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

From: Simo Kilponen (
Date: Wed Mar 28 2001 - 09:38:53 MST

I think that godhood is relative matter:
If we were to create a simulation of other universe in computer
we would satisfy the requirements for your 'Type I God'. We have ability
to chance laws of our simulation but we were still restricted by the laws
of our universe. 'Type II Gods' can exist then, absolute power is another

But would 'Type III God' be possible and would that need "alternative
mathematics'? Perhaps you philosophers know can such a thing exist and
what would it be? A set of theorems impossible to prove with theorems from
another set?

        - Simo K. Kilponen

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Christian Weisgerber wrote:

> Christopher Piersol <> 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:>,
> 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, 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
> speculative.
> [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

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