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

[GladScientist]

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.

 

[JHamm]

Omnipotence seems a little contradictory to science since we have a collection of "rules" which allow us to figure out how things are going to transpire. The ability to be omnipotent would imply that these rules really aren't absolute.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Omnipotence is paradoxical as is omniscience. For example: can an omniscient and omnipotent entity predict what they will do in the future and then not do it? If they do not do it then they are not omniscient, if they must do it then they are not omnipotent.

As for the rest of your question there are definitely limits to what we can know (If I was to think of an object on my deathbed there is no way to get that information afterwards) and there are most likely limits to what we can do (without breaking fundamental laws of physics); the question becomes "what are these limits" which is potentially an unanswerable question because you never know how things might change. The best you can do is say "right now under our present understanding the following things are impossible...the following things are theoretically possible...and the following things are practically possible."

 

[chiro]

In terms of getting that kind of knowledge or experience in terms of science and technology, then you may have to be patient.

But before all of that you would need to have a lot of patience, curiosity and acceptance for the universe around you and quite frankly humans are terrible at this.

Also you mention the idea of control. Interestingly enough, there are patterns in nature that exist that can be quantified and described mathematically, yet in spite of these laws, we, at least seemingly, have the ability to make choices of our own free will.

These means that we either a) really have some kind of natural free-will or b) we have a process which we think is free-will which really is not. If free will really exists, then the idea of control becomes an interesting issue since this omnipotent being at least is not interested in complete control, unlike some of our human brethren.

In terms of the kind of understanding that would be required to be this kind of being (IMO), you would have to have a kind of understanding that is beyond what we have. The kind of insight would be phenomenal: when we see someone that is a somewhat good person yet always gets sick and always runs into problems, a being would see it in a way that we can not. You would apply this thinking to every kind of situation you could imagine.

It would be like you, being a parent, grabbing your childs hand and telling them to stay on the footpath waiting for the cars before crossing the road, or making sure your kids don't spend all their time watching TV, or something else where they do not completely understand why, but later when they are older, look back and may end up thanking their parents for putting them on the right path. This is the kind of insight you would need to have: to have the insight to what will happen when you have a set of complex interactions numbering in the millions and doing something that, at least to the normal being, be considered stupid, harmful, or something else.

The insight to me is the big thing. Insight for a specific area or application is rare. Insight for everything is one definitive way that I would characterize an omnipotent being, or at least the type of being you are describing in the OP.

 

[Tea Jay]

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.

I don't believe its possible, or desirable. Your query talks of power and control, but not of beneficent actions. So, the power to control everything and everyone in the universe is different from a complete amount of knowledge, as is the ability to predict the future.

If the reason for your power was the knowledge and prescience, you would not be a god, merely a mortal that people wanted to use as a resource. You could leverage that supply demand equation to your advantage of course, albeit simply be a wealthy and/or popular mortal.

To me, God would need to be immortal, and have rules for everyone and everything to follow, and be unbiased. Otherwise, how could "both sides pray for victory", etc.

So far, it looks to me that the closest thing we have to a god would be math.

If you want to be "godly" as opposed to "god", you could study and apply math.

:D

 

[wuliheron]

Inaction
The follower of knowledge learns as much as he can every day;
The follower of the Way forgets as much as he can every day.
By attrition he reaches a state of inaction
Wherein he does nothing, but nothing remains undone.
To conquer the world, accomplish nothing;
If you must accomplish something,
The world remains beyond conquest.
Lao Tzu

 

[GladScientist]

Thanks for the interesting and thought provoking answers so far.

 

[neyzenyelda]

omnipotency is very easy in fantasies! :)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

omnipotency is very easy in fantasies! :)

I beg to differ. Imagine creating a perfectly sharp sword that can cut through anything with no resistance. Now imagine creating a perfectly impervious shield that nothing can break. Now bring the two together...

And that puts us nicely back in the ballpark of the paradoxical nature of omnipotency.

 

[MisterX]

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?

Isn't eternal life more desirable than omniscience or omnipotence?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think one would need to justify the assertion that omnipotence necessarily includes the ablity to defy logic.

 

[MATLABdude]

Just get some people to declare you god, for instance...

