>>34468557
You cannot become God, not by your own efforts. But by grace you are to be like God. I will explain:
>You are made in God's image.
>This does not mean in body, but of spirit
>God can create life
>So can you (fatherhood)
>God can take life
>So can you (killing)
>God is omniscient, knows past, present and future
>So are you to a fraction of a degree (memories of past, experience of present, foresight or prediction of future)
>God has a triune nature of Father, Son, Spirit
>So do you, you are a son, you can be a father and a husband at the same time too.

So you're in God's image. Christ is God in the form of man. Why did God take form of man? To show man the way to be more like the father, more like God.

God became man so that man can become like God.

You did not create this Universe. But you can co-create upon it. Think of the Universe like an easel which a painter can paint. God made the easel, God made the paint and the brushes. You can paint what you wish. But be sure it is to do God's will, because remember, God became man so many could become like God.

If you fulfill the will of the father, you will be more like the father. If you choose to disobey, you will be less like the father. Choice is all yours.

>>34468557
ask petel thiel, maybe he will lend you some of the drugs he's taking

>>34468557
God is just some man-made concept that doesn't exist outside of humans. Or I guess maybe to our pets we seem like gods. What god really means is just an entity that is higher than us in some hierarchy, and higher usually by supernatural means (beyond human reach) and not just humanly means.

>>34469191
Not just humans means like someone being higher than you in strength or intelligence or agility or whatever

>>34469195
*humanly

>>34468557
Being God would suck. Just like being human sucks. Everything sucks ass.

>>34469191
>What god really means is just an entity that is higher than us in some hierarchy
Which would mean that gods aren't man made concepts at all, since there are objective realities that are superior to and prior to man. The laws of physics, math, geometry and morality are all gods in the true sense, because they inform us and we never inform them. And the informing author of those laws, or the grounds of reality, is God.

>>34468557
You can't usurp God, but you can become like God and participate in him by adopting Godlike qualities. The virtues of selflessness, compassion, mercy, justice, honesty, integrity, love and generosity will all bring you closer to God, while the vices of selfishness, cruelty, injustice, dishonesty, inconstancy, hatred and miserliness will all take you farther away from Him.

>>34468557
The job's already taken. And i'm not planning on early retirement.

>>34468557
>How do I become God?
God became human, no human became god. But if you believe in Jesus Christ, he will raise you up in the great resurrection and you will reign with Christ.

my son likes to play God with roly polys

he has learned to care for his creatures and further he has learned the cost of careless blessings

out of his boundless grace and kindness, he gave them a king's bounty of turkey pepperoni which they snubbed, but the pepperoni caused an invasion of ants that chased off and/or killed everything in his little eden

and he wept

>>34470915
>The laws of physics, math, geometry and morality are all gods in the true sense, because they inform us and we never inform them

They are independent of us. That doesn't mean they're superior to us in some hierarchy. You're comparing apples and oranges (hell an apple is independent of us. Does that make the apple god? It just grows in the photosynthesis, not giving a shit what we do. Follows the laws of biology and botany. Does that make the apple god?). You'd have to define what the hierarchy is. I wouldn't put morality in the same bucket as physics maths geometry, because morality is dependent on humans whereas those others things aren't. And there is no author of these laws. They just are. Always was always will be.

Another thing, I said they're entities. But that doesn't make them god. What makes them "god" is us slapping the label on them, i.e. they are god in relation to us, just like we are god in relation to a pet. Except I added that "supernatural" factor to exclude simple human hierarchical rankings. Like someone better at you at football doesn't make them "god" (or it could, to a fan or something, but that's in a metaphorical way. But God is a metaphorical concept anyway. As said. It's just a man-made concept we used to slap as a label onto things. I'm not saying the thing doesn't exist. I'm saying the decision to call that thing "god" is a man-made one. Based on that thing being superior to us in some hierarchy and usually in some supernatural way. Eg god of thunder is better than us at making lightning at will. Or Christian god is better than us because omniscience omnipotence etc).

>>34468557
you'll have to fight god and win.
good luck.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hKdfReE0qds

>>34471356
They're ontologically prior to us. That's what makes them superior. They belong under the category of 'being', because they are immutable, eternal, outside of time and we're obligated to obey them at every turn, otherwise swift punishment ensues. If you try to build a house without consulting mathematics and geometry and physics first, your house will collapse, and deservedly so.

We, on the other hand, are merely 'becoming'. We don't exist immutably, and we can only reach towards 'being' by participating in beings. We depend on them at every turn, they never depend upon us. We gain everything by following these laws, and lose everything by refusing them. We're antecedent to time and thus subject to time, we become and then we unbecome, but we never properly 'are', because if we 'were' we would not change.

>I'm saying the decision to call that thing "god" is a man-made one
Deus simply means "highest", as in higher in the order of ontology. Calling these things gods isn't a "man-made decision" any more than using the symbol 2 to represent two objects. Yes, the symbol belongs to us, but what that symbol points to does not.

