The contradiction can be resolved if we restate Einstein’s relativity theory as “nothing can travel through spacetime faster than light.” If the signals somehow bypass spacetime, then the contradiction is resolved. Hm. — Art48

Sorry, I didn't read this part carefully enough before responding. I speculate that there is no travelling needed in certain conditions, due to QFT. Every 'point' in space can manifest any particle/excitation at any moment of time. So the entangled state does not 'travel' as it is already there and only requires measurement.

What's that about, then? — Banno

Defibrillation for dying theosophies imo.

I tried to understand quantum entanglement using my own following thought experiment:
If the distance between us was 1 light year. Then I could send you a message that says.
Measure your entangled particle the moment you receive this message.
I would then have to know very precisely (I think) when to measure my item just before you do, 1 light year away. I would then send a message to you 1 light year away, asking you what your measurement was. If I had measured a 1 then you will have read a 0.
But it will take 2 years after the actual event, for me to confirm this, so no signal is travelling faster than light in this thought experiment.

I don't know if this is correct but it's what I understand as quantum entanglement at the moment.

We have quantum entanglement, which says that signals can travel faster than light. — Art48

No it doesn't! From the physics stack exchange:

Entanglement between two qubits means that if a measurement is made on one of them, the other one is decided instantaneously.

This is true, but this does not allow for faster than light communication. If you have one qubit with you and I have one qubit with me and you make a measurement on your qubit, that will mean my qubit is decided . But how does that send any signal ?

Later on, when I make a measurement on my qubit, I get a measurement, just as I would have got some measurement had you not measured first. There is no way for me to know that I got this measurement after you had measured yours or before you have measured yours. Hence, no signal can be sent faster than light using entanglement

I hoped you would at least use discernment: attack only those who are have done harm to you or someone who didn't deserve to to be harmed. I hoped you would give individuals the benefit of a doubt; judge them by their words and actions, not a label you've stuck on them. — Vera Mont

I assume you meant 'or someone who did deserve to be harmed,' in the quote above.
We all make such judgements, in the same way you have judged me as deserving of your words above.
I suggest you yourself have made quite a few assumptions and stuck a few of your own inaccurate labels on me.

Sure. We can now ensure the death of everything on Earth in fifteen minutes flat. Of course, many creatures would take considerably longer to actually die. — Vera Mont

Do you think that's faster than a big rock from space could achieve, or how about a massive eruption of the caldera under Yellowstone park or how fast do you think the Christian god could do it, if it existed?

This one does. And I thought the benefits of science should include preventing extinction, not insuring it. — Vera Mont

A spoon is a good scientific invention, but I can still kill someone with one. Hopefully M.A.D will prevent nuclear war. Science can, but does not have to be used to destroy. Theism is exactly the same. Its up to 'good' humans to prevent such threats. if they cant then, imo, we deserve our fate. The Earth will survive, and another species will inherit the stewardship of the planet. Even if it takes another 300 million years of evolution through natural selection. I am currently, more concerned that a theist like Putin has control over a nuclear arsenal, than I would be, if he were not a theist.

Those pictures have been seen since since 1959. How many voluntary international unions have taken place since than, and how many divisions? — Vera Mont

1959! You are impatient Vera! That's only 63 years ago. It's a bit of a 'diva stance' to complain that the human race has not made enough satisfactory global improvements in your lifetime. I personally think that many improvements have been made. But discussing particular examples and giving my details as to why I think a particular example qualifies, is probably a whole other thread. The equality rights gained by LGBTQ+ people in the West for example. Progressive political movements via groups like 'Compass' and 'Momentum' in the UK. I could go on.

We'll send out lots of space probes with friendly messages and maybe the advanced aliens will come and save us from ourselves.
They both sound like the same kind of wishful thinking in the teeth of all evidence. — Vera Mont

There may be no aliens close enough to communicate with, for another million years. Perhaps we are the only game in town and the 'aliens,' will be us when we colonise the Moon, Mars and who knows where else.