Step 1: Write sci-fi, gather following
Step 2: Convert cult-following into actual cult
Step 3: Prophet / apotheosis!

Or if you're not as creative (and really, you don't have to be) you could follow in the footsteps of one or more of the gods who've come before you, and just take up their respective mantles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities

Once you've hit it big, I suggest getting yourself a worthy chariot, like a converted cruise ship, cargo carrier or giant blimp.

 

[Constantinos]

You could create a new world (novel, computer game etc...) Technically, you are a God of that world since you completely control it (you create it along with its rules) and you function under rules (physics) that are a superset of the rules of that world (computer operations)

Being god of this world... no. But why would you want that? I suppose because it makes you happy, or you like the feeling of control. But there is happiness enough in this world without being god. Control... not so much, you can't be anything you want in life. But you should struggle for control instead of being god! That's the closest you can get to it. That is, learning everything you can about the sciences and using them to control the world around you. There you go.

Also consider MATLABdude's advice. If a captcha did it, you can do it also

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/inglip

http://www.churchofinglip.com/

 

[zoobyshoe]

I beg to differ. Imagine creating a perfectly sharp sword that can cut through anything with no resistance. Now imagine creating a perfectly impervious shield that nothing can break. Now bring the two together...

And that puts us nicely back in the ballpark of the paradoxical nature of omnipotency.

This is moot, really. Imagine being confronted with a being who has all possible powers and trying to mock him by arguing he can't make a stone so big he can't pick it up. In a second he could have you so confused you'd believe he was completely satisfying the paradox: doing both mutually exclusive things.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

When you say omniscient, do you mean you know the position, or do you mean that you know the momentum?

 

[Constantinos]

When you say omniscient, do you mean you know the position, or do you mean that you know the momentum?

 

[micromass]

This is moot, really. Imagine being confronted with a being who has all possible powers and trying to mock him by arguing he can't make a stone so big he can't pick it up. In a second he could have you so confused you'd believe he was completely satisfying the paradox: doing both mutually exclusive things.

Yes, he can make you believe he satisfies the paradox. That's not hard to do. But he can't actually satisfy the paradox!

 

[Constantinos]

Why is there a paradox? Maybe our brains can't just understand how it is possible. Our logic systems may correspond to our experience, but not necessarily to reality which might have aspects beyond our experience!

 

[rootX]

OP asked two very different questions:
*How do I become God?
*Do you guys think that omniscience or omnipotence are possible in our universe?

Is the thread title unrelated to the OP post content?

Last time I checked, gods weren't required to deal with logic/paradoxes.

Yes, he can make you believe he satisfies the paradox. That's not hard to do. But he can't actually satisfy the paradox!

Is that concerning? The purpose of god is less to work on logic problems more to help people deal with the reality etc. But see my response above. I am not sure what OP wanted to discuss.

Why is there a paradox?

See #3 post.

 

[Constantinos]

See #3 post.

I saw it, but again, this is a paradox for our logic system. It doesn't mean that it is so in reality. Imagine that some digital entity you created told the other digital entities that you can't have any value between 1 and 0. It's true in its world and it would find anyone claiming otherwise to be illogical. But is it reality?

 

[GladScientist]

Am I extremely dull, or is there no edit button for my post?

I don't consider the ability to defy logic to be a part of omnipotence. Being all-powerful within the realm of logic is enough to be considered omnipotent IMO.

 

[wuliheron]

Am I extremely dull, or is there no edit button for my post?

I don't consider the ability to defy logic to be a part of omnipotence. Being all-powerful within the realm of logic is enough to be considered omnipotent IMO.

Which type of logic does an omnipotent being use?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, he can make you believe he satisfies the paradox. That's not hard to do. But he can't actually satisfy the paradox!

How would the fact the paradox isn't actually satisfied help anyone if everyone can be convinced it is satisfied?

Am I extremely dull, or is there no edit button for my post?

The edit button disappears after a certain amount of time, or after someone has quoted your post. The window of opportunity for editing is limited.

I don't consider the ability to defy logic to be a part of omnipotence. Being all-powerful within the realm of logic is enough to be considered omnipotent IMO.