>Based on that thing being superior to us in some hierarchy and usually in some supernatural way
These ideas were never supernatural, they've always been natural. Mankind understood ontology first as a hard science, then only later invented myth as a way of expressing its understanding of ontology and metaphysics. It would make no sense for mankind to attribute something to God before it even had an understanding of what God is. That would be as incoherent as if I were to see a spilled bucket of paint and then say "look, a degfugord did that". Experience and knowledge always precedes a name, a name does not ever inform experience.

>>34468557
Alexander the Great once asked a holy man how can a man become a god. The holy man replied "he must do something that a man cannot"

>>34471482
What you're describing is objectivity, not "god". You're changing the definition of "god" to suit your purposes. Superior and inferior is a subjective call based on a decided hierarchy. The hierarchy you decide to use is "objectivity", and therefore to you, these universal laws are "god". Just like some islam guy used their own hierarchy to decide that Allah is their chosen "god".

>Calling these things gods isn't a "man-made decision" any more than using the symbol 2 to represent two objects. Yes, the symbol belongs to us, but what that symbol points to does not.

Again. Using the symbol 2 is a man-made decision. The two objects still exist independent of us, but we perceive that there is a split in the object and it is 2 as opposed to 1 or 3. We created a pointer to the object, but we did not create the object.

"God" is like a pointer to an object. But what object? Here's where it gets fuzzy. It's not as straightforward as say, the number "2". It's laden with subjectivity, hence what one entity (islam guy) points to can be wildly different to what another entity (shinto guy) points to.

Let's say we want to create a "god" hierarchy anyway. Which "god" should you worship for maximum gains? "Science" would probably be a better god to worship than Allah, as worshipping "science" (and universal laws you like to call god, like maths physics etc) can get you building things and curing illnesses and etc as opposed to Allah getting you planes smashed into buildings and suicide bombers. So in that case, maybe we can say that "science" is the god of the gods.

>>34472853
>You're changing the definition of "god" to suit your purposes
No, I'm using the word as it was originally used. It was never intended to be mixed with superstition, it was always a precise metaphysical description. You're using it in a modern sense, in which modern man has mistakenly assumed that ancient man must have been unrefined or stupid. But in truth, modern man is more superstitious than ancient man. God originally meant "first cause", and it's a mistake to inject modern notions beyond that into it.

>Which "god" should you worship for maximum gains?
There was only ever one God, and the many gods were simply facets of that God. It's not possible to worship any of the gods without paying homage to God, because God is synonymous with Truth. You can't understand science, geometry, math or physics unless you put Truth first. If you attempt to pursue geometry with no regard for Truth, you'll arrive at neither. You can only enjoy the benefits of understanding geometry if you make Truth your highest aim in an unbiased fashion, so there was never any risk or potential for disparity. Basically, God is the author of all informing principles, the gods are those informing principles, and it's our job to participate in God through those principles. That's how all ancient civilizations conceptualized the divine, historically and theologically. Superstitions only crept in later after all of the great teachers died, so ideas such as "Allah wants me to blow up this building" are nothing more than the product of modern man's profound ignorance.

>>34472987
Well the word evolved to its current form, and that's that. Even in the past, it was used variably, dependent on context. But the common thread is that it's "higher power". But higher and lower depends on your context and hierarchy. Sometimes it's limited due to limited information. Like we are the highest power to the pet, because the pet has no knowledge of natural disasters but we know an impending volcanic eruption will kill us all and we have no power over it (aside from migrating but let's say we're stuck it's too late). We pray to god for a miracle to rescue us, hoping there's an even higher power than the natural disaster that can intervene. So there's a supernatural element there, it's something beyond our reach, so we label it god. Once it is within our reach, it's no longer so "god-like", but sometimes we can artifically make something out of our reach like treating celebrities or idolising something until it's like a living god or something. And in our current era, we have more and more information, so a lot of the old "gods" get debunked and put down the "god" pedestal, like most religious gods like Allah or whatever. Although some people still try to cling to them. Maybe the original word was supposed to mean something like truth, trying to find the truth and escape the state of limited information, but it evolved and split off into many branches but the common threads between those branches is just "higher power", with god being "higher" relative to the entity

Maybe the word meant what "rules over" us (because their higher power allows them to enforce it), where we previously thought it was "god" but now upon more information we realise there's no such thing, just these indifferent laws of the universe without any personified entity ("god") enforcing it all

>>34468557
Believe

>>34472853
>worshipping "science" (and universal laws you like to call god, like maths physics etc) can get you building things and curing illnesses and etc as opposed to Allah getting you planes smashed into buildings and suicide bombers
I don't know if I agree with the idea that science is necessary for humans to build things and invent. Obviously it does help us cure disease and be more informed about the world we live in but just think of all the ancient civilizations who built amazing things despite their limited understanding of science. The ancient Egyptians had their own belief system that was so far removed from science and yet they built the pyramids.

Ancient Muslims made many great innovations such as algebra, the camera obscura, musical instruments and even soap & shampoo. Perhaps worship of Allah paved the way for "science" as we know it today to even exist at all.

