How do I become God? I want a promotion in the universe

[micromass]

The scrolls were read, partially, by many parties, some of whom were with the Church, who then quickly took possession of them. They then metered out access to only sections of the scrolls that they would allow to be viewed by others.

I'll check my sources for you to see if anything new has happened.

What are your sources for the scrolls not showing evidence of Jesus?

Again: show evidence of your claims. This is not a forum where you can claim everything you want without evidence.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Digital copies with translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls are available here
http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/

The Dead Sea Scrolls were a combination of Hebrew texts from the old testament and non-biblical sources and if I remember correctly are dated as being anywhere from two centuries before and half a century after Jesus's supposed birth. Also if I'm remembering correctly (from school RE and philosophy lessons) the Dead Sea Scrolls hold no mention of Jesus or anything else that appears in the new testament.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The question of whether or not an entity can convince you that they can do something is irrelevant with regards to the question of whether or not they can do it.

You're completely missing the point: if they can convince you they can do it by undermining your ability to think logically, you're in the same position you'd be if they could actually do it. There's no standing off to the side and analyzing it, no critical part of your mind to kick in and suspect you've been tricked. The actual assertion I made is that the fact they can't do it becomes moot. I did not assert it means they can actually do it.

Address, the problem of a person rendered unable to sort out that they can't actually do it. Is that person not in the same position as someone confronted by an entity that can actually do it?

Really? You've never met a religious person or read a theological text that did not claim the Cartesian perfections?

Please re-read what I wrote. I made a distinction between primary sources and secondary re-interpretations. What Descartes, or any other religious person, asserts about the omnipotence of God is irrelevant to the extent it has no primary 'scriptural' backup. To the extent I am familiar with any primary literature of any theology from any culture, no claim of total omnipotence is ever made. Instead, there is only the claim of very great, certainly superhuman, powers of various kinds.

If Descartes claims something like absolute omnipotence for God, then that's his assertion, and not God's. Logically defeating Descartes to disprove God would, therefore, represent a commonplace strawman fallacy. If Lex Luthor points out that Superman is not omnipotent since he can't create a stone so big he can't pick it up, has he disproven the existence of Superman? Did Superman ever claim omnipotence? It's a strawman.

The sum of this train of thinking being: there probably is no "cannonical" model of omnipotence for the OP to aspire to.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You're completely missing the point: if they can convince you they can do it by undermining your ability to think logically, you're in the same position you'd be if they could actually do it. There's no standing off to the side and analyzing it, no critical part of your mind to kick in and suspect you've been tricked. The actual assertion I made is that the fact they can't do it becomes moot. I did not assert it means they can actually do it.

Address, the problem of a person rendered unable to sort out that they can't actually do it. Is that person not in the same position as someone confronted by an entity that can actually do it?

I think you're missing the point, I get what you say but it's irrelevant to what I originally said. I made the point that the concept of omnipotence is illogical because it is paradoxical, you replied that this doesn't matter if a non-omnipotent being can trick me into thinking it is omnipotent which is patently not the issue.

It is immaterial whether or not a tricked individual in front of a non-omnipotent being is in "the same position" (I presume of judgement) as one that has not been tricked in front of an omnipotent being.

Please re-read what I wrote. I made a distinction between primary sources and secondary re-interpretations. What Descartes, or any other religious person, asserts about the omnipotence of God is irrelevant to the extent it has no primary 'scriptural' backup. To the extent I am familiar with any primary literature of any theology from any culture, no claim of total omnipotence is ever made. Instead, there is only the claim of very great, certainly superhuman, powers of various kinds.

If Descartes claims something like absolute omnipotence for God, then that's his assertion, and not God's. Logically defeating Descartes to disprove God would, therefore, represent a commonplace strawman fallacy. If Lex Luthor points out that Superman is not omnipotent since he can't create a stone so big he can't pick it up, has he disproven the existence of Superman? Did Superman ever claim omnipotence? It's a strawman.

The sum of this train of thinking being: there probably is no "cannonical" model of omnipotence for the OP to aspire to.

I'm sorry but I don't see any relevance in this. Firstly whether or not there is any traditional scriptural backing for the notion of omnipotence (and I have met many religious people that would assert otherwise) does not change whether or not omnipotence is a logically sound proposition.

Secondly as I warned earlier this thread will be closed if it descends into a discussion about the nature or existence of a "god." Your superman analogy is ironically a strawman to what I have been saying, I am not arguing the existence or non-existence of a god or gods nor am I arguing over the capabilities of said being(s). I am simply discussing the proposition of omnipotence which I submit is a paradoxical one.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I agree. But the church has added interpretations which raised these expectations towards "perfection".

Which means separating what's actually claimed from what is claimed is claimed.

So far, the way for a man to become a god is to be a Jewish carpenter who becomes politically active, have your past reconstituted later to form a religion, and then have people call you a god. It has worked in the past. The Dead Sea Scrolls document much of the process, inadvertently.

I think other professions could be substituted for carpentry, and other starting religions for Judaism, but the media coverage of things like this would make changing history harder, but certainly not impossible. In fact, with proper spin control, your apostles could probably use it to their advantage.

Your point being that there is no way to become a god, only to create the perception you are.

I think the OP is asking for more than that, and wants to know how it would feel to have extraordinary, superhuman powers.

 

[Containment]

I'm not sure which forum section this would go in. This is a pretty unscientific question.

But, do you guys think that omniscience or omnipotence are possible in our universe? If so, how would one go about getting them? If not, what do you think is the closest that one could get to these features? Do you think that science is ultimately limited in how much power and control it can grant it's users? This is (obviously) all very hypothetical.

Seems to me what your talking about is perfection and my understanding on that is that if perfection can't become better then it's not perfect :)