No it's not, it's a lie told to children that they fall for, but then children are easily fooled. You can even make them think you can make your thumb disappear! — universeness

From the perspective of an adult yes. But I'm referring to the perspective of a child. How on earth is a child meant to know any better before they are told otherwise or figure out the contradictions to the belief themselves as they attain more knowledge, so are are left to believe fully that Santa is real.

Just because it's a lie doesn't meant they don't believe it's fully true. Different truths can exist depending on the assumptions of the person holding it. Some truths are greater, more all encompassing and less prone to contradiction than others however.

Would you rather no children ever believed in Santa? Would you rob them of their childhood and have them born with a full set of adult knowledge instead? I think many would find that disagreeable (they have their own truths) compared to yours.

I already role played god earlier. I would not have created anything as I would be unable to know what and why I was, and I would have no needs — universeness

You said "I" would not have created "anything". Who is the "I" then? Would the "I" not have to exist in order to create nothing more than itself?

WHY WOULD I CREATE THAT WHICH IS INFERIOR TO ME? — universeness

Perhaps to experience all forms of yourself - including ones where you are not omniscient and everywhere? To feel what it's like to not have answers, to be contradicted, to feel ignorant. To ask why, to know what mystery is? To feel what it's like to forget? To feel what it's like to discover, to change, to reiminagine meanings?

Something that is everything likely cannot know anything other than everything. Something that is inferior, fractioned, limited, objectified, compartmentalised like the first cell, likely can however.

I think if a God was truly omniscient they would know what it's like to not be omniscient also and all the emotions and uncertainties that come with that. They would be able to put limitations on the self in pursuit of new perspectives? The full picture of their being from bottom to top.

"As above, so below".

Thanks for joining in; much appreciated :up: — Amity

Any time Amity :) ill be sure to come back with more musings.

When the Olympic gods won their war with the Titans, Atlas was stuck in the basement, holding up the heavens, leaving Zeus free to throw lightning bolts and get laid. — Paine

Well I can imagine most of us want to be Zeus in that case.

And I can imagine Atlas was pretty miffed and resentful of Zeus for that fact. Just as the middle class and the impoverished carry a deeply ingrained loathing for the top 1% wealth class while at the same time wishing they were those very elite themselves, but have been instead burdened with the task of upholding the entire hierarchy so that Zeus (the wealthy) can live like, well, Gods.

The buzzkill Spinoza brings to your experiment, however, is that he rejects the 'god does whatever he wants' vibe. — Paine

I would argue that, the more God does, the less free will is available to humans to emulate him/her/it. So perhaps the most noble act such a God could ever do is have the power to be a totalitarian overlord, but refusing to do so, to enable learning, experience (of both suffering and nirvana - god like peace), and choice - the choice to make of reality what you will.

In that way such a omnipotent and omniscient being would have chosen to take a back seat, to be illusive, mysterious, to open the realm of questioning, acquisition of knowledge, curiosity etc that comes with being not god - being ignorant and left to one's own devices.

Sorry, god Vera, we have to expose you as a fake and the same for those other gods you mentioned.
It's been fun but now, you need to return to the fable pages of human storytelling.
You played your god role very well! You told me nothing of value and remained cryptic at all times. You even passed any blame onto other gods. — universeness

A moment to consider, what if God Vera passed the torch to you based on your skepticism and desire to point to a better explanation? Imbued you with all of her power and godly wisdom, simply resuming a passive human role herself.

What would you, God Universeness, do instead of Vera? God Universeness please explain to us mere mortals of the ways of your universeness (how apt haha) ? What is the right thing to do? What ought we value? Where did you come from, why do you exist and why were we created?

Pray tell, almighty Universeness.

that admitting to yourself you have almost endless untapped potential generally results in self-loathing and guilt. — I like sushi

Quite right. It's terrifying to consider one's own full potential. And it's quite possible that the only limitations to such potential is self doubt, low esteem, and the natural harsh criticism and endless blame that comes with believing in your potential above others and rising to the challenge of trying to be all things to all people - as many a politician has done so in the past, now and almost certainly in the future.

The only difference between the suicidal and the Great leader is self belief and the "know-how" to tap into one's intrinsic potential. Which is hard work but oh so valiant.

