The "churchofgoogle" website claims Google is the "closest thing to an omniscient entity in existence" and "potentially immortal" - its algorithms spread, as they are, over many servers so that if one fails another will take its place.
But the unashamed Google fan site does not answer the question of whether we could do without it.
And, of course, we have done so for most of history and we could easily do so again.
And therein lies the heart of the problem for Google in its strained dealings with China.
Google might be the internet's most powerful search engine.
It might be convenient, easy to use, comprehensive and even fabulous.
But no search engine is indispensable.
Google executives are upset at cyber attacks that, it says, originated in China and targeted the g-mail accounts of Chinese dissidents and human rights activists.
It seems to have stopped short of saying the computer hackers were employed by the Chinese Government but the inference has been there.
So upset were the Google executives that they threatened to stop censoring search results on its China search engine and threatened to shut down Google.cn.
For half a day it did stop censoring such things as criticism of the Chinese Government's record on human rights, but that is as far as it has gone towards carrying out its threat.
The Google executives also took their complaint about cyber attacks to United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose office defined the issue as more than a commercial dispute.
"The United States has frequently made clear to the Chinese our views on the importance of unrestricted internet use," said her adviser, Alec Ross, who called for an explanation from the Chinese Government.
Google's adventures in China began in 2006 when it gained access to a market with 1.3 billion potential users.
But, in exchange for access, Google agreed to censor its content in accordance with the wishes of the Chinese Government.
For a highly principled company, as Google claims it is (its motto is "don't be evil"), that agreement must now seem akin to selling the company's soul to the devil.
Commentators, such as Britain's Observer newspaper, have suggested Google justified the censorship agreement in the belief that the power of the web would "shrug off efforts at state control" and that once the Chinese people had a limited taste of Western-style media they would demand greater openness.
Google would be a "trojan horse inside a brutal regime".
Top marks to Google for trying.
But now, after four years, this idealistic and somewhat naive approach has led it to stumble over the reality of dealing with a staunch, authoritarian world power that entertains the West at its pleasure and can simply withdraw the welcome mat whenever it likes.
Google, after all, is just one of many search engines with big ideas.
Similar functions are available through Baidu, the Chinese Government's own search engine, which describes China's internet search industry as "newly discovered territory" with "vast untapped" potential.
It can be assumed Baidu is assiduous in carrying out the Chinese Government's wishes on censorship and could be counted on to take up any slack left by Google's departure.
It is not too surprising, then, that the Government has given the Google complaint what some websites have called the "go to hell" response.
Wang Chen, head of China's State Council Information Office and deputy head of the Communist Party's propaganda department, has been quoted saying: "We must do our best to intensify self-discipline among internet media to guarantee internet security . . .
Online media must treat the creation of a positive mainstream opinion environment as an important duty."
"A positive mainstream opinion environment" might not suggest a great deal of room for criticism of the Chinese Government but the fact of the matter is if Google wants to do business in China it has little choice but to do as Baidu does and toe the Chinese Government's line.
Its only other option is to leave and give up its commercial interests in a still booming economy.
So, unless the US Government can bring pressure to bear, Google seems likely to be left with a familiar choice - like it or lump it.
Even for an "omniscient entity" there is no bluffing a powerful authoritarian state and although meetings are planned between all concerned it is difficult to imagine the Chinese Government not calling Google's bluff.