Update: Here is a very exciting development in nuclear fusion, in the news media today!
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/why-nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-at-us-lab-promises-a-new-source-of-clean-energy/ar-AA15eNdX

You claim! — unenlightened

You have convincing evidence to the contrary?

but that dot cannot tell me whether to build more rockets or grow more beans. — unenlightened

I would go for growing beans unless you also know how to build significant rockets, then you can do both. Both activities sound useful to me, as compared to other possibilities, such as developing a conviction on your part to start a new religion and build more churches/temples/cathedrals/mosques etc or become a preacher/priest/minister/Imam/theosophist etc.

It can show me the dot, but not measure the beauty. — unenlightened

A scientist is a person, so can measure beauty as all humans can. Just like you are able to measure beauty. Do you agree that such is in the eye of the beholder? When you compare/discuss your measurement and a scientists measurement of the beauty of the pale blue dot image, you may completely agree, mostly agree or agree that one persons meat is another persons poison.
How does a scientific image like pale blue dot affect you politically? or/and anthropologically?

A quantum theory for gravity is hotly debated in the physics community right now.

. The idea that galaxies are "gravitationally bound", and expansion only occurs in intergalactic space, is just a convention meant to facilitate calculation. — Metaphysician Undercover

so it would be very inaccurate to assign a centre of gravity to a large object, simply ignoring all the distinct parts, and therefore not assigning a separate centre of gravity to each part. — Metaphysician Undercover

If this is where you are in your musings then we are just too far apart to be able to establish effective communications.

But if you knew a little more about these concepts, like spatial expansion, and dark energy, you'd see that this type of thinking is not wrong headed at all, it is well justified. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right back at you, if you knew a little more about such concepts, you would agree that your thinking here is 'wrong headed.'
I repeat:

Galaxy structures are not expanding they are locally gravitationally bound, so, from that standpoint, their 'size' is invariant over time and will remain so unless they are acted upon by an external force such as a collision with another galaxy. — universeness

But notoriously, science cannot tell us how to live, only expand our options. — unenlightened

Does an image, directly from science, such as 'pale blue dot,' not have any affect on your personal views on how you should live and does it not impact your view of how others should live?

Just as one cannot fix a broken heart with a spanner, or even a scalpel. The right tool for that job is love, and the science of love is a disaster worse than any quackery, because you cannot have it, you cannot test it, you cannot repeat it, all you can do is kill it. — unenlightened

You cant love if you are dead! Love wont fix a dying heart but a triple bypass might.
Love dies of natural causes there is no need to kill it but a person can kill it if they choose to.

The book being promoted here attempts to make a religion of science, and necessarily fails. — unenlightened

An old boring totally debunked suggestion. There is no aspect of science which can be connected to religion. Science has no god to show deference to. No scientist worships or prays to the scientific method, just like they don't worship or pray to that spanner you mentioned.

Challenge, sure. But preferably in the same courteous tones you would expect from them. People don't much care for being called liars, sight unknown, life unseen. — Vera Mont

I will not walk on eggshells around theists and theism for fear of offending them. Especially when so many of them take certain quotes from people like Aquinas as one of their main purposes in life:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/42/a8/5c42a859667dd7912a0d1989cc2ea9c8.jpg
I do expect courteous tones from theists but I very rarely get such. I will continue to respond in kind. Not with an eye for an eye mentality but not as a cowed intimidated interlocuter either.

When? Scientific enterprise has been chugging along for 500 years, and yet people are still acting paranoid. Not because they're scared of Nature (primitive people's were not) and fear of death suffering doesn't seem to be any less on this side of the church wall. People are mostly scared of other people, with good reasons and bad ones. Science hasn't made the tiniest dent in that. It has helped us make a lot more people to be afraid of... but then, it's also helped us create the conditions for our own extinction. — Vera Mont

The speed of advances in science has been incredible and very impressive indeed imo.
We were always under threat of extinction. 99.9% of all creatures that have ever lived on Earth are extinct, the vast majority of those extinctions have nothing to do with the human race.
Theistic doctrine suggests that the Earth and its contents are here for us to use as we please.
God will at some point return and either destroy the Earth and take its chosen people to be with it or, If it wants to keep the Earth going, then it can easily repair any damage and do what it wants with it.
I look to science to teach humans how vital it is to correct our suicidal stewardship of our planet.
If we continue to treat the Earth the way the fundamentalist Christians suggest we can, then we have a whole lot more trouble ahead.
Science does indeed help to unite people in common cause and certainly has put significant dents in human primal fear. It offers us many technological protections, medical advances, improving lifespan etc. It can show us real pictures like pale blue dot and by doing so, demonstrate to us that we are indeed one little planet and one species that needs to globally unite.

