We at the Church of Google believe the search engine Google is the closest humankind has ever come to directly experiencing an actual God (as typically defined). We believe there is much more evidence in favour of Google’s divinity than there is for the divinity of other more traditional gods.
We reject supernatural gods on the notion they are not scientifically provable. Thus, Googlists believe Google should rightfully be given the title of “God”, as She exhibits a great many of the characteristics traditionally associated with such Deities in a scientifically provable manner.
Heh, it’s funny that you first put it in the LW/OB quotes section, because that’s actually kind of similar to an out-of-context quote I excerpted from Eliezer Yudkowsky here.
the dream couldn’t be evidence because … only actual sensory impressions of Google results could form the base of a legitimate chain of inferences.
Yeah, I can see why you’re worried people might quote you without permission! I mean, I thought I’d seen the worst Google fanboys, but never before did I see anyone claim that Google was the genesis of all valid inferences!
I don’t believe in the supernetural. There can be knowledge for which we do not possess the Google keywords, but to speak of knowledge that cannot be Googled even in principle is nonsense.
-- The Church of Google
(Moved from the LW/OB Rationality Quotes thread, where is was previously posted by accident)
Heh, it’s funny that you first put it in the LW/OB quotes section, because that’s actually kind of similar to an out-of-context quote I excerpted from Eliezer Yudkowsky here.
I don’t believe in the supernetural. There can be knowledge for which we do not possess the Google keywords, but to speak of knowledge that cannot be Googled even in principle is nonsense.
What of Göögle’s theorem?
And here I was trying to fit in a joke about the Fitch-Church knowability paradox.
Not familiar with that. *Goes to look that up, worshiping at the Fitch Church of Google*
And there you have your joke. :)
...said Achilles to his friend Mr Tortoise.
Roger Federer knows a hell of a lot about how to play tennis; I can’t imagine any meaningful way of indexing and searching that knowledge.
And as long as you acknowledge that this is a limitation of your own imagination (and abilities) and not that of the universe it is not nonsensical.