...I can't see such a thing taking off...
A lot of things Google does never take off. The point is that they make cool stuff even if there's little or no business case for it. I like that they are always showing the untapped potential of the ubiquitous tools we already have. I like that they make ways to make things work together, then share the tools for us all to use.
I find it ironic that your defense against my claims that your god doesn't exist is to call my depiction of your god a "straw man." Of coarse it's a straw man. We're talking about something that doesn't exist. Something that doesn't exist is almost the definition of a straw man.
Technically, a straw man argument is one based on a false representation of the opponent's claims. The straw man in the term "straw man argument" is an analogy of a manufactured image, an illusion, a figment, a lie, a false premise. I find it a bit too easy to apply the claim of "straw man argument" when the original discussion is about an actual straw man, a figment of humanity's collective imagination, in this case God. I get the sense that you have become comfortable using the term "straw man argument" as your default defense against any and all claims that God does not exist. It is easy for you to claim that any representation of god that you do not like is just a "straw man" because God is an amorphous concept open to broad interpretation.
I will also note that in your defense, you made no attempt to provide your own description of God. It would be predictable if your next move were to cop-out and say that God is beyond our feeble human understanding, and as such, you are are excused from providing a plausible description of him.
Atheism leads to this.
What does Atheism have to do with any of this? Because I don't believe there's an invisible man in the sky means I don't have any morals?
Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.