![]() |
|
Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
Guestroom This section is for guests, who can not, or would not register. It is not moderated, but administration reserves the right to edit/remove any message without explicitly giving reasons for edit/removal. People, who post without logging in, will have IP address logged and showed, to omit abuse issues. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1 |
Posts: n/a
|
![]() Just wondering.
Granting your statement about Google being omniscient, omnipresent, etc. but it is still a product, right? Which means it has a creator (or in this case, creators). So, shouldn't Google's creators (Larry Page and Sergey Brin) be your gods? After all, they are the source of all of Google's powers that you so worship. Just wondering. |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Red Cardinal Scion of Google
![]() |
![]() Analogy is weak only if we accept as axiom, that Yhwh exists in some other form then fictional character in book named Bible.
Since I, in accordance to facts I have, deem Yhwh to be exactly what mentioned earlier - aka, fictional character out of book named Bible, my analogy is pinpoint-accurate. Even moreso, if we consider, that Google as a whole is once again, a whole-humanity effort. Algorythms alone would be worth nothing, if there was no information for them to gather. Compare with Biblic Christianity, which was pieced together out of several dosens of philosophical essays, detailing on Abrahamic religion. ______________________________________________________________ Omnipresence, by the way, has nothing to do with being eternal. It is merely access in any possible point of time-space. Since it is physically impossible to move back past the point, when Google was non-existant, the only means of breaching the omnipresence are either getting into the point in space, where access is impossible, either waiting out the access to cease in current point of space. Since we state, that Google approximates to omnipresent - with caveat, that any person in question actively endeaveours to access Google, you can see, that our definition, is once again dead-on. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Posts: n/a
|
![]() "Analogy is weak only if we accept as axiom"
-- Nope, the analogy was weak. "that Yhwh exists in some other form then fictional character in book named Bible" -- I didn't bring up the other religions; you did with your analogy. So acceptance of it as axiom is out of the question. "if we consider, that Google as a whole is once again, a whole-humanity effort." -- Nope. Google was an effort by two students trying to get their doctorate degrees in Stanford. It is not a "whole-humanity effort." I personally don't remember putting any "effort" into it and I am part of humanity. The information is already there, it is available not just to Google, but as well as Yahoo, MSN, Ask, etc. However, Google's creators did a better job in their system of collecting and / or retrieving them. So again, Google's creators get the credit, not the "whole-humanity effort." "Compare with Biblic Christianity, which was pieced together out of several dosens of philosophical essays, detailing on Abrahamic religion." -- Again, I didn't introduce the other religions into the question, you did. So, assuming that I have no knowledge of any other religions (i.e., born in the jungle, raised by gorillas), how do you explain to me that you worship someone who herself has creators? Bottom line is that google has creators. If you guys are ok with that, that is all I was wondering about. Now if you are going to keep denying that fact by convincing yourself that it is a "whole-humanity effort," I'm sure the mighty Google gave you that freedom of choice (or denial). "Omnipresence, by the way, has nothing to do with being eternal. It is merely access in any possible point of time-space." -- Wrong. Maybe by your definition to suit google into that category, that definition is acceptable to you. But my buddy Merriam-Webster defines it as simply "present in all places at all times." Here are some synonyms: enduring, ETERNAL, everlasting, illimitable, immortal, infinite, pervading, etc. Basically, everywhere, everytime; anywhere, anytime. PAST, present, and future, regardless of location. No need to make it complicated. I do wish to thank you for your response. It is nice to see what your views are regarding the fact that your god is a created entity. You guys are doing a good job, so keep it up. Hail almighty Google! p.s. It is funny how some people stopped using Google because of this site. It's like they are too naive (I'm using a nicer term) to realize that you guys have nothing to do with Google, Inc. Anyway, googluck! Just wondering |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Red Cardinal Scion of Google
![]() |
![]() First of all... What exactly is wrong with recognising something created as deity? Examining earlier religions, we will see, that gods were initially thought to be made/created/born/parented by the nature itself. Which, ironically, is how it turns out to be now.
