Stay on course mon ami, stay on course.

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?

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.

So? Have you heard how they talk about one another's gods? Those are my ancestors they're maligning. Wash out their mouths with bleach, consign them to some kind of hell of their own imagining, or ignore them? Tough choice... Naw! easy choice. I'm a very lenient and forgiving despot: ignore them. — Vera Mont

Who are 'they?' Exclusively your ancestors? Who will do the bleach washing or the ignoring or the judging? God the criminal?
I like your confused lenient and forgiving despot, it matches the god contradiction quite well.

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?

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.

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

Does that mean that this is gods song: :lol:

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?

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’.

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.

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.

So? Have you heard how they talk about one another's gods? Those are my ancestors they're maligning. Wash out their mouths with bleach, consign them to some kind of hell of their own imagining, or ignore them? Tough choice... Naw! easy choice. I'm a very lenient and forgiving despot: ignore them. — Vera Mont

I just realised you are role playing god and I should have read the above as the word of god Vera. Sorry god Vera, that answers my question to you about who 'they' are and yes, it would be your god ancestors.
So, you have decided to ignore your creation due to disappointment with their performance so far.
At least you didn't come down amongst us yourself, pretend to be one of us, talked like a schizophrenic, antisemite, defeatist, that recognised the power and authority of Rome and then made yourself into a pointless blood-sacrifice. Or was that one of the ancestors your learned from, along with that maniac god of the OT. I won't ask you about Chronos, Zues, Odin or even Allah, Yahweh or Anu for now.
You still have to tell me more about your contradictory feelings of despotism, leniency and forgiveness.

In what way do you mean "exist"? — Benj96

As a sentient conscious mind with intent. If god existed, we should be able to identify irrefutable intent in the early universe. A simple example might be. Why are there trillions of stars that we will probably never visit? or Why does the planetoid pluto exist? What role does it play in god's plan.
If we were created by this god? why make all this other seemingly superfluous stuff?
Even if it created other species, there still seems to be an awful lot of wasted space?
C'mon god @Vera Mont explain your intent! :halo:

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. — Benj96

I think you quantify and qualify the god situation quite well here. God and Shlemgippie seem identical to me ........ meaningless ...... nothing ....... no existence in reality. The 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). Anything akin to a universal collective intellect, lies in our transhuman future, not our big bang past.

Did I interpret this correctly? — Benj96

Yes, that was the basis of the original god stories. As you know, there were pantheons of gods before the mono one became 'preferred.' All those early ones had human based or nature based or fauna based characteristics. Those early fables all described the good and bad aspects of different gods, as a guide for humans to consider, when they faced the everyday dilemma's they faced. Unfortunately, it was soon discovered that this was a brilliant way for the nefarious few to control and rule the majority and the majority at the time were unable to prevent it. The majority of humans are still paying for that failure today.

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.

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.

So, you have decided to ignore your creation due to disappointment with their performance so far. — universeness

No, on the topic of that same paragraph, I decided to ignore, rather than punish,
their gross transgression of etiquette in calling me narcissistic. Maybe they just don't know any better.

You still have to tell me more about your contradictory feelings of despotism, leniency and forgiveness.

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.

C'mon god Vera Mont explain your intent! — universeness

All in good time.

If I was to answer your question more or less as I think you meant it then the probable truth would be that I would meddle a lot and be rather tyrannical and possibly murderous. Such would likely result in self-hatred and then mass murder too most likely.

After that madness and cataclysmic suicide OR madness and complete nonchalance.

This would be the me god that had powers at my fingers tips with little to no effort involved. I do genuinely believe we are all ‘gods’ though but such powers are just harder to gain and retain, that most are not willing to suffer the work involved in obtaining them and that admitting to yourself you have almost endless untapped potential generally results in self-loathing and guilt.

Note: I think humans are amazing. Not putting a downer on human existence at all :) just sayin’ … a lot of what we wish for is often just wrapped in the nonsense of what we believe others will think of us rather than what would truly drive us to live ‘better’ lives.

Maybe they just don't know any better. — Vera Mont

So perhaps it's time to tell them why you had a need to create them. Then they will know better.

There is nothing contradictory about being a benevolent dictator. — Vera Mont

A god cannot be inaccurate! I am beginning to lose faith in you!
Despot: a ruler or other person who holds absolute power, typically one who exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way.
Benevolent dictator: A totalitarian leader who exercises absolute political power over the state, but is perceived to do so to benefit the population as a whole.
Make up your omniscient mind god Vera, Despot or Benevolent Dictator, which is it? and please explain this apparent tendency you have for making conflicting statements about your nature.

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. — Vera Mont

Is this your way of admitting you are not an omnigod and are in fact fallible?
I am beginning to become suspicious that you are what and who you claim to be god Vera!
Do you have a gender, god Vera?

All in good time. — Vera Mont

Not good enough. I think you are just a human who is trying to con us into thinking you are a god!
I think we should rise up and destroy you and your followers!

So perhaps it's time to tell them why you had a need to create them. — universeness

I didn't. I'd have taken the time to make a better design. That impatient, temperamental Jehova keeps leaving messes all over the universe for other gods to clean up. Frankly, we're growing tired of it. Some members of the Council are ready to send Him back to the PreBang.

A god cannot be inaccurate! — universeness

Sez what negligible protozoan?

Make up your omniscient mind god Vera, Despot or Benevolent Dictator, which is it? — universeness

Choose your own words and definitions. I'll forgive any all jibber-jabber. As to faith... one of your more idiotic concepts. Say what you will about ol' J (He might not forgive, though), He blew some quite serviceable grey fluff into your heads, yet so many of you refuse to exercise it.

Is this your way of admitting you are not an omnigod and are in fact fallible? — universeness

No. Is this your way of misrepresenting or misinterpreting? Human language is limited, but it can be used to communicate ideas.

Do you have a gender, god Vera? — universeness

Whatever for?

I think you are just a human who is trying to con us into thinking you are a god! — universeness

Are we participating in the same thought-experiment, or have you advanced to another level?

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.

Are we participating in the same thought-experiment, or have you advanced to another level? — Vera Mont

No, it's the same thought experiment, I am just pushing it on to the point where human intellect and scrutiny of the 'words of gods' presented to us by humans, are finally rejected as BS lies and more and more of us realise that the theism trick is akin to the money trick and is just another tool that the nefarious few have used to maintain their status and power since we came out of the wilds.
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.

In the UK, data released on Tuesday November 29th, 2022, from the 2021 census show that those describing themselves as Christians now account for just 46.2 percent of the population – down from 59.3 percent in 2011, and from 72 percent in 2001.

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.