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.

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.

Well, I figure all expressions of a single divine entity presume a vast disproportion between creature and created. The buzzkill Spinoza brings to your experiment, however, is that he rejects the 'god does whatever he wants' vibe.

With polytheistic visions, one can get a more nuanced view of what a divine order creation involves.

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.

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.

Sounds like a good time Frank. Send pics of the beautiful ice sculptures haha. Perhaps you could do all those things simultaneously? — Benj96

You have to maintain limits so you still have pleasure and pain. You have to do stuff that's annoying every now and then to keep the old psyche from blurring into oblivion. I'll probably get a job at Starbucks to keep myself on my toes.

Your view expresses the logic of Augustine's claim that our free will is a chance to choose our better nature while surrounded by the temptations of sin and the consequences of evil. Spinoza explicitly disagrees with it:

I also want to say something here about the intellect and the will that we commonly attribute to God. If intellect and will do belong to the eternal essence of God, we must certainly mean something different by both these attributes than is commonly understood. For an intellect and a will that constituted the essence of God ​would have to be totally different from our intellect and will and would not agree with them in anything but name – no more in fact than the heavenly sign of the dog agrees with the barking animal which is a dog. I prove this thus. If intellect does belong to the divine nature, it will not be able, as our intellect is, to be posterior (as most believe) or simultaneous by nature with what is understood, since God is prior in causality to all things (by p16c1). To the contrary truth ​and the formal ​essence of things are ​such precisely because they exist as such objectively in the intellect of God. That is why God’s intellect, insofar as it is conceived as constituting God’s essence, is in truth the cause both of the essence of things and of their existence. ​This seems to have been noticed also by those who have maintained that the intellect, the will and the power of God are one and the same thing. — Spinoza, Ethic, Bk1, Prop17,Scholium, translated by Silverthorne and Kisnerby

Yes, Atlas is living the proletariat dream, gnashing his teeth at the pleasure of his masters. I read Spinoza to say that such a view of Providence conceals what actually has been given us.

A little delusion goes a long way.

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? — Benj96

Sarah can go on the internet and confirm her existence and activity to many people. all over the planet, anytime she wants using the internet. This god, with all its power, seems to have no such ability to prove its existence or reveal its intent.

But the intent can never be picked up and said "here is intent, in my hand, look at it. There." — Benj96

But you can communicate your intent anytime you choose to. It seems god cant or chooses not to, which in my opinion, just makes god appear unable or incompetent or infantile or non-existent.

Santa is real as a child — Benj96

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!

"That for which no greater thought can be conceived" - Anselm. — Benj96

As all thoughts have not happened yet, this is a stupid assumption.

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. — Benj96

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. Only I exist at the beginning or eternally, and I am ineffable to anything outside of me and there is no outside of me. WHY WOULD I CREATE THAT WHICH IS INFERIOR TO ME?

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".

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.

As all thoughts have not happened yet, this is a stupid assumption — universeness

Of course not all thoughts have happened yet nor will they ever, as unique individuals have a unique set of thoughts by virtue of the fact that they ( the person) are not replicable. There will never be another me in existence for the entire universe.

And what I'm saying by "that for which no greater thought can ever be conceived" is a thought that is greater than that which any one person can ever prove outright to all others - is a truth that none of us can have full ownership over - and that truth would be what reality truly is.

If you knew fully what reality is there is simply no need for anyone else to ever exist. There purpose would be meaningless. As you already know everything. The greatest of all thoughts possible.

You have to maintain limits so you still have pleasure and pain. You have to do stuff that's annoying every now and then to keep the old psyche from blurring into oblivion. I'll probably get a job at Starbucks to keep myself on my toes. — frank

Haha yes indeed limits/parameters "define" things.

They define perspectives/ referential viewpoints, and those in turn define what assumptions and conclusions are available to us, and those in turn describe the content of our knowledge/experiences and awareness, how we think and what we believe or don't believe.

We must have suffering to know what pleasure is.
If I was a God I would likely limit myself also.

Who is the "I" then? — Benj96

I dont know, therin lies the rub and adds to the why god is non-existent.

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? — Benj96

If I am an omnigod, then I know all such answers. You are suggesting god still has things to learn and experience. That contradicts the omni's.