You haven't met any cats or raccoons? — Vera Mont

Science offers you lots of protective padding/armour and even a machine gun. Lions and tigers and bears oh my ....... they just cant compete.

none of those things alleviate fear. The only thing that does is a sense of personal security: when you know where your next meal is coming from, where you will sleep and who'll be there with you and you don't hear any gunfire or howling wind. We're not scared all the time (except maybe white supremacists), and we need to be scared sometimes. — Vera Mont

Science and secular humanism is trying to achieve the protections we all want and I have more confidence that they will succeed, compared to the solution of pointing a Christian cross and a bible at our problems alongside praying for a nonexistent god to intervene.

We can always act with courage when confronting that which we have "reasons for fear" (risk :chin:); it's the lack of "reasons" that paralyzes us with fear (terror), crippling denial and fetishizing infantilizing superstitions (e.g. religion :pray:). Reasoned fears are far more adaptive than the unreasoned fears from the childhood of our species. — 180 Proof

:clap: Science offers us protections that encourage us to leave the cave and face those big scary animals and those very 'human unfriendly' conditions in space.
From big spears to bullet proof vests to space suits and even transhumanism.
I for one, feel more confident, 'to boldly go.....,' with science / technology backing me up, than I do trying to defend against the threats life throws at me by pointing a Christian cross and a bible (or a star and crescent symbol and a quran) at it and engaging in forlorn prayer to a nonexistent, when 'my world is falling apart.' Takin a purely pragmatic stance for a moment, I think I have more chance of surviving and thriving within democratic secular humanist governance compared to my chances of surviving and thriving under theocratic governance.

None of those pretend to be scientific, but are just people, like you, offering their opinions. — Hanover

Right back at you. I am willing to express my reasons for my personal atheism. It seems you are totally unwilling to explain why you have theistic beliefs. This is very common indeed with theists who contact the phone in shows I mentioned earlier. After a few exchanges with the presenters of the show they mostly enter some prolonged stutter and stammer mode or get angry due to their own lack of ability to explain the logic they apply when trying to justify their faith based viewpoints.

No, Bert, it bloody well can't! Fear, like every other emotion, is with us to stay - unless you mean science can help us all to become cyborgs. Science can also give, and has given, a lot of brand new reasons for fear — Vera Mont

:lol: I would love to see the rather posh Bertrands response to you calling him bert!
Science WILL offer all sorts of transhumanism in the future and I think science makes many of us fear a lot less. To boldly go.... does exemplify a human wish to conquer primal fear.
Carl Sagan again: (I have this quote beside a photo of Carl on my bedroom wall. Geek and proud to be!)
"We embarked on our journey to the stars with a question first formed in the childhood of our species and in each generation asked anew, with undiminished wonder: What are the stars?
Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready to set sail for the stars."

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
— universeness

And if someone wants both, they can have both. — Vera Mont

I agree, but I can still challenge them on the 'delusion' part, yes?

You can quote a lot of famous people who share your same opinion, and you all will even be right when assuming that is true - of some people. And famous people, too, like everyone else, can also be wrong. It's an opinion based in their own beliefs. But no generalization is applies to every case. However respected a man may be in some specialized field, he cannot know the experience, perception, motivations and inspirations of a stranger. — Vera Mont

I agree, and you can also apply it to many famous people that I don't share the same opinions with.
From Aristotle through to Thomas Aquinas to serious horrors such as Ayn Rand.

What is your stance on mothers and puppies? Are you in favor of those?

Based upon the controversial statements you made about evil, I bet you stand in favor of good things. I just bet you do. — Hanover

I am glad that you find my position so obvious and compelling that you support it with the same affection that you obviously have for puppies and mothers. Do you now accept that manipulating human primal fears to promote a religious doctrine is bad? Even if such beliefs allow you to have a personally tailored supernatural protection already in place that you can appeal to if 'your world starts to fall apart?'
Do you feel that potential protection truly exists?
I am just interested in the personal credence level you give it.