There is nothing contradictory about being a benevolent dictator. It's what all polities secretly or openly yearn for. Whenever they raise up a tyrant, or allow one to rise on their power, they're hoping that this time, this one, will keep his promises to protect them and make the right decisions for them, provide for them and make them great again. It's rarely happened, but they keep the faith.
Surely, seeing their faces distorted with rage, hate, pain and fear, lusting, mistrusting, longing, despairing, striving, starving; their pathetic little human faces turned to heaven, surely an omnipotent entity can afford them mercy. — Vera Mont

An excellent addition to the thought experiment. I'm with you on it Vera. Brava. I don't suspect we could ever fully understand something so universal and authoritarian, just as a young naive and unlearned child cannot understand exactly why their parents say or do what they do. They simply trust its in their best interest because its better to be under the duress of a benevolent dictator (a loving parent) than to be orphaned.

Probably what would happen is that I would discover that Spinoza is right, the sense of self and intentions that bind my understanding is not the experience of a God who is busy being the possibility and actuality of all that was, is, and will be.

Seeing how much work that requires will make me glad I can quit after punching the clock for just one day. — Paine

"Absolutely". Haha. Cue winky face. I agree Paine. I think the concept of something as grand as the universe and all of time, by an object (only a minute fraction of the whole existing for a short time) can never be equal. All they can do at best is be synergistic/symbiotic. In agreement.

Spinoza was an incredibly clever individual.

I would fly down into Mauna Loa, the world's biggest volcano. Then hang out at the north pole building ice sculptures. Then fly away and explore the rest of the universe. — frank

Sounds like a good time Frank. Send pics of the beautiful ice sculptures haha. Perhaps you could do all those things simultaneously?

"The sky is.. Well apparently not the limit, in the case of being a God."

Gods will hopefully go extinct in the human psyche, in the not-too-distant future.
I hope so anyway! — universeness

I doubt it. Wishful thinking I'd say.

My proof - the prevalence of the notion for basically the entirety of human existence thus far. There are still billions of believers across the world. New religions, spiritualities and paradigms for existence have and will likely continue to emerge when the previous ones have become unsatisfactory, dogmatic, nonsense written thousands of years ago to a culture that is always advancing both linguistically and technologically.

The notion of origin, meaning, love, good and bad, consciousness, morality, truth etc will continue to persist and people will continue to try to unify them again and again in a colossal idea that surpasses anything else. And God will be the term that creeps into their mind when they do that - as no other term has quite the mystique/ambiguity that can satisfy both awareness and that which is being observed (external reality).

"That for which no greater thought can be conceived" - Anselm.

random imaginings of the human mind do not create or give credence to, a god/universal sentient mind. In the same way that random fluctuating white noise (the CBR) does not contain an unknown musical masterpiece (even if aspects of string theory are true). — universeness

Well, I would not go so far as to underestimate the human minds random imaginings in their ability to create reality and be created by reality.

So many ideas and thoughts and random imaginings have become physical existents through action. Most belief systems - money, games, religions have all been constructed from mutual beliefs. That isn't to say they don't have real world action beyond any individual just because at one point they were a random imagining. If I stop believing in the utility of the monetary belief system, the value of currency doesn't merely collapse and vanish, because others will continue to believe in it and furthermore it has stability in that it is tied into resources and materials (economics).

Ideas are paradigms in which to understand reality. Once upon a time reality was a earth-centric solar system and now its a heliocentric solar system. Santa is real as a child and no longer as an adult. What is real to any individual person is based on how many others agree.

If everyone believed god existed and had worked to unify an understanding of such a god by finding the connections and links between all disciplines rather than their contradictions/paradoxes (assumption/belief based) we would have no reason to question such a God didn't exist.

The issue is that no one has a refined enough belief /paradigm for such a god to convince everyone. But again that isn't to say people did not in the past nor will again in the future. It is in the realm a possibility. Otherwise why does the discussion persist so long (millenia).

I believe you and I had this discussion already in other posts - about the difference between material and immaterial etc. And I said and I still am, a dualist between the two. They both ha e their place in reality.

Interesting point of view. It reminds me of the Pandora's Box myth where Hope is left behind after other blessings or curses have flown out (depending on interpretation). — Amity

Haha yes! It crossed my mind also as I was witting it. Your extracts that you cited are very apt in regard to this discussion.

As a sentient conscious mind with intent. If god existed, we should be able to identify irrefutable intent in the early universe. — universeness

How can we identify irrefutable intent some billions of light years away before we emerged any more than you can identify irrefutable intent that Sarah, aged 72 tried to make a sandwich at 7 o clock in Seattle today?

