False gods: and how could God proof he really is God?

[wautd]

I'm not a very religious person myself. There may be a God/Creator and there may be not. And if there was one, I'd very much doubt why he would bother to show himself here anyway.

Anyway, the Goauld (SG-1) made me thinking. They tricked ancient humans thinking they are gods thanks to their superior technology.
To give another example, using smoke & mirrors, USS Voyager (Star Trek) could fool a lot of people even today if they'd wanted to (make the Doctor look like Jezus, clever use of transporters/replicators would look like they can "create" matter, they could let us think we're in heaven while we're just standing in a holodeck).

Hell, history made people believe other people were gods with far less proof

So assume something is coming down to earth, does some funky miracles and claims to be God. Being a not very religious person myself, I would still be rather sceptic.

What evidence would you need that will convince you this "god" is the Real Deal rather than an alien with such advanced technology that we cannot even comprehend it?

[Adrian Laguna]

Actually a better question would be, is there a difference? We, all of humanity, are an infinitesimally small speck in the universe, which could very well be the backyard experiment of a child in some higher dimension.

As to whether your theoretical alien could prove to be God, they can't. Every single miracle that I can think off can be acomplished by technology of a sufficiently advanced level. Take the Xeelee or the Culture for instance. They could quite easily convince a large portion of the Human population that they are Gods.

[wautd]

Actually a better question would be, is there a difference?

true that

[spikenigma]

at the verifiable universe destroying and re-creating level of ability, whether it is acomplished by technology or some inate ability ceases to be relevant for me.

I suppose if the definition of "God" would be one who created our universe and everything in it. Whether it is beings with sufficiently advanced technology who have created it, or some Q-like creature in another dimension who has willed our universe into being doesn't matter, as either could be described as "God".

[Steven Snyder]

What evidence would you need that will convince you this "god" is the Real Deal rather than an alien with such advanced technology that we cannot even comprehend it?

All the heads of the False Gods impaled on stakes. If he has wiped out his competition, then obviously he is the real deal, or an acceptable substitute.

[dragon]

snip.
To give another example, using smoke & mirrors, USS Voyager (Star Trek) could fool a lot of people even today if they'd wanted to (make the Doctor look like Jezus, clever use of transporters/replicators would look like they can "create" matter, they could let us think we're in heaven while we're just standing in a holodeck).
snip

They did that in a TNG epsiode when they met the woman claiming she was a god. At the end picard was pulling the same trick.

As the proving hell the Q took voyager back to big bang. Also Q was there when Picard was dying due to his heart the second time. So it would be hard pressed to give absolute proof.

[Nephtys]

*STARES at wautd* Jaffa, Kree!

Now that I've sent my thugs at you, lesse. Well, remember, true omnipotence is logically impossible, so any god we're talking about if they exist has to have a limitation on powers. We all know the bit about sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic to sufficiently primative eyes, so I can't see why this isn't unreasonable.

The native americans thought settlers were gods at first because of their white skin and strange ships coming from nowhere, and loud boomsticks. For all we know, this said diety coming to Earth is Apothis.

[Darth Wong]

What evidence would you need that will convince you this "god" is the Real Deal rather than an alien with such advanced technology that we cannot even comprehend it?

Ummm, the Biblical God is an alien being with advanced capabilities that we cannot comprehend. How do you distinguish these two concepts?

The Biblical God is not omnipotent, but he is capable of certain very specific and clearly defined acts if you take the Bible seriously. Therefore, he could provide some evidence suggesting that he's the Biblical God by populating the entire planet Mars with an entire brand-new biosystem (complete with millions of new species of flora and fauna) over a period of a few days, while being careful to fill the geological strata with misleading fossil evidence that suggests they all evolved from a common ancestor.

This would not provide absolute proof of the Bible, but it would indicate that it is possible for some entity to have done the sort of things that might have inspired the Bible, as Christians believe.

[Lord Revan]

What is the defination of a god? As it's said technology that's advanced enough is indistinguishable from magic (as we see it), so any alien with advanced enough tech would impossible to tell apart from the real deal.

[Surlethe]

A corollary question is: At an advanced level, is there an objective difference between magic and technology? If the god can convince me it's magic rather than technology, I'll believe in it.

[Solauren]

Make me a god too

Then I'd believe them

[wautd]

What evidence would you need that will convince you this "god" is the Real Deal rather than an alien with such advanced technology that we cannot even comprehend it?

Ummm, the Biblical God is an alien being with advanced capabilities that we cannot comprehend. How do you distinguish these two concepts?

Well, imo the Real Deal would be omnipotent without the use of any technology. The fake one can be omnipotent but needs technology to do so

[Nephtys]

What evidence would you need that will convince you this "god" is the Real Deal rather than an alien with such advanced technology that we cannot even comprehend it?

Ummm, the Biblical God is an alien being with advanced capabilities that we cannot comprehend. How do you distinguish these two concepts?