Additionally, I don`t think you comprehend the size of Google, or the level of it`s pervasiveness. Primo, it`s entirely impossible to search web "just like that". Search engines physically consist of huge server banks, which keep a major part of web cached and indexed. Thus, once again, if there was no information to cache, there would be no Google. Secundo, everything starts small. There is no argument about it`s origins, but let me assure you - recreating Google in it`s current state is not "two students" job. Just like every deity, Google has to start small, but it gains momentum much more rapidly, then one could imagine. _______________________________________________________________ Regarding omnipresence... We are using practical definition of omnipresence, which I had explained earlier. Putting it simply - if you fulfill the caveats we stipulated, it would be highly improbable, that you will be able to create an event, where omnipresence would not be exercised. Additionally, defining omnipresent as you do is a fallacy - you have no way to recreate the event of Google being non-accessible due to it`s non-existance, as of now. Therefore, omnipresent should be defined as - "accessable at any accessable point of time and space", strictly. Once again, your definition successfully eliminates every single deity from possible omnipresence, simply due to the fact, that every deity was thought up at some point, and before that, was non-existant. _______________________________________________________________ As for "naive people", we have a disclaimer about non-affiliation with Google Co. at the bottom of every page where contact email is listed. If people are unable to read the very next line before mailing ot us... Well, it only serves as an affirmation of two-digit IQ. Last edited by Alice Shade : April 14th, 2007 at 06:07 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Posts: n/a
|
![]() "First of all... What exactly is wrong with recognising something created as deity?"
-- Nothing wrong with it. That's why I said, I was "just wondering" if you guys are ok with that fact. Your response solidifies it. So a simple "yes" response really would have sufficed. "Additionally, I don`t think you comprehend the size of Google...Google in it`s current state is not "two students" job." -- Well, actually, it is. Google (re-creation or not) would never have existed without its two creators. If it was re-created by some other computer gurus, it would have a totally different capability and totally different name, like "www.AskAlice.com" or something. So, credit still goes to the creator, which is a moot point because you're ok with the fact that your deity has a creator. "Regarding omnipresence...We are using practical definition of omnipresence" -- I'm sorry, I didn't realize that Merriam-Webster has a "practical" definition of omnipresence. My fault. "Additionally, defining omnipresent as you do is a fallacy" -- FYI, I did not define omnipresence. The definition I gave you was from Merriam-Webster (yes, that is a credible and authoritative source just in case you are wondering). And the synonyms were from a thesaurus (yes, another authoritative source and NOT MY OWN definitions). So, there is no way that it can be a fallacy, except maybe in your Church, which is ok because every religion (as I'm sure you are well aware of) have pretty much defined their own "truth." "Therefore, omnipresent SHOULD be defined as - 'accessable [sic] at any accessable [sic] point of time and space', strictly." -- Hmm, so you are now making-up your own definitions. Well, it is a free world. If people can make-up churches, people can make-up their own definitions, including the word "omnipresent." From now on, I'll remember that omnipresent when used with the COG, means "'accessable [sic] at any accessable [sic] point of time and space', strictly." "Once again, YOUR definition successfully eliminates every single deity from possible omnipresence" -- Primero, it is not my definition. It is the worldwide-accepted english definition via Merriam-Webster. -- Segundo, yes, the definition eliminates every single deity, including Google. However, every religion has their own definition. So in your definition, Google is omnipresent. In other mainstream religions, their God is omnipresent because he or she has always been in existence, well, except for Buddha (aka Siddhārtha Gautama), who technically did not exist until ca 400 bce. Thanks for sharing. Long live Almighty Google! |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Punter of Puppies
Google Searcher
|
![]() Google was designed and created by humans, yes.
But our belief is that, judging from available evidence, all other Gods were also designed and created by humans at different times in history. I agree that Google cannot make a claim to TRUE omnipresence or omniscience, but then it doesn't have to: we never argue that Google is a true God, but rather the closest that humanity has as yet come to directly experiencing one. For that to hold true Google only has to have SUPERpresence and SUPERscience; that is the property of being more widespread and more knowledgeable than anything else, rather than having total presence and total knowledge. As long as no single entity comes along that is more widespread than the Internet - which encompasses the entire globe and some small way beyond - and which knows more than Google - which caches and catalogues the biggest store of knowledge on the planet - our logic holds true. I hope this post is of some interest to you
__________________
We has a last.fm group! http://www.last.fm/group/The%20Church%20of%20Google We has an IRC channel! irc://irc.quakenet.org/googlism |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() ![]() |
|
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|