At most you can guess that proabbaky there is a Sarah age 72 in Seattle and that making a sandwich is pretty common but the large majority of the populous of anyone at all actually witnessed her do it. Not all information is accessible at every instant in time. This may be how such a God built nature.

"Privacy of mind" I believe is one of the pillar characteristics of having a mind at all, based on that same uncertainty. Intent is an internal state reflected in action. But the intent can never be picked up and said "here is intent, in my hand, look at it. There."

You can argue for or against someone's intent even when they tell you what it is. By deciding if they're lying or delusion or in fact telling the truth. All you can do is observe whether their intent was logical. As courts do in trials.

So if God is a consciousness there from the beginning, the demonstration of their intent are in all the laws we see in nature, the actions that reflect original intent, something intangible, it is empirical evidence indeed, direct absolute objective evidence? No. Only inference or deduction.

We see nature operates in equilibriums, balances, order emerging from disorder and chaos, and with that more complex awarenesses. Perhaps that is a primordial justice, balance that is. As its stable and allows for the maximum amount of different existents. Can we ever know for sure what such a God's intent is, probably not, we are merely flawed human beings with biases and delusions of our own.

The main point is, not having irrefutable evidence that something occurred or exists, does not strictly rule out that it exists. Otherwise we woukd have to say our internal mind state/individual subjectuve experiences cannot be assumed to exist until every last mind is irrefutable proven. Proven by who exactly? Just more minds, pointing fingers.

For me Santa clause is a patriarchal figure that is omniscient and knows when all children are "naughty" or "nice" and checks that list twice (he's thorough and takes your most recent deeds into account so that you may always have the chance to get in his good books at any moment, even right on the Eve of Christmas before the day of judgement - and the proof, the evidence under the tree - a gift or a bag of coal tells you what he thought of you this year. Although I suspect not many children have ever been truly bad in his eyes (witnessed that bag of coal).

For someone to care about all children everywhere that they might feel blessed with gifts on Christmas, he seems like the absent third parent that, although illusive, has a Great Love for the innocent in society.

He only appears once a year, in secrecy, under the cover of darkness, no child has ever seen him do his Christmas day great works (except for a few minutes at a Santa's grotto maybe). He is inaccesible, existing at the furthest pole, the most barren void, the greatest reach, beyond us all.

He hurtles along at magical speeds, spreading out, almost rippling around the world, on the news, in the papers, his path followed by NASA, confirmed by the postal service which has a direct connection to his letter box, films, stories, songs and plays alike written about him, in reverence of him, known to all but never fully witnessed, having his elves (our actual parents) do his bidding for him - United by something that moves faster than any physical object can - Belief.
Belief of all parents for their children's sake, belief acted out providing Santa's gift under the tree so that evidence of him can be reached, appreciated, by all children.

Santa is in a superposition of very convincingly real (to children) and well, not as much for adults, but amusing nonetheless - the sentiment is no less upheld despite that.

Santa has many parallels with other entities the adult world has written of and discussed at length many times over many millenia. And we can't shake the thought. Nor do we want to, for all the joy it brings not only to the lives of children but to those of the families that love them.

The OP describes my life so I guess I would just continue as normal. I am Alpha and Omega. The ‘world’ is my ‘creation’.

‘Good’ and ‘bad’ are just silly items like ‘happy’ and ‘sad’ — I like sushi

"Keep calm and carry on" as it were. Haha I like it.

Three pages in three hours. Methinks you post too much.

Wannabes, all of you. — Banno

Haha well who in your opinion doesn't want to know a greater truth? Some fundamental meaning or the basis for characteristics like beauty, knowledge, wisdom, power, authority, recognition, judgement, morality, awareness? I think many peoples approach to such all encompassing notions is an attempt to describe something that gives rise to all of these attributes.

Everybody wants something. Everyone has desire. And if not desire then need. Everyone needs things. Basic things. We are left only with the ability to sense them and question them and try to understand where they come from, how to acquire them, how to live for them.

The only people who have no wish for any of them are those who refuse to live and turn to death as a place of solace.

What a great idea, An omnigod that can learn from the shortfalls of the previous god that held the position. Us mortals will be watching what you do god Vera! Remember what happened to that previous god you are typing about! :scream: — universeness

So a passing the "torch" grand olympiad? One God resigns on their failures, asks for forgiveness for them (or is martyred for them, having taken full responsibility for all sufferings that occurred under their provision). And then future Gods learn from them and go hmm "I think I'll have a Go, why not?"

