Why would you do any of that? For your own entertainment?
My problem with the OP is that I can perceive of no purpose for an existent omni god.

If it was impossible to unbecome God how ought you make yourself not exist without making everything not exist? — Benj96

I would make myself exist as something that could cease to exist and then end it.

Unless perhaps the only way to not know yourself as you truly were is to exist in finitude within yourself. — Benj96

I guess that would suck significantly less.

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. — Benj96

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

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? — Benj96

I don't like arguing in favor of such a thing, but I think that the only solution would be to end my own existence, as a truly omnipotent God could give themselves back omnipotence.

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.

So would you say him as God would not be all knowing and would make mistakes along the way that ought to be corrected? — Benj96

If you made me God and that didn't include my foibles, prejudices, and values, it wouldn't really be me anymore.

How could you really fuck up? — DingoJones

Yes. Famous last words - What could possibly go wrong. Problem is, if you change anything, you have to change everything.

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.

Yes. Famous last words - What could possibly go wrong. Problem is, if you change anything, you have to change everything. — T Clark

But you could just formulate a new reality instantly that has the changes you want with minimal changes elsewhere. The real problem is what to change.

I dont know about everything. You could still accomplish a lot working within the confines of already existing systems as well, like by providing scientific discoveries for example.
Im not saying anyone could be trusted to create paradise (people would bitch about it anyway), just that it wouldn't be at all hard to make it better.

Your purpose would be your own to decide I suppose, as you would be God. — Benj96

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

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

You would retain the information your brain contained before becoming God, probably. It wouldn't be qualitatively different from the rest of the information you would acquire when acquiring omniscience.

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

:rofl: Good paradox. A god that creates before it is created! I assume god becomes god as soon as it becomes.

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?

You would retain the information your brain contained before becoming Go — ToothyMaw

So not an eternal god then, an emergent god that knew less than it did before it became god.
What label do you want to assign to this emerging god. I think the monotheists need to know?
semi-god? lesser god (but compared to what?) The OOOO would have to exist as an ideal before this god could satisfy such credentials. So the OOOO's would have to exist before this emerging god.

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

I'm saying that if we had some means of making someone God, it would be wise to go in with some sort of plan formed by science and ethics and such. I don't see that as a paradox.

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.

if we had some means of making someone God, — ToothyMaw

Well, at least I prefer your inference that we create god, it cannot create us or itself.

So not an eternal god then, an emergent god that knew less than it did before it became god.
What label do you want to assign to this emerging god. — universeness

I see. I think it is open to interpretation if he is saying it is emergent or you are becoming the actual God many believe exists.

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 was going with:

if you were suddenly the creator. The start of all - the alpha, the end of all - the omega, and everything in between, what would you do with your time as this entity? — Benj96

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.

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.

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

Right.

Well I think any self respecting god would surround you with the opportunities, people and experiences to learn that for yourself. — Benj96

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.

Too, the hypothetical scenario fails to capture everything that is God. — Agent Smith

Which is?

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.

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.

to the fact that it IS. — Benj96

Then IT has the burden to prove IT IS or else that which IT created is quite justified in refusing to accept IT IS.

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

Well how is one part of oneself inferior to the rest of itself? — Benj96

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!

of Course "It" has the choice to refuse accepting that "it" is. Is that not the basis for both antinatalism and suicide? — Benj96

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. You did not suggest this god could reproduce? Are you suggesting it can impregnate one of its creations, like what happened to Mary (a.k.a rebellious woman.)

However, it being your creation, how might you feel about the bad things that have transpired? Would you feel culpable or would you feel just knowing that you can change it or start over at a moments notice? — Benj96

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