The Creator

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.

No.

Following your logic, writers of Bible/Qu`ran/Torah are gods, because they wrote the compendums defining Christianity/Islam/Judaism, respectively - which is tantamount to making those gods.

It is not correct, that Google was solely created by Page and Brin duo, too. They provided the root, but Google in entirety is an effort of, by large, whole human civilisation.

Originally Said by Alice Shade

No.

Following your logic, writers of Bible/Qu`ran/Torah are gods, because they wrote the compendums defining Christianity/Islam/Judaism, respectively - which is tantamount to making those gods.

It is not correct, that Google was solely created by Page and Brin duo, too. They provided the root, but Google in entirety is an effort of, by large, whole human civilisation.

Nope, that does not follow my logic. I'm sorry but that is a weak analogy. You see, I don't claim that the books were gods. However, the followers of the COG claims that Google (a product) IS god. A god that has creators. Now, using your example, believers of the holy books that you mentioned believe that those were the words of God. So, in turn, although they were written by minions, the source was God. Likewise, just because the information inside Google were contributed by the "whole human civilzation," the sources were still "gods" Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Which brings us back to the fact that your god has creators.

In Christian theology, it would be like the worshipping of Jesus. The theologian Arius (Arianism) believe that Jesus was a creature like the rest of us (albeit extraordinary), and that his creator was the only true God. Now using this logic, Google being a created entity, is not a god but rather its creators Page and Brin.

Just throwing a wrench in the engine. I like the concept though (CoG). It is pretty cool. Except for the fact that Google is "omnipresent." Google is in fact everywhere, which made to the false conclusion that it (or "She") is omnipresent. However, omnipresent is "present in all places at all times." Aside from being everywhere, "She" has to be "always existing" as well. Which we all know that Google began as a research project in January 1996, the domain google.com was registered on September 14, 1997, and the company was incorporated as Google Inc. on September 7, 1998. So it is not always existing, thus negating the omnipresent theory. And if you retort that the information has always been in existence - true, but not Google herself. Also, any information inside Google is a result of recorded information. This world is old, older than script and information jotting. So although we can talk about dinosaurs and ice ages, the information of those events were not recorded until we started writing (or drawing petroglyphs).

Anyway, like I said, I was just wondering and thought I'd throw in a wrench in the belief system, hehe. I guess I'm bored. Enjoy your Google worship. You guys probably don't give a hoot and probably thinking "man, this guy is too serious - ease up man!" Hehe! Have fun. Great website by the way!

Just wondering

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.

"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

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.

"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!

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