Godhood (was: Re: How To Live In A Simulation)

From: Christian Weisgerber (naddy@mips.inka.de)
Date: Wed Mar 28 2001 - 07:32:52 MST

Christopher Piersol <buzzypville@yahoo.com> wrote:

> There is a difference between a posthuman running a
> simulation and theology. God is omnipotent, all
> knowing, etc while a posthuman is not.

That depends on what level of omnipotence you ascribe to God, and
what level of godhood the posthuman has attained.

Quoting myself from <URL:http://home.pages.de/~naddy/god.html>,
additional remarks in brackets:

So You Want to Become a God?
Practical issues of achieving this goal aside, just what is a god
anyway? In an article in rec.arts.sf.science, John Schilling proposed
a basic taxonomy of three classes of godhood:

1. A Type I God can do anything within the framework of physical law.
   Although this sets strict limits to a god's powers, it's still a
   nifty level of ability to possess.
[This is probably what you had in mind for a posthuman.]

2. A Type II God can rewrite physical law at will. If you postulate a
   creator for our universe, or if you already worry about escaping
   the Big Crunch/Heat Death, this is what you are dealing with. The
   possible existence of such entities is speculative.

3. A Type III God would not be suject to the laws of mathematics and
   logic. It could maintain an irresistible force and an immovable
   object at the same time. Obviously, this kind of entity is highly
[I think Christian theology has painted itself into this corner
where they must assume a God of this type.]
Personally, I don't intend to ponder too much the possibility of Type
II and III gods, until we have reached Type I godhood.

Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy@mips.inka.de

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:43 MDT