Google is God

This is an amusing perspective on religion and God.  Evidence is provided in the link below.

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/Scripture/Proof_Google_Is_God.html

Sort of amusing. Although I cannot know a priori that Google exists, although there are arguments for the existence of God on those lines.

My favorite parody for the existence of Santa is "The First Claus" argument.

One rationalist point of view is that we can only be sure of our sensory input, and beyond that it's all a matter of creating models for the purposes of our own thinking and behaviour. The quality of these models can only be assessed by their fitness for purpose. If the fitness for purpose of some such models is providing a means to achieve eternal bliss in some domain to which we have no empirical access, they remain rather less verifiable that the most extreme theoretical physics, but if quality is defined by the benefits to one's state of mind, substantial empirical evidence does exist. It could be argued that yogis and Buddhist monks have travelled further along this path than Western spiritual advancement.

That sounds like an empiricist's point of view, not a rationalists.

Fair enough, you're much more knowledgeable about the established terminology than I am. I meant only that it was a rational viewpoint. Most of the philosophy I know of, I have found out about while discussing my own personal ideas. I can't help but feel many philosophers were influenced by the culture in which they were brought up, and we are in no worse position to start.

I just can't see some of the problems other people see. Conflict between rationalism and empiricism? How can it be. Our rational understanding can only be based on generalisation from our empirical experience.

Empiricts have a stronger belief. Rationalists admit more a priori truth, generally (although most empiricsts do as well). A rationalist can be an empiricist, so you are somewhat right in saying there is no conflict. A rationalist is a weak position, that is not commited to knowing empirically alone.

I understand. My point is that all rationists should realise that their "a priori" beliefs are in fact based on their empirical experience or that of others.

With regard to the empirical basis for religion, believers have had mixed results in experiments designed to verify certain aspects of faith.

Efficacy of prayer - empirical verification

I see your point. I would never argue from prayer...many theists credit different deities as answering these prayers, of course. I have not seriously looked at studies about the efficacy of prayer, but I've heard generally that there was no significant correlation. Anyway, I wouldn't like the idea of God pandering to our every needs. I think this is the "cosmic bellhop" joke. Surprisingly, people think that "why doesn't god heal amputees" to be a decisive argument.

I do find a version of that argument adequate as a counter to crediting God with every good thing. For instance, on a discussion program someone stated that the survival of the Chilean minors was a miracle due to God, someone else pointed out that he had allowed 22,000 children under the age of 5 to die on each day that they were down the mine.

Less seriously:

I think that  a miracle is something which  defies the physical, chemical or mathematical laws of the universe. Something which occurs against great odds is not a miracle.

I disagree that a miracle cannot be physical. Assume that miracle is the absence of some physical law, or even most physical laws. It does not have to be the absence of all physical laws. I do not think it is incompatible to have a miracle superseeding the laws of physics, if by "the laws of physics" we mean the most commonly applied ones to everyday life.

I think what is most important in the nature of miracles is the questions most people do not ask about them:

1. Even if miracles do not exist in terms of there existing a physical explanation for such an event, why do these events occur so often in a spiritual/metaphysical context? Why aren't there improbable physical events clustered around in another physical context, comparitively speaking? Intuitively, it should seem that this should not be the case. Therefore there are still religious implications.

2. I think one of the more important aspects of what a miracle is is often overlooked: often, in the Bible, things are not directly said to be miracles. Othertimes, they are said to be signs. A sign can be material or immaterial. But a sign in this context has a spiritual end, which is ultimately all that matters, in my opinion.