One can dream

It is nice to dream, and daydream even. Is it a "daydream" when lying in bed, not actually asleep, but just coming up with daft ideas to ponder while you fall asleep? You all do that right? Anyway, I am sure many have done exactly the same in thinking of crazy things for the hell of it, like "what if I could fly?", "what if I could teleport?", and perhaps even "what if I was a god?".

The "what if I was a god?" one is entertaining to ponder, like, I suddenly find I can do anything, (maybe I crack the back door in the simulation) - do I keep quiet and do things in small ways for fun, or what. Of course the obvious thing to do, (well, apart from just fix the climate, just fix poverty, etc), but especially with the state of world, is to smite the hell out of of some of the political figures and world leaders that are being dicks in my humble opinion. Zap them with lightning, Thor style, or make them disappear, or if you want to be subtle, just make them ill. One idea in such a daydream, was send them to hell for 1000 years and then bring them back with no time passed. Proper smiting stuff. One can dream!

But when exploring the idea you quickly realise smiting, and punishment don't make sense. If they are being dicks, just change them, use your omnipotence to just make them "nice". Problem solved.

Indeed, the whole concept of punishment, and hence also reward, and even rules, and tests, all make no sense for an omnipotent god. Would such ideas even occur to a god? They sort of make sense to a parent trying to adjust the behaviour of a child, but only because parent can't simple change the behaviour of the child directly. A god has no reason to consider the concept of punishment or reward.

If a god wants to make its beings, for whatever game it is playing, it can make them "play nice" in the first place. Or the second place, if first time it realises its beings turn out to be dicks, but obviously a god would have known that was going to happen, so let's stick to "in the first place".

This is not really a "free will" thing, either. Maybe a god wants its beings to have free well to see how things go, fair enough, it is adding a roll of the dice to the game. But free will is always limited. I have free will - I can do any spontaneous shit I like, even if silly or stupid, but my free will can never make me poke a red hot poker in my eye. My free will has limits. So if a god wants some simple "play nice" rules, like the whole "not killing other people" one, which seems sane, then just make its beings have a natural aversion to the whole idea of killing people, just like the "poker in the eye" thing. Then they can still have lots of free will but within some sensible constraints. No need to even tell them the rules, or write them down, and certainly no need to punish them or reward them in any way.

It makes you wonder why gods in many religious texts include concepts of punishment, reward, tests, and rules, when an omnipotent deity would not even have to consider such concepts in the first place.

I'm not the first to ponder this by any means, I am sure. This will have some famous person's name on it, from 1000 years ago, won't it?

Stargate Gods?

I am a bit of a fan of sci-fi, and have, of course, watched Stargate SG-1, Universe, and Atlantis. All great Sci-Fi, even with many flaws (6 points in space, FFS).

I was pondering the Stargate view on "gods". I think it is actually quite interesting, to be honest.

The basic story, back to basics, is that the Goa'uld are a parasitical (snake like) creature that needs a human (or something similar) as a host and pose for the local population as a "god". They have advanced technology, and supposedly posed as a variety of gods (and even the "devil") on Earth over the millennia.

So it makes you wonder on any sort of definition of "god". Purely due to technology, which the Goa'uld keep secret (even from Jaffa), they can create the impression of being gods. But is superior tech all that you need to meet such a definition? Perhaps it is?

What is interesting is that the worshipers in this case have a tangible god, which nobody on Earth has. They can see their god, and the acts he performs (using high tech), so there are no agnostics as they know the power the gods have, and presumably no atheists either (but that depends on definition of "god"). Given that they exist (in the show) the Goa'uld are more tangible and plausible "gods" than anything any Earth religion has to offer.

But as time goes on, the followers are convinced to recognise them as "false gods", and simply technologically advanced aliens that they are. Yay for the rebellion!

So what next? Well the show goes on to discover "ascended" life forms. These are formerly people (ancients) that have ascended to a "higher plane" and now are pure energy. One of the main characters (Daniel Jackson) even manages it, and by a convent plot twist he even comes back. They have control over natural forces and more power than the technology of the Goa'uld but all done without using technology.

Surely these count as actual "gods"? They even have a code of conduct preventing them interfering, except when the script really needs then to do so, and so are like Earthly gods that do fuck all to actually help people. That has to be the hallmark of a "real" god, surely?

We then have the Ori that never got the memo on not interfering and rule a whole galaxy by force, gaining power from worship somehow. Surely they must be actual gods, with the power, and the tangible and evidentiary presence?

Then the show goes even more whacky with Stargate Universe, and the idea that the ancients (that ascended later) found a "message from god", or at least some meaningful structure in the background radiation from the big bang. An intelligence at the start of time. Maybe that signifies a (the) real god?

Interestingly, they encounter (or rather don't) aliens that made a solar system and returned some settlers to them (only to re-live how they died?!). Maybe they are gods too?

What really got me, while watching all of this, was not any of these so called gods, they all meet a definition of a "god" in a context, but the acting of the Americans in many places that assumed there is some "one true god", the "in god we trust" crap they have on the dollar - that type of deity. Of all the acting and fiction, the way they talk about one god of one religion on Earth, one of thousands, is what made me cringe and feel it was the fiction is it. Sadly, I think a lot of Americans actually think like that. Oh well.

P.S. Perhaps what I am trying to say here, in any debate on religion, is you probably need to start by defining what you think a "god" actually is, before you can say whether there is a "god", and whether such a "god" is doing its job and/or worthy of any praise.