[aaron695]

It's a shame about the religious babble brought into this by the people who ran it.

"One may suppose God would use a much more efficient algorithm"

It still could have been fun and been along the lines of "One may suppose a god would use a much more efficient algorithm"

But there's only one true god evidently. Lets ignore those stupid religions that have many gods.

[georgemcbay]

I'm not religious and I do get pissed off by the idea of things like "teaching the controversy" when it comes to creationism and such, but the wording here doesn't really bother me at all; it just seems like a shorthand way of describing a being generally accepted to be omniscient to easily put forth the concept of a completely perfect solution regardless of the initial state.

[sjwright]

While I'm reflexively inclined to disagree, one must remember how Einstein's casual pantheistic use of the word was twisted and distorted by others. The word 'god' is so overloaded with meaning that it's best to avoid even when the intent is honorable.

So yes, your rewording is a distinct improvement.

[freyrs3]

It's a metaphor that's probably understood by everyone who reads it, which is the point. Besides, the English lexicon is full of vestigial words and phrases relating to Greek polytheism, they're just as detached as this metaphor is.

[rational_indian]

>they're just as detached as this metaphor is.

Except it isn't. You are delusional if you think it is.

[freyrs3]

That's a great argument, I'm convinced.

[omegaham]

It's shorthand for "optimal." Assuming an omniscient god, he would be able to always solve a Rubik's Cube in the minimum (optimal) number of moves.

You're reading too much into it, I think.