Did I interpret this correctly?

To whom is a creator-god answerable? From whom would such an entity fear derision? — Vera Mont

Themselves I guess. Just as a perfectionist constantly criticises themself for failing to cross all T's and dot all i's.

God doesn't exist. — universeness

In what way do you mean "exist"? As in exist as an object or person? As a concept? Or as the universe?
I definitely think, at the very least from a rational starting point God exists as a concept in your mind - with a personal meaning or definition characterised by your own musings, considerations and experiences.

I think we can safely say if it didn't exist in your mind, you would have no means to use it in a sentence. Just as I can't use "shlemgipple" in a sentence unless the sentence is to define what a "shlemgipple" is for another. Then they can use the term Shlemgipple, argue about Shlemgipple, question the behaviour of, origin of, use of, appearance of, nature of - a Shlemgipple.

The logical reaction to someone who has never encountered the notion of God, would be "What is God? What does it mean I've never heard that term before? How do you describe it? What's its parameters/characteristics?

Which is precisely the purpose of the OP. If you were god (which assumes you have a preconceived idea of it), how would you be (what characteristics would you give to such an existent).
You could answer it with a description, also answer "I don't understand the question." Or simply "I don't know."

So again I ask when you say God doesn't exist. What exactly do you mean? Can you qualify that for me so I better understand your reasoning?

If i were God i would have a dream where i find myself typing in front of a computer that if i were God i would find my self typing in front of a computer that if i were God.. Hello? — punos

And we are all typing in front of computers (or smartphones, ipads etc) each about "if I were God... Etc"
Your dream/imagining matches the reality of this situation no? Just that the "I" in reference is a different "I" each time.

Hello right back at you.

If I'm god, you don't get to set my parameters or my default. I am that I am and that's all that Iyam — Vera Mont

Very true. I wouldn't get to set any of them ofc.

Whatever they want to say about it. They always jabber about stuff they don't understand; it's harmless, keeps their mouths occupied when not eating. — Vera Mont

Haha. Witty, I like it :P

That's the only command I gave them. They're already subject to physics, chemistry and biology - that doesn't leave a whole lot of room for free will. What they've had, they've most abused. — Vera Mont

Again very true! Opening my eyes here to something I ought to have seen as obvious.

Ask me again in 1500 years. — Vera Mont

Perhaps I will :)

This is your god posit Ben, you are the dictator of what IT IS. Does the god you posit have a body and a mind and other component parts or is it a concentration/undefined combinatorial of fundamentals? — universeness

It's both of course. Why choose one part of the universe as a God posit over another?

Humans (with minds, bodies, prejudices, biases - as components of the whole) are a part of, and emerge from, the entire unit (a more vague, undefined combination of basic fundamentals and principles) which we can observe/measure.

We are a system with specific characteristics and defining features within a much larger system built of basic building blocks which underlie both itself and US as a fraction in and of itself.

Yep, you got it! That's why a god would not create us because it would be an admission of its own narcissism — universeness

Haha well I see your point. That being said, personally if a Creator wanted a bit of hype/bragging rights/look at what did vibes for their creation I can't say I wouldn't be completely impressed/amazed by it. Who else could do better?

If God is a narcisstic I don't really care because they would have made me, food, sex, entertainment, knowledge and love exist so I ain't complaining lol. All good things worth a compliment or two.

A narcissistic god seems so ridiculous.
2m — universeness

Doesn't narcissism require other selves? If a God was to exist as the entirety of everthing, to whom would it be being narcisstic for? As everything is self.

Did you not suggest earlier that these options (death or non-existence) were not available to the god described in your OP. I don't see where antinatalism would come in. — universeness

It depends on the "it" you're referring to. Antinatalism and suicide pertains to "it" as a human (part of the total "it" - perhaps the part with the capacity to be most aware of itself). "IT" (capitalised) as the entire universe, well, suicide and antinatalism is irrelevant to such an existent as it supposedly can never not be "IT".

In essence "death" is unique to living things. And the characteristics of living things are finite to specific animate objects, not the entire universe.

I were a god I would not make a creation in the first place. — Tom Storm

I see. In what format would you choose to exist then? As an entity of pure mind/mentality and thought with no time, matter etc to sculpt your ideas in thr physical?

So, you are now going for a god 'in our image' that has distinguishable parts?
An anthropomorphised god, not a nebulous god entity?
Why are humans so anthropocentric in their musings about the universe's origins?
The anthropic principle indeed! — universeness

Well I would argue the "god in our image" doesn't equate to god being human, it equates to the laws, physics, constants and principles that make the whole (the universe) being mirrored in what constitutes its parts (us as humans): chemical bonds, gravity, electrical phenomenon, the behavior of gases, water and its unique properties and solvent abilities, rhythmicity, cycles, replication/reproduction, natural selection, mutation, émergence of new qualities build upon a previous prototype.

Our make-up and becoming is not removed from that which is innate to how the universe behaves/becomes. Therefore our "image" reflected in the universe is that which we have come to ascertain as consistent enduring principles of nature.

To imagine God as human is absurd but to imagine human as a product of some elegant, extremely powerful and diversely potential universal principle, well that's a bit more palatable

of Course "It" has the choice to refuse accepting that "it" is. Is that not the basis for both antinatalism and suicide?

That's not my issue. My issue is how this god perceives the reason for its own existence and why it would choose to create that which is and always will be obviously inferior to itself. — universeness

Well how is one part of oneself inferior to the rest of itself? If my heart is inferior to by body, or my brain, or my liver for that matter, then I can do with them as I please. Except I cannot. As they are vital to the unit - to the self. They are vital organs. Without them the whole self would unbecome.

So perhaps the universe is similar in that its laws neccesitate the natural products of such rules. Perhaps a universe requires an awareness for it to be an object of observation. Just as a heart requires to pump so that it may nourish itself with blood so it can continue to pump. It's a self propagating dynamic. And the heart does indeed propagate the "self".

Systems, no matter how large, require smaller systems to support themselves.

in the OP.
You are not an emergent god in the OP, you are the god that some humans choose to have faith in, to imo, try to, sate their primal fears — universeness

In this case, rather than being emergent you are every present - omnipresent - at the start and the end, and yes some humans would have faith in you (appreciate your existence without proof) others would be skeptical and ask where is the proof.

The irony being, if not emergent but existent from the get go, the proof is existence itself. It is everywhere regardless of individual pursuits of discovery, biases, choices towards whatever specialty one wishes to explore the path of. Ones choice to exclude or include ideas as to how the universe IS would be irrelevant to the fact that it IS.

This question is superb, but I'm afraid it's been answered via consensus in a way that's considered scientifucally impossible. Too, the hypothetical scenario fails to capture everything that is God. :smile: — Agent Smith

Of course it fails. Because we are but Humans, considering what it would be like to be something beyond ourselves. I think whatever we can conceive would naturally fall short of the inconceivable. Just as in taoism, he who claims to know the Dao/Tao, does not know the it.

For any defintion that arises from within a system, falls short of all-inclusivity and total defintion of that system.
Only the system can know the system, parts/fractions of itself cannot know the whole self.

But your god would surely fail at what I am convinced (with my fallible human brain) would be its first thought. Why am I? — universeness

Well I think any self respecting god would surround you with the opportunities, people and experiences to learn that for yourself. If you are to be told who you are rather than choose how to define yourself I think you'd feel suffocated by the lack of autonomy to do so yourself.

I guess that would suck significantly less. — ToothyMaw

Yes I think finding a way to exist without total self annihilation would be less "sucky".

Good point. But I feel that something could bring it back. — ToothyMaw

Yes maybe the underlying laws and principles, the constants, the truth, of who you really are would always remain accesible to any inquiring and rigorous mind pursuing the logic of your nature. They may find themselves incidentally faced with the truth (your true being) by full contemplation of its persistent existence.

I thought about it some more, and I would actually make a committee before becoming God and consult with them about what to do with my Godly powers. The committee members would represent the interests of the people, and I would only do what we agree on, and nothing more. — ToothyMaw

Ah so like a democracy and justice system? Yes I think a purely democratic and just society would be able to console you and allow you to assume whatever role you please, knowing your omniscience is dispersed amongst all I discussion of how the society ought to rightfully proceed.

You could elect them to interpret your existence, truth and morality as a collective leaving you to not have to be the autocratic leader of everything. You could then just enjoy the simpler pleasure of life.

Do no avoidable harm. Minimize suffering, maximize happiness for every sentient being in your area of influence. — Vera Mont

Your area being all things right? As all things are by default a part of your godly self.

Absolutely. Everyone. Beam the new rules directly into their brains. — Vera Mont

Thats all very well, you can make everyone intrinsically aware of what is right, what the rules or morality are. If you enforce them what is to be said if free will? Would they not all be slaves to your every command, unable to choose anything other than what is morally prudent by your means?