Well, imo the Real Deal would be omnipotent without the use of any technology. The fake one can be omnipotent but needs technology to do so

What is omnipotence? You could say the ability to predict the future is a sign of omnipotence right now. But then, wouldn't a race with a better comprehension of time and some ridiculous gadgets be able to do that? Or create life out of dirt by taking the molecules and rearranging them? Or clone Adam a wife by taking his rib, breaking it down to it's components, and rearranging that into a female embryo, then growing it?

By 'Real Deal', do you mean some incorporeal energy being that happens to have said abilities, that could very well be the extension of advanced gadgetry?

[Zero]

To convince me that it was God, a creature would have to demonstrate that it was beyond what was naturally possible. It would essentially have to break a law of physics, or perhaps even temporarily redefine the rules of reality within my observation for me to believe that it was God. As far as I can tell, technology shouldn't be able to change the rules, just use them to create a certain effect.

However, deciding when a rule of the universe has been broken aint an easy task, but really, basically, I'm asking for a true miracle.

[FSTargetDrone]

"...when someone asks if you're a god, you say YES!"

Said god should see what it could do to get all its so-called worshipers to get along, despite their insistence that each of them are correct and all others are wrong.

[Nephtys]

To convince me that it was God, a creature would have to demonstrate that it was beyond what was naturally possible. It would essentially have to break a law of physics, or perhaps even temporarily redefine the rules of reality within my observation for me to believe that it was God. As far as I can tell, technology shouldn't be able to change the rules, just use them to create a certain effect.

However, deciding when a rule of the universe has been broken aint an easy task, but really, basically, I'm asking for a true miracle.

Well, Issac Newton could have formulated laws for gravity, but to him, an orbital kinetic bombardment isn't science. It's magic raining from the heavens, smiting people. To us, it's merely advanced technology that we can comprehend, because we're at that stage. A miracle is anything, really. A replicator is a miracle to us. An automobile is a miracle to humans 1000 years ago.

[Zero]

An automobile is a device... if it's a 'miracle' that's generated from something I can see, and I can make it work without any 'divine assistance,' then they way I see it, it's a machine. By my reasoning, it must merely extrapolate upon already existing laws in the universe. Although you're right, it wouldn't be at all easy to determine what was truly a miracle, what was truly breaking the laws, and what was simply a machine.

[Nephtys]

An automobile is a device... if it's a 'miracle' that's generated from something I can see, and I can make it work without any 'divine assistance,' then they way I see it, it's a machine. By my reasoning, it must merely extrapolate upon already existing laws in the universe. Although you're right, it wouldn't be at all easy to determine what was truly a miracle, what was truly breaking the laws, and what was simply a machine.

Fortell, what are these pictures of... people you have in thy magick box? This 'Ray-mond of NBC'... why does everyone loveth thee? Witchcraft I say!

An automobile is a device. To YOU. If I suddenly created a chemical that if ingested, gave me psychic powers... would that be a miracle? What if nobody saw me drinking this glowing vial of Mysterious Super-Secret Serum X? And whose to say that we even approach a basic understanding of all laws in the universe? We derive theories from observations, and we know damn little about what we cannot observe or cannot infer.

[Zero]

Yes, as I said, it would be very difficult to make this distinction, so perhaps the best way to go is to simply never believe that anyone's any kind of God. Unless that person is me, gone back to the midieval times to tell everyone that they're being stupid douchebags by storing corpses in the drinking water.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Before doing anything, I'd need a definition of 'God' that all parties involved can accept. Any takers?

[Surlethe]

Before doing anything, I'd need a definition of 'God' that all parties involved can accept. Any takers?

My operative definition is "being outside of space and time-- oh, shit, not that; I mean, "being with substantial supernatural abilities not derived from technology".

[Kuroneko]

If God wants one's recognition to the extent as to actually set out to prove it personally, then surely God can force belief regardless whether or not one wants to accept it or not, rendering proof irrelevant.

[Surlethe]

If God wants one's recognition to the extent as to actually set out to prove it personally, then surely God can force belief regardless whether or not one wants to accept it or not, rendering proof irrelevant.

How does that follow?

[Kuroneko]

How does that follow?

Provision of proof only has meaning only to the extent that one has a certain level of control over one's own rational faculties. Since God would (should!) be able to completely bypass that, it is rendered irrelevant--if God wanted one to believe, belief could simply be forced. Incidently, since objectively judging a being that could rewrite one's beliefs at will is impossible, this is probably the best test should a being claim to be God: just do the utmost to disbelieve regardless of evidence.

[Surlethe]

How does that follow?

Provision of proof only has meaning only to the extent that one has a certain level of control over one's own rational faculties. Since God would (should!) be able to completely bypass that, it is rendered irrelevant--if God wanted one to believe, belief could simply be forced. Incidently, since objectively judging a being that could rewrite one's beliefs at will is impossible, this is probably the best test should a being claim to be God: just do the utmost to disbelieve regardless of evidence.

Ah; so control over the belief of others is one of your criterion for determining divinity. I see.

Praise Jesus, I have seen the light!!