That was 2000 years ago. Hes dead now. And i dont plan on digging him up to talk to his skull. I mean a face i can go talk to today and will speak back on another living human being. Im not saying its UNtrustworthy, by all means its been FANTASTICALLY preserved for the time its been around. But thats relative to other documents. And even then SO many translations must have lost the meaning of more than a few sub stories considering the sheer size of an unabridged bible.zigity12 said:Just what exactly do you think Jesus Christ is? That describes Him perfectly.BiscuitTrouser said:That all takes a long time. And for all we know some of these issues will never be fixed. Can we even cure AIDS? This is a short term fix that could be forever. This would have an odd effect on religion though. Not really wanting to delve into all that. I mean a god that is more personal. That we can talk to, and understand face to another human face. That will come down to our level and speak EVERY DAY and not through a burning bush. And wont go and die 2000 years ago leaving us all a bit confused with a book thats been translated far too many times for me to know if its anything like the original. Would be nicer in my view. Also would be nice to be given first hand modern directions.zigity12 said:There's a shade of this that isn't hypothetical at all; there's already one God-man. His name is Jesus the Christ.
And as far as the world being freed from disease, crime, suffering, and death - it already has had freedom proclaimed to it. That liberation is something that has already begun, but is not yet finished. It began with His death on the cross, which paid the price of all of our crimes, and was revealed when He walked out of the tomb in which they laid Him three days later, never to die again.
As far as your comment on the Bible - I'd urge you to 1: read it for yourself, and 2: do some research on whether or not what you believe about it is true. I'll give you a spoiler: the Bible is the most trustworthy document that exist from antiquity. More copies and fragments of it exist from antiquity then every single work by the fathers of philosophy (Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, etc) COMBINED. If your vocabulary is particularly high - you could try a book by Bruce Metzger, any of them, or perhaps Dr. Jonathon Pennington.
Yeah, it is about the weak being incapable of using powerful correctly. However, the strong willed are also likely to become corrupt and would be far worse for the world than the weak. It might not be pleasant, but even as an optimist, you can't trust one person alone to have all the power.rutger5000 said:But there have been good dictators, plenty of them. Many of the Kings and Queens of europe could be considered to be dictators plenty of them took care of their citizen. I think Napoleon might have been a dictator (not quiet sure) too. And he took proper care of his people too (granted only his people and not).
Before you say things like power corrupts look at people like Ghandi and Nelson Mandela. They were / are incredibly powerfull they could easily rally 500 milion people each. That's some great power there, much more as say Hitler who could barely control 50 milion. Honestly I think arguments like power corrupts are used for the weak who just couldn't handle the power and let the power handle them. I like to think there are still people on this earth who could stay pure and take the role of a God. Accepting the alternative is too depressing for me.
You'd have an awfully hard time finding His bones - because they're currently covered by His skin. He is not dead, He is alive. And the Bible is His voice.BiscuitTrouser said:That was 2000 years ago. Hes dead now. And i dont plan on digging him up to talk to his skull. I mean a face i can go talk to today and will speak back on another living human being. Im not saying its UNtrustworthy, by all means its been FANTASTICALLY preserved for the time its been around. But thats relative to other documents. And even then SO many translations must have lost the meaning of more than a few sub stories considering the sheer size of an unabridged bible.
I think this is covered when the OP said but he/she would retain their personality and thoughts. They'll have the knowledge to understand anything, but wether or not they would become empathetic with it or not. Besides how people refelct on facts is different from person to person. For exampleGaiusD said:First off, interesting scenario
For argument's sake, I'll agree that we should do it. As to who, would that really matter? Anyone, child or elder, saint or crook, no matter their personality or creed would be utterly changed just by having omniscience thrust upon them. (I'm assuming belief in causality from here on) They would know every event and every cause and effect from each and every action. The person would be infinity empathetic to every other living organism and would be in complete understanding of all physical and metaphysical phenomenon. If someone did know that, wouldn't you trust them to do the right thing? A single individual's suffering would be their own; now multiply that by the number of organisms in the given universe and that's a pretty heavy incentive to play nice.
In fact, would they really have any freedom to act as they chose? Wouldn't they know what they would do as soon as obtained omniscience? If nothing else, they could create an alternate universe and create another sandbox with which to exercise his or her will. (This is also assuming that, at the bestowal of their godhood, they weren't the original deity who created the universe in the first place, but this gets into perceptions of time that would really extend this question.)
Sorry for rambling, but, again, interesting question.
Sweet where is he? Is he just hiding out somewhere? Everyone wants to hear stuff thats newer than the bible. The bible says that to wear two different materials of clothes and plant two different crops in one field is a sin. Id like to ask him some stuff. Why so quiet?zigity12 said:You'd have an awfully hard time finding His bones - because they're currently covered by His skin. He is not dead, He is alive. And the Bible is His voice.BiscuitTrouser said:That was 2000 years ago. Hes dead now. And i dont plan on digging him up to talk to his skull. I mean a face i can go talk to today and will speak back on another living human being. Im not saying its UNtrustworthy, by all means its been FANTASTICALLY preserved for the time its been around. But thats relative to other documents. And even then SO many translations must have lost the meaning of more than a few sub stories considering the sheer size of an unabridged bible.
While an interesting viewpoint your scenario requires the person retain their personality and thoughts. So it's irrelevant.BiscuitTrouser said:Not sure if this belongs in religion and politics. Fairly sure it does not.
Pretty much your standard ethical conundrum here. Imagine by some means (technology, ritual, alien tech assistance ect... think Dr Manhattan) we could turn ONE human being into a god. A real God with all the perks of infinite power and knowledge. However they would retain their personality and thoughts. This would mean that disease would be instantly wiped out, hunger solves, disasters fixed instantly and prevented and the world would cease to suffer. However after this we would be left with a very human thinking very bored God who would, for all intents and purposes, have nothing left to do. Now remember this person is a god, they cannot be controlled or won over easily, they have infinite power with no boundaries on what they can do.
For some reason you are chosen to decide if this should be done, and if so, who on (don't need a specific name, just an idea, also cant be you - you are chosen as an impartial judge). Perhaps a way to select one person? Would it be worth risking the gift of absolute cosmic power for eternal peace and no more strife? Maybe the chosen person might end this. Perhaps they would make everyone immortal, or make poor short sighted decisions with their God hood. Maybe not. Is it worth it? Would you say yes to this happening?
Another question. Many say "why not me"? Good question.
Would you abuse the power? No? Then why do you assume someone else would. Are you the only non corrupt person in the world? Would you expect others to see yourself as you do?
My thoughts:
Those who would want it the least would use it the best, but to force it on someone would be wrong, and they would be bitter because of it, doing right but living a cursed and miserable life. Its a paradox.
I found this a very interesting view point. Does omniscience cause your personality to be swallowed in what has to be the largest extrapolation of logic, faith, facts, fiction and the way the universe is all at once to determine the true and right nature of everything. Would this sudden burst of knowledge make everyone the same? Give them objectiveness on a level that spans an entire world leaving no room for corruption?drakan4o said:I think that if a god is omniscient, as in 'he knows everything' that means that whoever you choose will become the same person after the process: a person who is everyone at the same time. It doesnt matter if you choose a thief or a genius in the end he or she will be the same person with the same knowledge and way of thinking, Imagine that a bad person is the left part of a half and a good person is the right half. Omniscience will mean that you are 'both halves' at the same time, or should I say 'every half that exists' at the same time!