And yet you offer no cite to this ancient doctrine and ignore all the cites set forth in the Wiki article specifically on the point of psychology of religion. — Hanover

So much to choose from, articles like:
https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/religion-based-fear-twr/
https://medium.com/spiritual-psychology/3-fear-based-religious-beliefs-that-go-unquestioned-a0d7c03e5c1a

From Bertrand Russell:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”

Carl Sagan's quote refers to 'reassurance.' in:
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Why do you think he chose that word?

Sigmund Freud wrote that religion is a delusion created by our subconscious mind in its attempt to deal with fear. He taught that humans are subject to three innate fears: the fear of death, the fear of the destructive forces of nature, and fear associated with suffering and the physical demands of life.

I could list a large number of qualified folks who comment on fear based religion, such as:
https://sofoarchon.com/breaking-free-fear-based-religion-escape-prison-belief-face-lifes-problems/
Those who think religion is fear based would be a long list and you probably will handwave them away anyhow.

The Islamic theocracy in Iran continues to demonstrate its willingness to murder its own citizens to protect the theocracy they impose on their population.
I don't blame all muslims or all the tenets of Islam, for the actions of the nefarious group in power in Iran. I merely cite their actions as an example of what those who manipulate theism and theists can achieve. I know that there are counter claims from theists about the nefarious actions to be found in secular governments. We need to have sufficient checks and balances against all manipulations of human primal fears, theistic, political and social.

Great quotes from a great physicist, Steven Weinberg.
I have the book he wrote with Richard Feynman, called elementary particles and the laws of physics.
I have read it cover to cover twice, over the years. I wish I understood it better.
A great quote from Carl Sagan is:
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

"Objective realities" to true believers (who do not require evidence other than their "faith"), no doubt. — 180 Proof

Watching some of the televised material on such like God TV, or even TBN in the UK.
The hysteria you sometime see within audience members is incredible.
Yes, 'true believers,' believe that god is an absolute objective fact.
We are not talking about a tiny number of people here with no political or social power.
Would you agree that manipulating human fear is the number one way to rise to power yourself and impose your personal viewpoints on others. Political, social, religious viewpoints can all be imposed on others via the route of human fear.
I think science succeeds because it is not fear based and religion is fear based.

What you'd rather do is drone on about some theory you arrived at while sitting in your recliner petting your cat and not be burdened by the extensive discussion that preceded your thinking about it. — Hanover

:lol: Have you been watching James Bond movies again. Perhaps if you watched some of the debates I mentioned or the phone in shows I mentioned you would be able to listen to real theists phoning in and revealing there personal associations between their fears and their theism. Perhaps you could phone in yourself and discuss the issue.

If we can't get beyond the question of whether you have randomly hit the nail on the head when you declared religiosity only arises as a byproduct of fear, it seems we're years away from advancing anywhere close to the current state of the debate to where something interesting might be revealed. — Hanover

I cannot imagine that I am the first person who has introduced you to the idea that all theism is fear based. It's an ancient posit. 'The fear of god' cannot happen unless you are capable of experiencing fear.
God is presented as the one power that can save you against any threat, yes? Even the threat of death and oblivion. That's its main selling point and it also means that others can manipulate those fears for their own ends.

Yeah, but this is where the conversation unfortunately gets stupid, with you positing a baseless theory and then awaiting disproof of it.

You're not asking for a justification for faith. You're asking for me to disprove your false assumption that I have a need to cure my anxiety that you don't, and then I'm supposed to take that seriously, and then I'm to convince you that your random speculation is false. — Hanover

That just reads like sour grapes on your part. I know you cannot provide me with 'proof.' I only require more convincing/compelling claims than those you have attempted so far. My 'assumption,' is supported by your own words:

But sure, I might resort to reliance upon religious views to sustain me should my world begin to collapse — Hanover

You certainly don't need to take my request seriously and you are free to accuse me of random speculation but then perhaps you could expand on your quote above. In what way would your religious views sustain you if 'your world' began to collapse?
I only ask so that I might gain a better understanding of your viewpoint. I am not ridiculing your beliefs, I am just trying to follow your rationale.

