>>156
One way to look at infinity is just to look at a non-terminating process. ``God'' I could give one definition which fits in a very small program (such as Schmidhuber's conception of the Universal Dovetailer, which is a trivial scheduler + interpreter (such as an universal turing machine)), but unfortunately for you the program is also non-terminating and increases in its (always unbounded but finite) size each internal time step, so you obviously won't like it as you don't like anything which grows in size unboundedly, even if finite at each step (actually our universe seems to do just that as well). I could also give another definition which is non-computational, but mathematically well-understood, but yet still partially accessible to senses, but I'm not going to go into that definition for that discussion could stretch for a long time. I cannot give you any popular religions ``God'''s implementation for they either have impossible properties (showing they are false concepts that can never exist in any possible world and still retain all the claimed properties) or they are far too complex (surely we have yet to digitize a human mind or create an artificial general intelligence, you can't expect me to be able to do that for now). So stop asking someone to implement something on which nobody can even agree on a definition.
>>157
Which is what the rest of the post does. It just shows that there was a specification showing a programmer's expectations, there was an implementation that didn't do exactly what the programmer wanted, but still mostly fit the specification, and there was a reverse engineer who could create a specification which describes exactly what the program does, as opposed to what the programmer intended the program to do.