They couldn't break out, but I'd lift out one or a group from time to time, as a reward for particularly good behaviour, and take them for a hiking vacation in the human-free landscape — Vera Mont

Oh how lovely, a dream, a great trip of fantastical proportion for those that merit it. I like this indeed.

guess I'd better calm down the climate-change disrupted weather for their sake; stop those wildfires and floods.) — Vera Mont

Another beautiful sentiment. Restoring the equilibrium of nature, removing it from the destructive lordship of humanity. I think the planet would do well under that instruction.

It seems then you woukd right the wrongs of your subjects - humanity, not only for their own good but for that of mother nature herself. So that she may thrive and support diversity.

Do you think humanity would be inspired by your great works or left feeling controlled and manipulated towards what is best? Would there be resentment or would you spend the time to enlighten them as to the reasons behind your intervention?

Probably not as I would have nothing to compare myself to, so how could I experience awe?
How would I know what I was? Who or what would tell me? Would I just know who and what I was?
What do you think my purpose would be? Are you positing this god after it has created something inferior to itself? Why would it have a need to do that? — universeness

Yes true. It seems you could only be trained/taught/told what you are if you chose to unlearned everything you already knew and be at the mercy of other fractions of yourself.

Your purpose would be your own to decide I suppose, as you would be God. The ultimate. Nothing other than the ultimate can ultimately define what one's ultimate purpose is.

Interesting view but that can create a paradox: A God can be illusive and non existent but at the same time it needs to be believed by somone. Otherwise, the existence and omnipotence of God would be useless. What would be the point of a God's mercy if nobody is seeing around?
4m — javi2541997

Well, appearing to be absent and truly being absent (not existing) are two different things. Perhaps if by creating humanity, god imbued humans with the ability to intuitively feel or seek him/her out through reason and/or ethics, and at the same time became the passive object of observation and speculation, God could satisfy "not objectively existing" /being "ill-defined", all while being a part of all who observe him/her through observation.

If people are a part of the universe then they are fractions/partialities of the whole system, and have the ability to question it from unique individual perspective/points of reference.

God as the universe could be endlessly posited, speculated about while also being within humans, being human.

Actually, it would be impossible to unbecome God potentially, so I would just make myself no longer exist so as to maintain whatever world everyone wants after it is over. — ToothyMaw

Hmm an intriguingly thought for sure. If it was impossible to unbecome God how ought you make yourself not exist without making everything not exist?

Unless perhaps the only way to not know yourself as you truly were is to exist in finitude within yourself. As one object withing the entire object (the universe). If you chose to wipe your own memory of self clean then you could exist as an individual questioning the entire universe like anyone else.

What do you mean by "no longer exist" if existence as God is all you have ever known. Would you ha e to settle for merely pretending you don't exist?

I would spend eternity musing about how absurd my existence was and trying to see if I can see myself.
I would wonder why I existed and what god like creature created me.
I would also wonder why I didn't have the answers to those questions. — universeness

So you would wonder, be in awe of yourself, pursue your own mysterious existence, seek out a philosophy, question your own motives and rational for as long as you existed? Whatever form you take?

I would then wonder who was I talking to? What 'I' meant and why was I thinking in English? — universeness

Perhaps you're talking only to yourself. If you were an all encompassing God that's all you could ever question. Your own sense of "I".

It is interesting that you see God as an authority. I just see it as pure escapism. I cannot figure out all the problems and uncertainties of the people because that's would be being against the nature of humanity. If you want to question my authority, please go ahead. Isn't it a real act of reedom? — javi2541997

Haha quite right. Perhaps being God would be pure escapism - from fault, from blame, from culpability. Many people would imagine God as an origin and thus an authority over all things time elucidates into being.

And yes I think any god that creates/created humanity (flawed beings) would have to give them free will, uncertainty, a lack of omniscience so that they might learn. So if one was an omniscient god it seems to allow for free will they would have to appear absent, illusive, a non existent parent departed from what they created. To allow for true independence.

You would just fuck things up. Anyone would. I hope there's a reset button. — T Clark

So would you say him as God would not be all knowing and would make mistakes along the way that ought to be corrected? Or would you posit that fuck ups are neccesary in the evolution of a system (trial and error).
Perhaps some fuck ups that happen now may be seen as neccesary in the future through hindsight?