There are pragmatic bases for faith, and I have brought them up in prior posts. You can take a look at William James' "A Will to Believe" if you'd like. There is something there worthy of philosophical debate there, unlike here. — Hanover

I would rather read your viewpoints than those of 'William James.'
I have watched many online debates between atheists such as, Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet, Harris etc and theists such as William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Dinesh D'souza, Cardinal George Pell etc and I watch youtube recordings of Matt Dillahunty, Jimmy Snow, Aaron Ra, Shannon Q, Forrest Valkai etc and their phone in shows. So I am quite familiar with the positions and viewpoints of both sides. If you think the debate going on here is of no value to you then that's ok, as this is not a dictatorial website. Do you agree?

All I can tell you is that you're wrong as it applies to me. — Hanover

I appreciate that but I reject it, as you have not convinced me that your faith is not fear based.
I fully accept that you have no imperative to convince me of your reasons for having a faith.
So, we are where we are. I hope I remain open minded enough to still listen to anyone's attempt to justify/rationalise any faith in the supernatural they hold. I also fully accept that I don't know the origin story of the universe and I cannot disprove god posits.
If you are right then maybe you will exist in some form after your death and I will inherit oblivion.
I find neither proposition more horrific that the other as I have no reliable information about either. Neither do I have any power to prevent either.

They said they were prompted to do so by their faith; I was prompted to do likewise by my convictions. What's the difference? Good people behave well; bad people behave badly, whatever they profess. — Vera Mont

Great question Vera! There maybe a very big difference and it's simply 'which group is correct?'
Is your humanist convictions the way forward for the human race or should we follow the theistic 'good' people? I think the consequences of that decision on a global scale may well be an existential one.
If this Earth is very expendable to many many theists because it does not represent the place that they truly belong then how safe is it, under their very significant influence?

Yes. A psychological one, primarily. — Vera Mont

What about the legal ones? Marital vows have serious, life changing financial and social consequences.
What is a 'treaty' between countries if not a promise or vow. War is often the result of breaking such vows. I still think you are downplaying the possible 'consequentials,' in the human experience. Religious vows are much more powerful than you suggest imo.

but that hardly explains why I would hold religious views when my world is not under collapse. — Hanover

I think it does, under the wise suggestion of 'be prepared!'
It's your primal fear of the 'alpha male.' Your world is not under collapse only if you comply with what you perceive sustains it and part of that IS your faith that the 'alpha,' has your best interests at heart.

And there is no literature indicating that people loved one another during those periods — Hanover

Well ,there were no 'people for the vast majority of the lifetime of the Earth. Certainly none in the Proterozoic (The Proterozoic Eon extended from 2.5 billion to 541 million years ago). No dinos either but many many other species, most of which were wiped out in 'the great dying,' approximately 251.9 million years ago. No people during the Mesozoic either (It lasted from about 252 to 66 million years ago.) The first dinos are around 230 million years age (during the Triassic). The first hominids come on the scene around 4 million years ago and the first homo sapiens around 300,000 years ago.

And there is no literature indicating that people loved one another during those periods — Hanover

Only humans who's lifespan is currently so short can believe that love has some eternal element to it imo. Perhaps thats just a very pleasant illusion for us.

Or maybe primitive peoples didn't use writing to preserve the historical record. — Hanover

I think cave paintings are their best attempt at memorialising their lives, along with our interpretations of information that the fossil evidence provides. Why do you think god created the dinosaurs or the many many creatures that existed before homo sapiens?

I don't think Noah and the flood (from the Sumerian Gilgamesh fable) is the main pivotal problem for Christianity. I think the 13+billion years of their gods non-involvement other than as the suggested prime mover, is a bigger problem. There are no religious scriptural references to events from the Proterozoic up until way past the time of the first Homenids. God is a very recent invention.

I would simply ask you for an honest answer to the following question:

When you are really scared, do you ask your religious beliefs to help you?

I certainly agree that a human is a much more rational proposal for an existent that can give purpose to this universe, compared to an omnigod. We can ask and answer questions. An omnigod by definition cannot have any questions, so I cannot perceive a purpose or need for it to exist.

Sacred vows, like the ones at a wedding or citizenship ceremony, are very subjective indeed. And of course they're open to revision, and breakage and cheating and dissolution. — Vera Mont

Yeah but are you really suggesting that there is never any price to pay if you break a 'sacred vow?'
There is power behind such labels as 'sacred vow.' Would you not agree?