>>34473209
>depends on your context and hierarchy.
In ontological terms, everyone is subject to the same hierarchy and context never changes, because everything that's within time is on the same plane, and everything that's outside of time is above that plane. Your parents exist prior to you temporally, for example, but ontologically you and your parents are completely equal in terms of sequence and thus equal in terms of power. Starting from the bottom up, it may help to think of it like this: Dead matter is at the lowest rung and has no power over anything, it never moves of its own volition. Animated life has power over dead matter, because it can move it and alter it. Intelligent life has power over both dead matter and animated life, because it has one foot inside of time and one foot outside of time, because its intellect gives it an understanding of logic and logic is outside of time. One intelligent life has no direct power over another, because each are on equal terms. A man cannot be forced to change his mind against his permission, not even under the threat of death or torture. Logic itself is fully outside of time and has power over everything up to this point because everything obeys it under the laws of cause and effect, and Logic always submits to Truth, making Truth the first ontological being. It would have to be, because without Truth nothing could be true, and something that isn't true doesn't exist.

Nothing ever breaks out of this hierarchy, because even in a situation where dead matter, such as a rock, is used to bash in the head of an intelligent man, it's not the rock itself that's the motivating factor but the fellow man holding the rock. Neither is the rock capable of destroying or interacting with the dying man's intellect, it can only interact with the matter that houses his intellect. Matter has power over matter, mind has power over mind and matter, logic has power over logic, mind and matter and Truth has power over all.

>>34474220
By "science" I mean all the "natural" laws of the universe or whatever (and our growing knowledge of them). I was lazy in word usage, I don't actually mean empiricism or whatever the word science is conjuring in your head.

>Egyptians had their own belief system that was so far removed from science and yet they built the pyramids.
Well they had to have some knowledge of physics and geometry and whatever to get those things up

>Perhaps worship of Allah paved the way for "science" as we know it today to even exist at all.
Thing about "science" is, someone will figure it out at some point somewhere. If not the Allah motivated dudes, some other guy on the other side of the planet probably developing something similar completely independently. As we said, these natural laws are independent of "us" and exist outside of "us". I'm sure there were collisions of science and religion, like Mendel the father of genetics and inheritance and yadda was just some priest monk chillin' with his plants and drawing up punnet diagrams in his free time probably, just cuz it's fun and interesting, not really ideological or anything. And maybe some people were motivated by religion or Allah or whatever and through that discovered more science or engineered more stuff. Cool. The science discovered is still independent of their motives and stands on its own. But that's why there's a distinction between science and religion, because science is the how do we do stuff. Religion is the push to do stuff in some way. But science and evolutionary biology sorta give an alternate explanation to the push to do stuff in some way. So they conflict a bit there. Science/logic is more objective than religion, science isn't gonna take from religion, but religion might take elements from science to piece together it's story and make it more plausible. I think religion had its purpose in the past, especially when we had less knowledge on the universal laws/science/information. But now, obsolete'd

>>34474398
You're attempting to construct an objective hierarchy.

>Dead matter
Dead stuff doesn't care about anything. It has no motives, no goals. They're just materials

Logic and truth are also dead/unalive, they don't care about anything. They just are.

Only living beings care about stuff and have goals. Their hierarchies are built in terms of how much utility a thing has relative to their goals. They use dead matter/materials plus logic/truth to try achieve their goals

>>34468557
The answer to those questions are tied to your definition of God, of a human, of "being" and of "becoming".

If you use other definitions that the one that I will use explicitly and implicitly you will arrive at other conclusions.


>What does "being God" even mean?

I believe that the most restrictive definition one could give of God is the first efficient cause, meaning that God is the first source of change or effect and that God created the universe and time. We could obviously add other porperties to God such as omnipotence and omniscience.

>Was God once human? If so then it follows that logically we must be able to become God.

I don't understand your reasoning here.
God is eternal, since he is the cause of time itself. A human exists within time even though some could consider that it's soul is immortal or existed at all times.
If "being" God is having the properties of God, it would be mean that a person who is God is eternal. Therefore, if a human is God, since it's body necesserly exists within time and space, it would mean that it's soul is eternal and always is God (if we see a human as a body and a soul). In this sense, one cannot "become" God, one's soul either is or is not God at all times.

Furthermore, even if one could potentially become God, the fact that God was once made flesh doesn't mean that anyone is able to become God.

>>34468557

>Am I able to create worlds and bring new life into existence?

By definition if you were God you would have already done that.


>Why does God never intervene in the universe he has created?

One cannot know if God intervenes in this universe. If God is omnipotent, it could easily intervene without anyone knowing about it. Moreover, since everything that happens in this world is directly or indirectly caused by the creation, it is possible that most of what is happening today was planned by God and could be seen as an intervention (if God has a will and was able to plan and foresee it's creation)


> Am I doomed to just be a passive observer as I create a universe that I can never truly exist in?

If you were God, you would exist in a universe by being the cause of it, and would most likely be able to change it and exist in it. I don't believe anyone outside God knows what it is to be God, and trying to understand it is vain.


tl ; dr : You cannot become God, and if you were God you probably wouldn't be asking this questions here.