According to descriptions from various religious sources, divine power is extremely great, but it's not actually asserted that God, or gods, are all-powerful. I can't think of any original sources where it's claimed they can do anything imaginable (even short of defying logic). Since Judeo-Christian God is credited with having created the universe, it is often assumed by man he must be able to do anything imaginable, but that's an assumption made by man as far as I can see, not something asserted by God. Having created the universe as it is, for example, God might now be constrained not to contradict the principles by which it operates. He may, in fact, not now be able to suspend gravity anywhere in the universe, for example, without screwing the whole thing up, or at least, drastically altering everything. At the same time there would be nothing preventing him from doing the much easier, and more economical, thing of making people believe that he had suspended gravity, or stopped the sun in the sky, or whatever.

What I'm saying, I guess, is that the common notion of omnipotence probably has no scriptural backup anywhere, and divinity would actually only consist of being very powerful in some way shape or form, relative to man. Back in the day, Superman would probably have qualified for a place on mount Olympus. By virtue of his speed, x-ray vision, apparently unlimited physical strength, and ability to fly, he might even have rivaled Zeus as the most powerful god. Still, he's not omnipotent: he can't shape shift, can't read minds, can't see the future, for example. The term "omnipotent", for all anyone knows, may only ever have meant "possessed of all possible powers" and not "able to do anything that can be imagined".

 

[Ryan_m_b]

How would the fact the paradox isn't actually satisfied help anyone if everyone can be convinced it is satisfied?

That's flawed logic akin to saying that magicians really can pull rabbits from their hats. 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.

According to descriptions from various religious sources, divine power is extremely great, but it's not actually asserted that God, or gods, are all-powerful. I can't think of any original sources where it's claimed they can do anything imaginable (even short of defying logic)...

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

Aside from this if people want to continue along this topic please deal with the OP and not with assertions and discussions of what "god" really means.

 

[Tea Jay]

How would the fact the paradox isn't actually satisfied help anyone if everyone can be convinced it is satisfied?The edit button disappears after a certain amount of time, or after someone has quoted your post. The window of opportunity for editing is limited.

According to descriptions from various religious sources, divine power is extremely great, but it's not actually asserted that God, or gods, are all-powerful. I can't think of any original sources where it's claimed they can do anything imaginable (even short of defying logic). Since Judeo-Christian God is credited with having created the universe, it is often assumed by man he must be able to do anything imaginable, but that's an assumption made by man as far as I can see, not something asserted by God. Having created the universe as it is, for example, God might now be constrained not to contradict the principles by which it operates. He may, in fact, not now be able to suspend gravity anywhere in the universe, for example, without screwing the whole thing up, or at least, drastically altering everything. At the same time there would be nothing preventing him from doing the much easier, and more economical, thing of making people believe that he had suspended gravity, or stopped the sun in the sky, or whatever.

What I'm saying, I guess, is that the common notion of omnipotence probably has no scriptural backup anywhere, and divinity would actually only consist of being very powerful in some way shape or form, relative to man. Back in the day, Superman would probably have qualified for a place on mount Olympus. By virtue of his speed, x-ray vision, apparently unlimited physical strength, and ability to fly, he might even have rivaled Zeus as the most powerful god. Still, he's not omnipotent: he can't shape shift, can't read minds, can't see the future, for example. The term "omnipotent", for all anyone knows, may only ever have meant "possessed of all possible powers" and not "able to do anything that can be imagined".

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

Once you attempt perfection, you are doomed to failure, due to silly paradoxes, etc.

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain no mention of Jesus.

 

[Tea Jay]

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain no mention of Jesus.

Yes they do, they indicate that he existed.

They also show he was part of a militaristic group. They also mention the apostles.

If you take the data from scholars not associated with the Church.

 

[micromass]

Yes they do, they prove he existed.

They also show he was part of a militaristic group.

If you take the data form scholars not associated with the Church.

Please give evidence of your claims.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Yes they do, they indicate that he existed.

They also show he was part of a militaristic group. They also mention the apostles.

If you take the data from scholars not associated with the Church.

But not if you take the data from the scrolls.

 

[Tea Jay]

But not if you take the data from the scrolls.

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?

 

[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 :)