Science offers truth; religion offers something else. — Art48

Science offers an unbias search for truth imo. Religion offers comfort to help to sate primal human fear.
I think some prefer religion as it offers you some protections. The truth can scare many, especially when they don't or can't see the possibilities for a better future.

The word that doesn't fit is "objective". "I Am That I Am" is an entirely subjective claim. No proof is offered; no doubt is entertained. — Vera Mont

The 'I am that I am,' god words, as you know, were just an attempt to make god seem ineffable but omnipotent so compliance is required on threat of hell and damnation. You confirm this yourself with 'no doubt is entertained.' This is very pernicious as it is intended to be applied to all humans. God as an objective fact is not open to any form of subjectivity the rational human mind can manifest.
Apostacy is still punishable by death under such horrors as sharia law.
The 'objective' claim is foundational to most religions in the sense of their exemplifications such as; there are many other false claims but 'our tree' is the only 'true tree' in a vast forrest of 'subjective trees.'
There script that they preach from, offers them many confirmations of this position, such as:
Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other; there is no God but Me. I will equip you for battle, though you have not known Me, I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, I am the LORD; there is no other God.
Or
Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

These are not presented as subjective claims.
I know what you mean by the idea of theists who follow a creed for a mix of their own reasons and probably a 'localised doctrinal fear,' not to, a kind of Pascals wager. BUT there are far too many, whose belief borders on fanaticism and it is unwise to handwave that very dangerous aspect away by referencing 'sensible' examples of everyday human need and activity.

It's a covenant, a relationship - personal and subjective. — Vera Mont

I don't see why you use the word 'subjective' in the quote above Vera. I would suggest the covenant mode by Christians is presented more like a sacred vow than a subjective agreement open to revision.

And Christians know it's BS, since they disobey most of them most of the time, without showing the least fear of being struck down. But what has the bullying of Big Dogma got to do with reality? — Vera Mont

I agree and that's the hypocricy, that has to be constantly pointed to. The"do as I say! Not as I might choose to do in secret." approach to life, that is used to measure theists against, since the god posits began. I don't see why you would disassociate or downplay the affects that 'the bullying of big theistic dogma,' has on the everyday lives of people involved in those communities. Look at how they choose to treat outsiders such as trans people or how such affects peoples view on abortion rights and so on.

Objective reality isn't lost; none of them are looking for it; on the contrary, they're hiding under layers and layers of "claim". — Vera Mont

I agree, but imposing their theistic doctrine as a global objective reality that governs or strongly guides almost every action a human takes on a day to day basis is their wet dream. We should never lose sight of that. My concern is that you don't find theism as much of a threat as I do, especially when it is used in the political world.

:smile: I am glad you will reject the offer in the future and hopefully the irrational thinking behind it.

So now that let's say God exists you are sure of your origin aw?? — dimosthenis9

Perhaps you could reword this as I cannot make much sense of it.

Even if that was the case you would never know it.You would be sure for example that your existences is a random thing.So what's the harm there? — dimosthenis9

Are you an advocate of the 'ignorance is bliss' approach to living your life?
The problem you role played was AN EXISTENT, deceptive, hidden god. The harm would be in the greatest deception in history, a creator who decided to remain anonymous for no logical reason that its creations are likely to accept as valid.
If you personally, would not find such divine deception disturbing and very harmful, then perhaps you would be content with a human race whose children never know who there parents are.
Just humans, genetically produced in labs. I think there have been such dystopian visions of the future.
'Brave New World,' by Aldus Huxley springs to mind. Is that a future you are attracted to for your fellow humans?

Doesn't seem that way though the way things are now. — dimosthenis9

Give us a chance pal! Its only 2022.(or even 10,022. if you prefer.) Even the dinosaurs had 150 million years and even thats not so long in the 13.8 billion years, estimated for this universe.

God as their master.
God also seems to have much fun already, seeing his "kids" as you say keep wondering about his existence or not.And slaughtering each other without him intervening.But you don't seem to be bothered by that. — dimosthenis9

Of course I am bothered about it. I am a hardline atheist. I want to convince everyone that gods do not, and never have, existed. So, using it as an excuse to slaughter each other, will no longer wash. Those who slaughter, will no longer have that crutch. You leave it open as you allow god to exist as a hidden, ineffable presence. I don't think you should choose to role play god, especially when you make such bad decisions when you do. You could simply declare god as a non-existent and invest your energies in future science's ability to answer origin questions.

