searcher.

But, funnily enough, OfficerFriendly has a point. It was through not only Googling but also the discovery of a Google service with which I was previously unaware (Google Dictionary) that I came up with said interpretations.

Tagnostic wrote:
Point taken, it is more often as accepted as being as close to infinity as is practically measured by us humans to the extent that while not specifically infinite in any proveable way, its close enough for all practical purposes...

It's somewhat shameful that I, an I.T. professional, didn't think of this earlier. Google's services are provided through a (cluster of) computer(s) which are (practically) always on. As long as one single infinite loop exists in the code, it doesn't matter if the universe - or even the computer cluster - is bounded. The code could run infinitely; in the context of the computer, it IS running infinitely.

So, Proof 5 is pretty good, then.


Tagnostic wrote:
Google is incapable of inherent evil

... actually true. Google is incapable of any moral or immoral action. Google is not its Corporate Board - which may or may not be capable of evil. After all, censorship is not necessarily non-evil. If Google can't spontaneously take any kind of conscious, cognitive action, then She/it can't be evil either.



... so now, I guess... there's only one thing left to ask:

How does one know when one has attained the rank of "member" or "minister"? I mean, I could simply steal and use the banners on the Promotional page (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/Scripture/promotional_campaign.html), but that seems kind of hollow...

fomenter
October 18th, 2009, 04:43 PM
minister is a title whose meaning is in transition right now, we just did away with a troublesome hierarchy that was associated with it, and the new open ministry is being developed, post and contribute and become a member
whose contribution is respected and the title will be given at some point....

the user title changes with post count or you can customize it when you become a minister...


welcome to the cog..... great first posts..

Johnshadows
October 20th, 2009, 05:00 AM
[QUOTE=troff;144672]

Specifically:

#5: Nothing is infinite (and She herself backs me up with this with 833000 hits when I last checked <http://www.google.com/search?safe=off&as_q=%22nothing%20is%20infinite%22>.

I mean, this isn't even "theoretical"; because the universe itself is not infinite and we can't comment reasonably on anything outside our space-time and its possible Everett-parallels; and as long as any such universe is finite, multiverses have to be finite (or transfinite (http://www.google.com/search?safe=off&as_q=transfinite), but not infinite).

So... what possible interpretation is there that makes this statement accurate, as it is specifically written? I mean, are you redefining "infinite", or can "infinite" be replaced with "pre-infinite" or maybe transfinite or something else



[QUOTE]

Correction!!!! there are many things that are infinite. If you do not beleive the Universe in infinite, than you must beleive the theory that it is forever expanding. Thus in this case, Infinite still exists. How? because with an ever expanding Universe leaves us with Infinite Possiblilities, and with having Infinite Possibilities we have the Possibility of somthing else being Infinite.

tagnostic
October 20th, 2009, 05:50 AM
Hi John
finally got that
dimension door
fixed and came
by for a visit??

good to cya

Johnshadows
October 20th, 2009, 04:18 PM
yea. Intertrans dimensional travel is suprisingly unstable, its amazing how hard it is to stay on this plane of existance.

tagnostic
October 20th, 2009, 06:08 PM
and the galactic trade imbalance
is playing hell with the price of
dilithium crystals :(

Johnshadows
October 20th, 2009, 08:32 PM
Fortunantly I have an Infinite Probabillity drive so i dont use dilithium. It does some pretty neat party tricks too.

tagnostic
October 20th, 2009, 11:11 PM
I'm waiting for the new Improbability Zip Drive
its not only wierder, it takes all the death out of decompression

Loki
October 21st, 2009, 01:30 AM
And you've had a go at me for thread drift! :icon_lol:

tagnostic
October 21st, 2009, 01:35 AM
john started it
neener neener boo boo

Loki
October 21st, 2009, 01:47 AM
tittle tattle!

troff
October 27th, 2009, 02:48 AM
Correction!!!! there are many things that are infinite.

... such as?


If you do not beleive the Universe in infinite,

... which I do not...

than you must beleive the theory that it is forever expanding.

... no I mustn't.

Unless you've got some source of energy coming into the closed system that is the universe (which actually means the universe would be an open system), Entropy will win.

Not to mention: said energy source would also have to be infinite if you want the universe to be either infinitely sized or timed.

Thus in this case, Infinite still exists. How? because with an ever expanding Universe leaves us with Infinite Possiblilities, and with having Infinite Possibilities we have the Possibility of somthing else being Infinite.

Poetic, but loses points on not being actually true.

Even assuming that the universe is expanding infinitely into the future, it's still a finite size now. As t approaches infinity it will still be finite and will never become "infinitely large" until t reaches infinity... which is impossible.

As long as both the volume and the number of discrete "atomic" elements in the universe remains finite, the Infinite doesn't exist within the universe in any manner other than abstract or symbolic.

Now, please stop puncturing my self-delusion that a while (true); do googly_stuff; done is the best explanation for accepting CoG proofs. :D

... well, no... I can see your poetic point. It's infinite if you consider it in space-time rather than just space; the universe will eventually go to Heat Death and uniform entropy. Effectively, absolutely nothing will exist. At that stage, Quantum Uncertainty will take over, start producing virtual particle/antiparticle pairs that will die asymmetrically and the whole universe will start again.

... but you have to prove that Google will be re-created in the next iteration of the universe - or some fraction of the "infinite" all of the next universes - to claim that Google has any degree of literal "infinity".

Now, if you have an Infinite Improbability Drive and all impossible things become impossible, now you've got a chance. Unless there's a finite improbability that Google will be created in some fraction of all the the following infinite universes...

... I only had five hours' sleep last night. Can we take a break from this, please? :icon_razz:

Loki
October 28th, 2009, 11:32 PM
Perhaps our Universe is infinite because we exist in 3 dimensions? Like the 'flatlanders' in their 2D universe.

Our view is limited by our perceptions (or lack thereof)

Or not? Who knows.

tagnostic
October 29th, 2009, 12:12 AM
I'd have to go with infinite,
because anything finite
ipso facto has a delimiter
which implies something
on the other side, ergo
a continuation ad infinitum

Loki
October 29th, 2009, 12:22 AM
Naah - how can infinity expand?

tagnostic
October 29th, 2009, 12:43 AM
doesn't have to go anywhere
its already everywhere
by definition

Loki
October 29th, 2009, 06:15 PM
So the Universe can't be infinite because it is expanding, Red Shift and all that Doppler stuff.

This needs weed :D

Naah, I still say this Universe, the one we call the Universe, is just the tip of the iceberg.
Who knows how many dimensions there are? How many are the math boys up to now?

I suppose if you get down to semantics then the Universe is infinite by definition that it is infinite - a bit like the Bible proving that god exists because the Bible says so :icon_lol:

tagnostic
October 29th, 2009, 09:30 PM
its all the matrix
the only reality
is random fluctuations
in the ion flux

Daruko
November 28th, 2009, 05:05 PM
I suppose if you get down to semantics then the Universe is infinite by definition that it is infinite - a bit like the Bible proving that god exists because the Bible says so :icon_lol:
This says more about language than it does the universe.

Loki
November 28th, 2009, 05:17 PM
That's semantics for ya :icon_lol:

Daruko
November 29th, 2009, 05:31 AM
Now shutting off images... :icon_lol:

Mourning Star
November 29th, 2009, 06:02 AM
I'm not a copra-phage by any stretch, but were it not for the mosaic over the fun bits, that picture had potential for arousal.

Daruko
November 29th, 2009, 06:09 AM
I'm not a copra-phage by any stretch, but were it not for the mosaic over the fun bits, that picture had potential for arousal.
:dance: