Godhood - A dilemma

[Alerik the Fortunate]

I think Frank Herbert, via one of his Bene Gesserit, said something to the effect that, "it isn't so much true that power corrupts as that it attracts the easily corruptible." In our society, those who seek power or the trappings of power might have more success in attaining it if they were just that much more ruthless and sociopathic than others, as long as their intelligent enough to put on a good enough public face. But with godhood, there isn't any selection pressure. Indeed, if anyone with a degree of self knowledge and introspection had that power, they would realize that their former desires have become meaningless. There can be no fear if you cannot be harmed. No material glory would really matter since you could always create something greater with a thought, and you certainly would not need to take it from someone else to obtain it. One might still want love from others, but with the power to compel attraction, trying to make the most attractive people like you might lose interest after a while.

If you were truly omniscient, you might lose interest in people after a short time. You might still be benevolent, but you would not find them gripping personally and would probably become relatively indifferent to their thoughts toward you. No more than we would care if ladybugs took an abiding personal interest in our lives. Real godhood, or anything approaching it, makes human motivations mostly irrelevant. All that would remain might be memories, submerged in the great ocean of known true facts, and something resembling a utility function as dreamed up by our most moral selves in a moment of most far reaching imagination. And even that would be for the sake of others; for the sake of a god, there can be no fascination known to humans. Of course this shades away in degrees depending on how close to real "omnipotence" one gets. Though in the OP, one might still want to investigate the nature of the mechanism that grants godhood.

[Purple]

Actually, there might truly be a great challenge in finding someone who will love you for who you are and not your powers.

There are in fact many games just like that one that you could make for your self to keep entertained. You just have to temporarily cut off parts of your power on a sort of honor system (agree not to use them to mess with your challenge).

[Rahvin]

Because he fears being an alien monstrocity that can no longer relate or empathize with humanity and eliminates them not out of malice, but because he no longer considers the effects of his actions on their existence?

Because normal human beings are incapable of the same?

What does it matter if humanity is eliminated via malice, or apathy, or anything else? Extinct is extinct - I don;t see how a human being with omnipotent power is more or less likely to annihilate humanity than a nonhuman.

In fact, I would guess that, given omnipotent power and the loss of human empathy, I would likely just leave the Earth alone and go somewhere more interesting to explore my newfound omnipotence.

An apathetic deity is rather indistinguishable from an indifferent Universe with no deity.

And again - by purposefully stagnating oneself, you also lock into place the already existing flaws in your personality. For fear of negative changes, you're eliminating the possibility of positive changes. Presumably you already have "preserve sentient life" as a significant goal - if you're omnipotent and can purposefully and consciously direct your own personal evolution, wouldn't you be able to ensure that preserving sentient life remains a high-priority goal regardless of the other changes you make?

I swear, if I was omnipotent but could never ever change my personality, I'd just use my omnipotence to kill myself. Growth and learning are what make life worthwhile.

[Purple]

Growth and learning are what make life worthwhile.

Er... that is a matter of taste. Personally I would be happy with much lesser things.

[SpaceMarine93]

Wow, I can see this conversation had really picked up!

[Norade]

Being truly all powerful we could reshape ourselves to never lose interest in the preservation of intelligent life if we thought it was a worthy goal. We could also make petty things like boredom a thing of the past with less than the amount of effort it takes to type a post here. So really there is nothing to stop you being as perfect as you want/can conceive of being.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

I think your selfhood would persist primarily as a sort of utility function, based on your conscious rather than unconscious goals, if you chose to be the best god possible. You would be able to make yourself value what you really believed you should value, and not what your evolutionarily driven subconscious prods you to choose. You would even have the resources to check yourself for consistency, and evaluate the true outcomes of your choices. If your active consciousness remained at all, it would probably be in some sort of fantastic holistic aesthetic experience, appreciating the whole of reality in the totality of its interconnectedness, and of the path to bliss that you have presumably set it upon. You could choose to live as a continuous expression of a deliberately chosen love that you could feel for every living thing in its place. You don't have to behave at all like a traditional god, but could rather become something like what the Christian god has been described as in the more truly exalted moments of scripture. Of course, you might be frightened by the alien nature of such a possibility, and choose to refrain, either for a time, to get used to the idea, or for all time.

[Simon_Jester]

Being truly all powerful we could reshape ourselves to never lose interest in the preservation of intelligent life if we thought it was a worthy goal. We could also make petty things like boredom a thing of the past with less than the amount of effort it takes to type a post here. So really there is nothing to stop you being as perfect as you want/can conceive of being.

I'm not sure I'm on board with this idea. The classical concept of "godlike" doesn't always extend to "I have perfect control over my own mind." There are also arguments against editing the way your mind works- if you start doing it on a regular basis, you may rapidly find your inhibitions against stopping going away, and end up in an end state very far from, and undesirable from, the point of view of your starting point.

Now, in theory this could be a good thing, witness the idea of Continuously Extrapolated Volition, in which we want to create a mind that wants the things it ought to want, that it would want if only it were smarter and more ethical. In this case, we may not be able to fully articulate the design goal of the mind-construction until we've already done some of the hard work of making the mind work this way: we don't know what a god should think like because the question is outside our frame of reference, and so if we are suddenly granted the powers of a god, recursively 'improving' our mind until we think like a god seems appealing.

But there are also risks attendant upon this, because you are using metaphorical root access to edit your own attitudes and desires, including the ones that govern your desire to make edits. Sure, the first round of operations may be necessary- the equivalent of plastic surgery to remove ugly scars, only on your psyche. But if the first round of changes affects your interest in making further changes, and thus leads you to make more and more changes, changes of increasingly dubious wisdom and prudence... what happens if you wind up turning yourself into something that is to mind design what Michael Jackson is to plastic surgery?

It's not clear to me that you could avoid this pitfall in advance. That worries me.
________

*Say what you will about the Yudkowsky, I just want to reference a term he invented for a rather subtle idea: that we want a system that does what we would want if we were very wise, not necessarily one that does what we want right this minute.

[Purple]

Why bother with it thou? Think about it. Would not making such drastic changes be effectively suicide? You would literally be changing your self into something that you can not even comprehend or describe right now. I for one would not do anything like that, it's just to weird.

[Formless]

You realize of course, Simon, we aren't talking about AI here. The concept is analogous, but the process and limitations of it are not. As a god, you should be all knowing (or soon will be) so however you choose to change yourself should not be at all unpredictable like it would be for a human or human created AI. At least, not unpredictable to you.

Your first round of edits should be the most important and possibly all the edits you will ever need to do to yourself-- though of course see my argument for Fallback Plan A. I suggest framing every edit as a wish and be sure to include words like "perfect" and "infinite" with extreme prejudice. While you are at it, you could will into being a perfect language before starting that facilitates the process in a way English and other natural languages do not. Start by granting yourself abilities, then you can work on improving your psyche.

The problem here is that trying to apply human thought paradigms (such as the utility function of Alerik the Fortunate's posts or the relevant AI analogies) may not necessarily apply to a being that is infinitely knowledgable. We can speculate, but ultimately if one of us were to undergo apotheosis tomorrow that person may decide all the stuff proposed today were cute attempts to solve a problem that wasn't going to be solvable until it actually presented itself.

[Simon_Jester]

You realize of course, Simon, we aren't talking about AI here. The concept is analogous, but the process and limitations of it are not. As a god, you should be all knowing (or soon will be) so however you choose to change yourself should not be at all unpredictable like it would be for a human or human created AI. At least, not unpredictable to you.

I don't know- the ability to project not just what you will be able to do, but how you will feel about it, after an arbitrary change to your own mind... I have a hard time envisioning an intelligent lifeform that functions like that.

I imagine it would be almost paralyzing. Every time you have an idea, there's a thousand second-guess version of it cropping up: "I want A... but if I thought like this, I would want B. Or I could want C, or D, or... Hmm. I want to want D. How much should I edit my own perspective to make a D-wanter of myself? Maybe I should adjust the things I want to want, so I can start picking from the palette of options labeled in kanji characters instead of the Roman alphabet..."

My own unedited preferences may be full of wacky neuroses, but at least I know what the hell I want, for myself and for others. And so I'd say there are good reasons not to muck about with your own preference structures too deeply or enthusiastically. Recursion, for one.

______________

I think we might want to rephrase (and clarify) the OP's question to go into the details of what kind of god we're talking about. I mean, there's a huge difference between Homer's idea of a god (a very powerful being which is nonetheless recognizable as a sort of scaled-up human with magic powers) and Thomas Aquinas's idea of a god (an abstract philosophical thing that pervades the universe and knows everything about everything and so on).

[Formless]

I don't know- the ability to project not just what you will be able to do, but how you will feel about it, after an arbitrary change to your own mind... I have a hard time envisioning an intelligent lifeform that functions like that.

What's the stumbling block? The fact that we're talking about outright balls to the wall magic here? Its not just your own mind that you can edit, as God you basically are editing reality itself. You know what you want, what you can do make sure that that is what you really want, you get it. Because you are god.

Suspend a little disbelief with me.

I imagine it would be almost paralyzing. Every time you have an idea, there's a thousand second-guess version of it cropping up: "I want A...

You get A. Or you can, if you decide not to over-think things. Would this process happen over something as small as "should I indulge in some chocolate?"

[...] but if I thought like this, I would want B. Or I could want C, or D, or... Hmm. I want to want D. How much should I edit my own perspective to make a D-wanter of myself?

Or you could bypass the whole affair by asking "what should I want?" Also, the sentence "I want to want D" contains exactly two redundant terms. It should be amended to "I want D". There is exactly no difference between the two statements.

[...] Maybe I should adjust the things I want to want, so I can start picking from the palette of options labeled in kanji characters instead of the Roman alphabet..."

After some more thought, it occurs to me that after a while language may no longer be necessary for this process. After a while you may stop using internal monologue to help think at all, let alone make your will manifest itself. As an aside, that always was one of the coolest ideas I've ever heard-- the notion that you can think without using language. I know it can be done, but its... its hard to imagine how, if you know what I mean. LOL.

My own unedited preferences may be full of wacky neuroses, but at least I know what the hell I want, for myself and for others. And so I'd say there are good reasons not to muck about with your own preference structures too deeply or enthusiastically. Recursion, for one.

Then just grant yourself perfect moral insight (you know, like Gods are purported to have?). Alternatively, if you don't think such a thing can exist, simply will that someone who you believe to be wiser than you (or several such people) can be your advisor. They can even be chosen from the ranks of the dead. Or you can edit the rest of reality so that what you want for other people is genuinely what they want too. You can always just do that because... wait for it... You. Are. God.

Suspend a little disbelief with me.



------------------------------------------------------

I think we might want to rephrase (and clarify) the OP's question to go into the details of what kind of god we're talking about. I mean, there's a huge difference between Homer's idea of a god (a very powerful being which is nonetheless recognizable as a sort of scaled-up human with magic powers) and Thomas Aquinas's idea of a god (an abstract philosophical thing that pervades the universe and knows everything about everything and so on).

I just assumed that the basic characteristic was omnipotence, based on the fact that this discussion spawned from this thread. With that, every other characteristic of the traditional western all powerful, all loving, all knowing god can be yours. Or anything else, for that matter.

Of course, it should be noted that playing around with a physics sim or even god game and having actual omnipotence is very different since the game will always be limited by its source code and the person playing it. You can't actually make your will manifest, not even on the same level a novelist can. But I know what you mean.

[Singular Intellect]

I'd take that kind of power in a heartbeat. I'd then pull a Prime Intellect (inspiration for my user name) scenario, without the hiccups the AI had. One of the first things I'd do is vastly enhance and modify my human traits to be consistent and helpful towards my stated goal and personal desires.

[Simon_Jester]

Singular Intellect, my concerns about this whole "self-improvement" process tie significantly into what you're talking about, I think.

I don't know- the ability to project not just what you will be able to do, but how you will feel about it, after an arbitrary change to your own mind... I have a hard time envisioning an intelligent lifeform that functions like that.

What's the stumbling block? The fact that we're talking about outright balls to the wall magic here? Its not just your own mind that you can edit, as God you basically are editing reality itself. You know what you want, what you can do make sure that that is what you really want, you get it. Because you are god.

Suspend a little disbelief with me.

Thing is, that's your concept of god, not mine. Being able to adjust one's preferences, and to perceive all the possible outcomes of adjusting one's preferences, clearly... I really do think that would lend itself to recursive paralysis, fit to swamp even an infinite mind.

Traditionally, a god doesn't ask himself whether he should want to do what he wants to do. He doesn't need to- either he's ethical enough that the issue would never normally arise, or he's a Greek-style god who doesn't care especially much.

And I think that's just as well, because a being that edits its own preferences may well wind up turning into a lotus-eater: some creature that spends all its (potentially infinite) energy tweaking its own mindstate, without bothering to interact with the rest of the universe. Which is more rewarding, adjusting the universe to amuse yourself, or figuring out a way to remain automatically amused without ever having to adjust anything ever again?

I imagine it would be almost paralyzing. Every time you have an idea, there's a thousand second-guess version of it cropping up: "I want A...

You get A. Or you can, if you decide not to over-think things. Would this process happen over something as small as "should I indulge in some chocolate?"

If every time I think of wanting chocolate (or anything else) the possibility of removing my desire for the item is just as available as the possibility of getting the item... then yes, it probably would. If I can resolve "I want chocolate" by removing my desire for chocolate as effortlessly as I can by obtaining chocolate, it's entirely possible that, largely on a whim, I might remove my desire for chocolate... and then the issue would never arise again.

That's the problem- you're not "overthinking" things in this case if it is really that easy for you to adjust your own preferences.

[...] but if I thought like this, I would want B. Or I could want C, or D, or... Hmm. I want to want D. How much should I edit my own perspective to make a D-wanter of myself?

Or you could bypass the whole affair by asking "what should I want?" Also, the sentence "I want to want D" contains exactly two redundant terms. It should be amended to "I want D". There is exactly no difference between the two statements.

Nonsense. Haven't you ever wanted something you knew was bad for you? If not, that speaks poorly for your impulse control, that you never perceive yourself having an impulse you'd be as well off squashing.

Theoretically, you think "I want to want D, not A." So you adjust yourself to want D. Now, another question comes up: E, or F? You want F, you get F. But what if G were an option? Wouldn't it be interesting to want G? What's it like to be someone who wants both D and G, which to an inferior mind might seem self-contradictory? Hmm. I think I'll find out...

And yes, this seems very silly to you. It is very silly; I'm trying to describe an extremely perverse way for a mind to behave in terms that will make it clear exactly how perverse it is.

[...] Maybe I should adjust the things I want to want, so I can start picking from the palette of options labeled in kanji characters instead of the Roman alphabet..."

After some more thought, it occurs to me that after a while language may no longer be necessary for this process. After a while you may stop using internal monologue to help think at all, let alone make your will manifest itself. As an aside, that always was one of the coolest ideas I've ever heard-- the notion that you can think without using language. I know it can be done, but its... its hard to imagine how, if you know what I mean. LOL.

You do realize that language isn't a part of what I'm getting at. I'm just assigning arbitrary, algebraic labels to options. The "kanji" set of options are simply things that, in your ordinary baseline state of mind, you would never think of as desirable- but which would be desirable if you radically edited your priorities, say to make yourself less like a Martian and more like a Saturnian (or whatever).

The point being that the set of all possible mindstates is so unlimited, and each alteration opens up so many possibilities for further alterations, that it's a bad idea to assume that once you start tweaking your preferences you'll be able to find a good stopping point. The fact that we can't perceive enough of the options to imagine a stopping point other than "supremely wise and ethical" or some such... that doesn't mean that the stopping point exists and is where we think.

My own unedited preferences may be full of wacky neuroses, but at least I know what the hell I want, for myself and for others. And so I'd say there are good reasons not to muck about with your own preference structures too deeply or enthusiastically. Recursion, for one.

Then just grant yourself perfect moral insight (you know, like Gods are purported to have?). Alternatively, if you don't think such a thing can exist, simply will that someone who you believe to be wiser than you (or several such people) can be your advisor. They can even be chosen from the ranks of the dead. Or you can edit the rest of reality so that what you want for other people is genuinely what they want too. You can always just do that because... wait for it... You. Are. God.

Suspend a little disbelief with me.

Again, this strikes me as an unrewarding exercise- not the bit about going to other people for advice; if I found myself suddenly deified that'd be about the first thing I'd do, along with one hell of a lot of experimentation to make sure my abilities work the way I thought they did- I can think of at least one favor I would want to do someone else almost immediately, that they would take as a tremendous favor if I got it right, and which would be doing them a horrible disservice if I got it wrong. Definitely need to figure out a way to experiment before trying it, because what a horrible way to find out that one's phenomenal cosmic powers don't work quite as advertised... [shudders].

But I don't really know what it would look like to turn "me" into "me-with-perfect-moral-insight." I don't trust an arbitrary process, even "I ask for it and I get it like a genie granting a wish," to do that for me.

Not least because I'd like some assurance that I get a recognizable "me" out the other end of that process. I consider that to be important.

[Purple]

But on the other hand, why to hell would you want to make your self into something with perfect moral insight to begin with?
I don't know about you, but I prefer not being perfect like I am to being perfect. In fact, I would use my powers to ensure I am not perfect. This is becouse perfection, as cool as it sounds is boring.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Sod making myself all-loving. All-powerful I am already as per the OP. Make myself all-knowing most assuredly.

But I would not make myself all loving. Then I'd get all those bloody tortuous moral questions "If I love people and I can help them and I know they are suffering, why don't I help them?" etc.

I would also reveal myself to the world, but again make it clear that I am not all-loving. That way I can avoid all the boring theological debates on the existence of suffering.

[Formless]

Thing is, that's your concept of god, not mine.

Simon, I'm an Ignostic. I have no one concept of god. In fact, if I did it would look a whole lot closer to the Hindu Brahman, the god who dreams the world into being. This is just an extrapolation of what it means to be omnipotent, as established in this thread. You can make reality into whatever you want so long as it contains no contradictions or logical paradoxes.

Worried about becoming a lotus eater? You can be in two places at once and still experience everything. You can eat chocolate till you grow sick of it and at the exact same time remake the world in your image. You can have one "you" sit around coming up with improvements of yourself all day while another goes out and makes use of those improvements. You can be a one man army of deities, each of which has different peripheral desires but one central set of common goals they are unified around so they won't get in each other's way. Each can access the same set of experiences-- all of them-- and there is no contradiction. In fact, that suggests one way of solving this dilemma right there-- you can experience an infinite number of mindstates at once, then work backwards and algorithmically eliminate all the ones deemed undesirable or inconsistent with the central set of goals you want or think are Good. If you are worried that such a process will take forever and a day, use your powers to stop time until it is done. No one else will know the difference.

Nonsense. Haven't you ever wanted something you knew was bad for you? If not, that speaks poorly for your impulse control, that you never perceive yourself having an impulse you'd be as well off squashing.

You aren't getting it. Why would a god have a problem dealing with something humans deal with every day? Indecision is a known phenomenon. Have you ever had someone tell you to stop procrastinating and just do something? I'm basically passing on that advice. Because, FYI, you have your assessment of me backwards. I'm ADD, not ADHD.

Impulsiveness isn't always a bad thing. Believe me, the ability to break a train of thought that is unproductive at will can be empowering just as it can be disruptive if applied properly. I could just as easily turn your hypothetical into something which has an obvious answer, like "should I make myself into a major depressive? Oh, fuck me no! Why the hell would I do that? Why the hell would anyone in my position do that?!" I really don't see why an all powerful, all knowing entity would be able to change their own mind but not break unproductive trains of thought before they become an obsession.

You do realize that language isn't a part of what I'm getting at.

I was making a general observation, not a criticism. Not everything is about you.

Again, this strikes me as an unrewarding exercise- not the bit about going to other people for advice ... But I don't really know what it would look like to turn "me" into "me-with-perfect-moral-insight." I don't trust an arbitrary process, even "I ask for it and I get it like a genie granting a wish," to do that for me.

Not least because I'd like some assurance that I get a recognizable "me" out the other end of that process. I consider that to be important.

Then change the focus of what you are changing. Instead of changing yourself so you have perfect moral insight based on what the world is like, change the universe so that it is perfectly in tune with what your morality is like.

[Rossum]

Step 1: Attain omnipotence and omniscience

Step 2: Rename myself Typhon (after one of the youngest of the Titans from greek mythology. He had a thousand dragon heads for arms and wings that covered the skies and stuff. We're talking a monster... the sort of monster that god-like beings like to deal with) remind myself that not all god-like beings are omnipotent, omniimmortal, omnibenevolent, omniinvisible blah blah blah... skip to the next step.

Step 3: relocate myself to Mars and start creating self-replicating robots that build solar panels and other facilities that could make Mars inhabitable to humans. Don't magically make it Earth-like (that's for Venus), just get some technology based utilities and tools up there so humans could work with them. When I'm done it should have a massive renewable power supply powering environmental habitats and hydroponics gardens for any humans who eventually get to mars. This way, if I go AWOL then at least humanity sees the freaky change on Mars and will try to investigate and get our freaking space program running like it should.

Step 4: Create copies of myself, I'd say at least a dozen copies of my generation 1 mind before any alterations are made. Then use my omniscience (or access to an AI researcher and ethics person) to make generation 2 copies of myself who are without my various personality flaws. First off would be to eliminate whatever parts of me want to exact petty and horrible revenge on people I dislike for no reason (I'll keep the horrible revenge with good reason parts). Have the currently existing copies test the new ones to ensure they are sane and we go from there. Make it a point to always test new copies of myself for problems and keep some specialised copies on hand to eliminate any rogue copies of myself.

Eventually I'll look more like a hive mind composed of lots of copies of myself, each one slightly different and likely with their own jobs within the hive mind.

Step 5: Now that there are lots of me, it's time to start multitasking. Go to Earth and collect samples of life, go to Venus and terraform it into a new Earth-like planet, make contact with Earth and either let them know what happened or make up some bullshit to explain my existance (right now I would probably tell the truth for better scientific understanding of the universe... but I'm a nerd who has no knowledge of political manuvering so once I attain omniscience I might make up some bullshit or just scream gibberish in a thousand eldrich tongues if anyone asks me questions I don't like). etc.

Step 6: At this point I'm guessing I would create a few human-like drones and put them among Earths population (like avatars or whatnot) and have them figure out what the mortals are feeling on the ground and maybe hone my social skills. If I'm going to be a decent god-like monster then I'll need different perspectives on the situation and getting some insight from the human level would help out.

Step 7: Alot of stuff can happen here but I figure I'd manifest myself as a glorious god-like monster being before the Earth (thousand heads and wings full of eyes might work). Make sure to look like something that makes theologians heads implode (not literally) while scientifically literate and reasonable people think "oookay... this things obviously sapient and powerful but I want to figure out what it wants". By this point the military should realise that I'm way out of anyones league (I might teleport all the nukes on Earth to Pluto or something just to make sure nobody tries anything stupid. If actual aliens show up then I'll fight em off or give Earth star destroyers).

Step 8: Gather up anyone who feels up to repopulating another Earth-like planet (make sure they know this isn't heaven) and take them to Venus which is now Earth-like. Have a similar thing going for Mars and any other planets I terraform. Maybe start a religion/cult/organization that people can go to leave Earth, get free survival training for that sort of stuff, and then I bring them to other planets.

Step 9: Eventually I'll have something better than total omnipotence... a job. I'm a huge powerful freaky god-monster and I now declare my job to be traveling the galaxy/universe/whatever and creating Earth-like planets for humans and then moving people around and keeping those planets in working order. I'll also work on ensuring no other god-monsters show up... and if they do I'll either destroy them or merge with them or otherwise keep them from effing up the universe. Thus, my major goals would be to spread life across the universe (or generally make the universe more benevolent toward living things), prevent interstellar war or mass extinction events that I don't like, and keeping anyone else from showing up and messing things up.

note: I'd obviously need to work on discovering the secrets of the universe (at least to make sure there aren't any malevolent god-monsters out there) and increase my power to eventually deal with the end of the universe. I suspect I would leave humanity mostly to its own devices, I mean I'd obviously want to spread logic and reason throughout humanity in the form of science religions or the like. But I'd want humans to think of me more as a big powerful beast/monster thing that likes making planets than as some kind of omnibenevolent human with power. There would probably be wars and crime and stupidity, but I would make sure people know that human problems are caused by humans and should be solved by them. I might maintain the environment and more or less keep humans as my pets, but if humans want to eliminate problems caused by each other then they can't come asking me to rewire everyones brain and stuff.

[DudeGuyMan]

I think I'd have to somehow divinely turn off my knowledge of the future so that I could have some fun.

Scenario 1) Jesus descends from the heavens directly over Vatican City during the Easter Mass. The worlds looks on in shock and awe. All cameras are on him. This is for real. Jesus then begins quacking like a duck and bonking himself on the head with a mallet for the next two hours. On Christmas he flies over Jerusalem and shits his robe. I do stuff like this on every major Christian holiday until everyone is convinced that God is real and also completely bonkers.

Scenario 2) The same as above, but Jesus descends onto the Vatican and begins to deliver the message of his return. Until I show up and defeat him in a massive Dragonball Z battle that leaves the Vatican in a shambles. I cackle maniacally and disappear. Then I just sit back and watch the reaction.

God. The ultimate troll.

[hongi]

I posted on the thread this intersting philosophical dilemma - if a good person is given the power of a god, free to do whatever he want with the universe, with no reprecussions. Now note, he could do practically whatever he want with the snap of his fingers; he could solve all problems that plague the universe and all its life forms - war, diseases, natural disasters, hatred and bigotry, ignorance, and even death and Heat death itself etc. - without even snapping of his fingers. If a good man, by our standards, is granted such opportunity - should he take it?

I don't know. Why should war, disease, natural disasters, hatred and bigotry, ignorance and death be abolished?

P.S If I was God, I would never have created the universe and annihilated myself.

[Ariphaos]

True omnipotence is logically impossible.
Just ask questions like "can this omnipotent being create something it can not destroy/move/influence?".
If the answer is "yes it can", then it is now incapable of doing something - destroying/moving/influencing what it just created. It is therefore not omnipotent.
If the answer is "no it can't" then it is obviously not omnipotent.
The only way out of this is disregarding logic.

Of course, you could still get pretty damn close to omnipotence, but actual omnipotence is a logical impossibility.

I think that's being a bit pedantic. Can I write a line of code I can't remove?

I can write code that it would be a really bad idea for me to remove. But I'm pretty close to functionally omnipotent over the scope of the software I write. When discussing omnipotence, it's usually inferred to be of similar scope with respect to the Universe.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes. "Omnipotence" is not normally expected to include "ability to do things that are logically self-contradictory." Very few of the people who would assert that God is omnipotent would assert that God can create a circular triangle, for instance.

At least, of the ones who know what a circle and a triangle are, and they're the ones you really need to ask.

[Rabid]

When you say "omnipotence", isn't it generally thought as "being able to change the law of the universe themselves" ?

If so, I think it wouldn't be so much as trying to create a circular triangle, than changing the very definition of what is a "triangle", what is "circular", and making so than the changes fit into the "frame" of the Universe. Of course, such massive changes would require you to be Omniscient and to have an infinite Forethought, but he! we are talking here of an entity that has basically a root access to the Universe's source code, so it's an idea that doesn't seem so preposterous to me, when put in such a perspective.

[Srelex]

I personally don't know if I could use such power responsibly--yeah, yeah, it's a cliche, but realizing that you can do anything, potentially without consequence, is going to change something in our head deep down. The sheer rush of confidence itself could be overwhelming. People can talk about improving the state of the universe and whatnot, but think about it--would you rather trouble yourself with such micromanagement of the cosmos, or simply dive into hedonistic orgies with your ideal bedmate(s) created from your head for millennia? It's one thing to talk loftily about such things on an internet forum, but I think if people had the ability to will their deepest desires into existence, that wouldn't be something they'd pass up.

[Singular Intellect]

I personally don't know if I could use such power responsibly--yeah, yeah, it's a cliche, but realizing that you can do anything, potentially without consequence, is going to change something in our head deep down. The sheer rush of confidence itself could be overwhelming. People can talk about improving the state of the universe and whatnot, but think about it--would you rather trouble yourself with such micromanagement of the cosmos, or simply dive into hedonistic orgies with your ideal bedmate(s) created from your head for millennia? It's one thing to talk loftily about such things on an internet forum, but I think if people had the ability to will their deepest desires into existence, that wouldn't be something they'd pass up.

Assuming one dismisses the possibility of altering one's self to 'micromanage' the universe as easily as one currently operates their heart rythym, what's wrong with delegating 'micro management' to newly created entities that exist solely for that purpose? If you're effectively 'omnipotent', failure to re organize the universe into a perfect one is due solely to an inferior mind and imagination.