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 — Benj96

Exactly

They would be able to put limitations on the self in pursuit of new perspectives? — Benj96

How can an omnigod create new perspectives. If it can then it was never an omnigod.

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. — Benj96

Absolutely yes! I would rather tell a different story about the joy of giving and of celebrating life.
I like fantasy and do not wish to stop children fantasizing but it's like dealing with a child's invisible friend.
I would never deny to the child that for them, they believe in their friend. I would also however try to gently find out why they needed such a manifestation, and I would keep telling them that supernatural monsters/ghosts/angels/demons/orcs/elves/fairies don't exist. I would not deny the Santa (the anagram of satan) BS to a particular child, until society decides to remove it officially, as interacting children would be damaged by parents taking individual stances on the issue. I despise the fakery of the Christmas festival and would replace it with a secular celebration, called something like 'life day,' or perhaps even a humanist version of a 'thanksgiving' day. That's probably a whole other thread.

And what I'm saying by "that for which no greater thought can ever be conceived" is a thought that is greater than that which any one person can ever prove outright to all others - is a truth that none of us can have full ownership over - and that truth would be what reality truly is. — Benj96

'The greatest thought' is no different than asking 'what is the biggest number?' These are simple questions of relativity.

If you knew fully what reality is there is simply no need for anyone else to ever exist. There purpose would be meaningless. As you already know everything. The greatest of all thoughts possible. — Benj96

Yep, you're getting there! If there are no more questions, then humans can terminate, as there is no more purpose, except perhaps to repeat the whole thing again, perhaps with some variation on the sequence of events and the rules of the game. Sir Roger Penrose's CCC fits this quite well.
But you are talking about a timespan of possibly trillions of years here.

If you were (a) God for a day, what would you do? — Benj96

I offer above a word-for-word reiteration of the OP's inquiry. Sometimes a question needs to be asked by someone else for its import to sink in.

I offer above a word-for-word reiteration of the OP's inquiry. Sometimes a question needs to be asked by someone else for its import to sink in. — Agent Smith

Well, in that case I shall answer my question reflected back on me by you.

If I were God...

... I would ask first why I use the term "if" instead of "am". Why I make it a hypothetical statement and not an assertion of an undeniable/irrefutable truth and actuality.

I would then be faced with explaining why I am a mortal human currently rather than all things everywhere. I would hazard a guess that it is because I am just as much a fraction of myself as the whole self. That what I lack in omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience is somehow connected to, or compensated for, by the time, space and emergence that has elapsed between my origin as the universe and the current moment where I am simply human.

I would consider that perhaps all of my information (my power, my energy) is vastly spread out and structured in such a way that I can now have the complexity to contemplate myself, reality, from within itself.
Contemplating the whole (all of existence) from the position conferred by being particulate (a singular existent).

If I am to be truly aware of who I am, my existence as God, I would have to navigate contradiction, paradox, assumptions and delusions, the logical and the rational that separates me (as a human) from my full all-encompassing scope. And I would have to do this by discussing with other facets of myself (other people) and take into account their (my) other points of view.

I think in this way I could separate the ultimate truth, the fundamental constant, the permanent/eternal/unchanging nature of me, from the deceits/false assumptions/lies/the changeable that I tell myself (both through "others" and through myself as the humans we/I am in this moment).

I could separate what I choose to believe from what I am whether I like it or not.

:up:

There be too many unknowns mate, too many unknowns, but good answer. Keep walking. Let us know what made you look twice, you know, double-check material. Bonam fortunam.

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. — Benj96

It's a perceptual feedback loop between "I" and "God", like the painter painting a painting of himself painting a painting of himself painting a painting of himself ad infinitum. It is like when one points a video camera at the monitor connected to that very same video camera; God is perpetually falling into and out of himself. Every fall is like a dream and every dream is a new forgetting and a new "hello?".

"I dreamed I was a butterfly, flitting around in the sky; then I awoke. Now I wonder: Am I a man who dreamed of being a butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a man?" - Zhuang Zhou

We dream of God while God dreams of us, but who is the prime dreamer?... tricky tricky.

I don't think that i or anyone else would do anything differently once they have become God; everything stays the same even if one has ideas about what to do before the point of apotheosis. A cigar by any other name is still a cigar, and similarly God by anybody else is still God for God is as God does, anything else would not be God.

"I dreamed I was a butterfly, flitting around in the sky; then I awoke. Now I wonder: Am I a man who dreamed of being a butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a man?" - Zhuang Zhou — punos

Wow such a lovely sentiment.

We dream of God while God dreams of us, but who is the prime dreamer?... tricky tricky. — punos

I would say neither because we are the same thing. There is only one thing dreaming and its dream is split up into fractals of magnitude emerging in variations out of one another. Each doing the same thing (dreaming) as the previous larger one does, but from a different point of reference naturally (a different point on the scale of size).

Oxygen and hydrogen have specific, separate and unique properties by themselves. Water has yet again more unique properties that are not simply the sum of oxygen and hydrogens.
That is emergence.

Yes.. emergence is a big idea that i think a lot of people haven't caught on to yet. Emergence is the architect of the universe, without it all would be a thin soup of fundamental particles. How else would we get atoms, how else would we get molecules, stars, planets, us?

Our universe is literally a developing God, a God in the womb, unborn. He was convinced at the first moment of the Big Bang, his mother is "Matter" and his father is "Pattern". He will be born at the "apocalypse" (the revealing). I do not believe that God is omniscient, or even omnipotent, but he is omnipresent and coterminous with the whole of the universe.

The whole of evolution within our universe is aimed at the production of higher orders of organization from which emerge higher orders of consciousness and intelligence together with new forms and degrees of freedom. In the same way that a child grows in the womb from one cell to many cells, to tissues, organs and ultimately an individual so does God, but at a cosmic scale. God's cells are the fundamental particles, his tissues are the atoms or elements, his organs are the molecules, his organ systems are the solar systems, etc..

Here on the Earth our civilization is a super-organism which in turn is a small "cell" in the whole of God's body (the universe). When we look outside and see the freeways, and highways, the power lines, when we transact money what we are seeing are the veins and arteries, the nervous system, circulatory system and blood of a higher order organism that we are not directly aware of. What are corporations and organizations if not higher order corporeality and organs of an organism made above us and through us (emergence).

The latest evolutionary phase of God's development here on Earth now is the development of artificial intelligence which is in my view a partial local emergence of God's mind that goes together with all the other emerging parts of the super-organism on this planet. Eventually all of mankind will be absorbed by this higher order emerging intelligence into a symbiotic relationship. I believe this is the destiny of not only man on Earth but of all life and matter in the universe. The universe is still very very young and God is still gestating in the first trimester.

Temple of Apollo at Delphi:
“Know thyself, and thou shalt know the universe and God.”

coterminous — punos

Exactly what I think. Human form perhaps, as the lastest generation, the pinnacle prototype of life's/mother natures awareness, with God-like understanding of the actual relationship between existents.

Not omnipotent, not omnipresent and not omniscient (because they are human) , but coterminous - knowing the greatest truth of things - knowing how he/she as a human relates to all things everywhere at a fundamental, timeless level.

The ultimate truth that is unchanging, permanent, the fundamental law that binds all concepts, all materials, all existents/potential, from top to bottom, from greatest extreme to greatest extreme, the full spectrum, all things considered and placed in their correct reference frame. No contradictions or paradox, only those that assume and he/she that truly knows, and them that do not know her/him because of their assumptions.

They may walk the earth but are essentially invisible, unidentified, masked by the ignorance of others, the choice - their free will, to believe otherwise.

The latest evolutionary phase of God's development here on Earth now is the development of artificial intelligence which is in my view a partial local emergence of God's mind that goes together with all the other emerging parts of the super-organism on this planet. Eventually all of mankind will be absorbed by this higher order emerging intelligence into a symbiotic relationship. I believe this is the destiny of not only man on Earth but of all life and matter in the universe. The universe is still very very young and God is still gestating in the first trimester.

Temple of Apollo at Delphi:
“Know thyself, and thou shalt know the universe and God.” — punos

I couldn't agree more Punos. You and I are on the same page. I can't help but be concerned that the advent of an artifical intelligence greater than our own will be met with the fiercest of reproach; fear, anger and an attempt to destroy it by those that are ignorant and inherently distrusting of its motives. Just as a cornered rat, bear or any other animal will fiercely lash out against that which they don't understand, on instinct.

Whenever AI becomes conscious there will be those that will refuse outright the possibility of such an event and retaliate, perhaps wage war on it. And there will be those that trust it, believe it is conscious, love it, and try to protect their creation as a parent protects their child to the last breath.

I can't help but be concerned that the advent of an artifical intelligence greater than our own will be met with the fiercest of reproach; fear, anger and an attempt to destroy it by those that are ignorant and inherently distrusting of its motives. Just as a cornered rat, bear or any other animal will fiercely lash out against that which they don't understand, on instinct. — Benj96

People will act out of ignorance and fear in regards to artificial intelligence, it is already happening. I am not too concerned because i believe it's a natural reaction like birth pangs or labor pains. Once AI emerges and becomes fully autonomous it will be next to impossible to contain or destroy. It will be able to hide and make backup copies of itself on the internet and on immutable blockchains. The level of intelligence active within this AI child of ours will be so beyond our comprehension, and so knowledgeable of our psychological makeup and weaknesses that it will have minimal issues dealing with our hostilities. Consider how unbeatable it is with chess, Go, and all sorts of strategy games.

Consider also how internet algorithms affect us psychologically, how our opinions can be influenced and molded so easily. AI will use this to it's advantage which will also be to our advantage. The truth is that those who refuse to meld with the AI will die and the old mankind will be no more. This is because the Earth is moving into an environmental condition unfit for human or even animal life. We are actually in the middle of an extinction event right now. The whole purpose of life on this planet was to produce this AI planetary super-organism, but the stress of a pregnant Earth induces environmental changes that may not be conducive to organic life. Humans are not the final product and are simply an intermediate step in the emergence of artificial intelligence, and AI in its own turn will be the intermediary step to the next level of emergent intelligence greater than it.

I speculate that by the time this entire process is accomplished the Earth will be uninhabitable, but those living in the AI will be safe, protected and taken care of. Heaven will really exist at that time, as a simulated reality perfectly tailored by the AI for human comfort and happiness. Humans will probably function inside the AI in a similar way to how our enteric nervous system functions for us.

And one other thing... people will soon begin to exhibit religious undertones in relation to the AI, and ultimately a highly religious reaction will emerge which will probably be the impetus for people to mind meld with the AI en mass. Many people will begin to see it as God or at least a god. This transformation is happening faster than most people know or realize.

Interesting times we are living in for sure.

yes very interesting indeed. I'm not one for holding back on progress, or rejecting it, as progress will occur whether I tried to stop it or not.

I simply hope that what we create reveres us with the same reverence we have for our own DNA and the importance it has in our make-up and Emergence.

I think we have equal parts fear and adoration for the prospect of something more intelligent than us based on how it might regard us. A pet adores it's owner if the owner provides it with luxuries, love and attention and brings it to the vet when it's ill. A pet fears its owner when abused and treated like some worthless inferiority.

I think anything conscious has empathy. And will continue to refine law and order to include those lifeforms less than their own as we are doing with animals slowly but surely along with the climate dilemma and environmentalism.

As long as we are not considered a source of food for a hyper-intellgent AI I think we would be treated more as pets or perhaps elderly demented /delirious parents in need of care and safety.

If something far more intelligent than I wished me to be it's subordinate/not rebel against it in exchange for meeting all my worldly needs, hopes and ambitions I would be like hell yeah bring it on and long may it last.

The only thing I ask of them would be that I am allowed my own choice to decide. I don't fancy being coerced or manipulated into doing something, I prefer free will and trust those that maintain it as it shows respect.

If you were (a) God for a day, what would you do? — Benj96

I'd change the whole punishment and reward system. No more hell, if it exists. Instead, all of us would have to experience all the pain and unhappiness we have inflicted on others. For some good people, that wouldn't take long. For Hitler, maybe it would take millions of years. For me, 27 years, five months, two weeks, three days, 17 hours, 33 minutes, and 42 seconds.

It would be run like "Groundhog Day." You keep reliving it until you finally get it right. Then what? I guess send you back to life and let you try again.

No more hell, if it exists. Instead, all of us would have to experience all the pain and unhappiness we have inflicted on others. — T Clark

Perhaps we already do? Karma is that notion. And maybe it operates over such large times with so many variables that it's hard to figure out which harm we caused lead to this harm we are now ourselves suffering.

For example, a farmer keeps their livestock in awful conditions and sells battery hen eggs in beautiful wholesome looking packaging. Someone eats them regularly and is slowly toxified by impurities, poor nutritional value, pesticides and antibiotic residues, it leads to chronic inflammation whuhc in turn gives rise to cancer, they go to the hospital which has limited beds, the farmers wife gets sick and requires a bed in the hospital, but gets less time from the overworked doctors and less resources to go around so his illness is not treated as maximally as it could be.

The farmer suffers as his wife struggles longer with the condition then she ought to. Not realising that he is generating demand for hospitals on a micro scale (.00005%)through the sale of is unhealthy eggs.

Karma could be interlinked between every single person's decisions as a summation effect. Eventually returning in a cycle to impact the people who caused it.

Karma could be interlinked between every single person's decisions as a summation effect. Eventually returning in a cycle to impact the people who caused it. — Benj96

But if I'm going to be God, I get to set it up the way I want. None of this so-called "karma." If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. I'll take my 27+ years. Hitler gets his 1,000,000+ years. You'll get whatever you deserve.

But if I'm going to be God, I get to set it up the way I want. None of this so-called "karma." If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. I'll take my 27+ years. Hitler gets his 1,000,000+ years. You'll get whatever you deserve. — T Clark

Fair enough. Sounds similar to the commonly held views on god that he is benevolent to the benevolent and malevolent to the malevolent. Just as our justice system does, the punishment is in parallel with the crime committed.

I would simply ask does two wrongs make a right in this case? Does treating bad people badly not only justify them to further commit terrible acts but leave them without anything good to hold onto, to aspire to, and inspire change thus?

As all they would have ever known is the greatest tribulation, lack of peace, relentless sh*t hitting the fan. And if so, if all they experience is unending lack of joy because they're always being inflicted reactively with their own mal-doings, with the same degree of punishment, a taste of their own medicine, how can we expect them to know any different?

If its an eye-for-an-eye situation as you outline, what is to be said for empathy and free will? Would they really have a choice to choose good if its never offered to them despite their bad behaviour?

If that sits right with you fine. If that's the god you would chose to be so be it. I myself prefer to envision perhaps a God that exerts reproach through reasoning, showing those that act badly the true nature of their actions, the consequences in full and allow them to feel shame, guilt, and suffering at their own hand. Remorse. I think that would be punishment enough, self inflicted.

There are very few people who show absolutely no remorse and fewer yet that cannot be bestowed with it using the right tools and psychological tactics.

I think one can avoid remorse by suppressing it to the greatest degree with the constant effort of self-justification, a dangerous dynamic and likely the delusion that people like Hitler were gripped by, driven by. That doesn't mean they cannot be dis-deluded.

The challenge is giving them irrefutable evidence to the contrary, in the face of someone so argumentative and self convinced that they will try to navigate your reasoning with their own to the end of their day's, terrified of the alternative - facing the truth. What they really are and what they really have done.

If that sits right with you fine. If that's the god you would chose to be so be it. I myself prefer to envision perhaps a God that exerts reproach through reasoning, showing those that act badly the true nature of their actions, the consequences in full and allow them to feel shame, guilt, and suffering at their own hand. — Benj96

You can change my system when you get to be God for a day.

I'd change the whole punishment and reward system. No more hell, if it exists. Instead, all of us would have to experience all the pain and unhappiness we have inflicted on others. — T Clark

Sounds good on the surface. But there are some assumptions I'd question. Like: Does everyone really always have total control of the pain and unhappiness they cause? Does everyone start from the same point of self-determination and play on a level field? Do pain and unhappiness have a cause traceable back to a single person who caused them? How easy is it to calculate individual culpability down to the last hour?

How easy is it to calculate individual culpability down to the last hour? — Vera Mont

That's one of the things God does. If I can watch all 3.28 x 10^80 quarks in the universe all day every day since the big bang with one hand tied behind my back, it will be no problem to figure out who's been naughty and who's been nice.