[AkshatM]

This blog post plays too loose and fast with its terms to be useful as a model of anything:

- It's tautological. A tribe is defined as a connected graph of members with a shared mean opinion, and then God is defined as that shared mean opinion. You can't do that - you can't assume what you're setting out to prove. Nor can you just call something a term (like 'God') and then assume it actually has other properties we associate with the term - you have to demonstrate that. In other words, all this blog post does is propose a definition and fail to show how that definition remotely captures that interesting properties we care about. I can call birdsong "trees" all I want, I doubt I'll be getting calls from the department of forestry anytime soon.

- It assumes a bad foundation. N in the author's formulation is clearly infinite (I challenge anyone to describe a procedure to enumerate all possible opinions), but the author assumes its finite. What they really want to mean is that you can assign a numeric score to a person that describes inclination towards agreement with a particular proposition, which is still workable.

This is, frankly, bad armchair philosophy.