So for example, if your paper is measured at 22 cm, the error is in the assumption that it will continue to be 22 cm through an indefinite period of time, if it is not acted upon by a force which would change it. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, are you suggesting that the expansion of space over time, directly affects the local measurement of 22 cm of paper?
Galaxy structures are not expanding they are locally gravitationally bound, so, from that standpoint, their 'size' is invariant over time and will remain so unless they are acted upon by an external force such as a collision with another galaxy.

Invariance is a myth, a falsity. Though it is a useful principle, it is a falsity if presented as a representation of reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

A 22cm measurement would have been the same 10 billion years ago and it will be the same 10 billion years from now. The measurement is invariant and is not affected by the expansion of the universe.

You can't fail at something unless you try to do it. No spiritual system ever tried to "find" objective reality. — Vera Mont

Quite right! Religion has always just assumed – canonized – "objective reality", which is its most profound failing. — 180 Proof

The opening phrase of the ten commandments is: "I am the LORD thy God"
This is claimed to be the spoken word of god to Moses, is it not?
It what way are such claims not presented as objective realities?
The ten commandments are presented by Christians as applicable to all humans in all circumstances.
I think religious doctrines do make objective reality claims and they have failed in the attempts.
"God as the creator of everything." Why is such not an 'objective reality' claim in your opinions?
Calling religious tenets canonised 'assumptions,' seems like an irreligious judgement, I completely agree with but I do think that authentic theists do indeed see their religious tenets as objective truths and its unwise to dilute their fervour, as it does manifest in horrors such as suicide terrorism.

Plus it would be better people to stop wondering why they exist and focus all of their energy on how they can exist in the best way they could.Doesnt sound that bad to me. — dimosthenis9

No, that would be very bad indeed, as you rob people of the truth of their own origins. The best way people can live, in my opinion is to fully know their origin story. Humans have never stopped asking for those answers since they were able to. God had better not exist because it has utterly failed us as a parent/guardian. We can, and want to, and will be, masters of our own destiny as a species, but not if some omnigod just created us for its own entertainment, as it found its omni status unsatisfactory.

Yeah, you would think if it existed it would at least tell such morons, to stop doing that.
I assumed dimosthenis9 was suggesting that such reasons for killing people, would no longer happen as he/she in their god role play mode typed:

Yeah I would be a really curious God.So i wouldn't intervene at all.Plus i wouldn't be a mystery for them.Since none would believe i exist. — dimosthenis9

If all knowledge/perception/conception of god was removed from human thought and god did in fact exist then humans could NEVER know their origin story, no matter what scientific efforts they made.
That to me, is like rejecting your own children from birth and then being entertained as they fail to try to understand the truth of how and why they are. No doubt, humans would still find nasty ways to settle disputes without using the 'in gods name' excuse or the 'god made me/wanted me to do it,' excuse.
I think it would be progressive if no humans believed in god, BUT not if it's not true! Not if it actually does exist! Not if it's just because role playing omnigod dimosthenis9 kept its existence as our creator from us as an act of omnipotent will, for it's own entertainment. Omnigod dimosthenis9 would be an evil god imo.

In fact that question is mostly the reason that I would have made such a decision. — dimosthenis9

So, you would choose to create beings which were inferior to yourself and then you would leave them ignorant of your existence and then you would watch as they floundered around hopelessly trying to discover why they exist. You would not help your own creation in any way. An absent creator deity who takes no responsibility for the suffering of its own creations. You would be a god that gets it's jollies in nasty ways.
Based on the behaviour you suggest, your creations would be well rid of you in my opinion.

I think 'the bible,' literally translates to 'the book.'
So, yeah, its about time 'the book' or 'thee book,' was reconsidered in the West.

SO wanna coauthor a book? — Banno

Fictional, biblical or scientific?

Yes. I can. If they're omniscient and omnipotent, they may desire to know what it's like not to be so. Or to at least create the illusion of such for a moment to explore those experiences.
To be less self aware. Perhaps to be multiple selves. — Benj96

But being omniscient, they already know the answer to these questions.
Asking a question presupposes not knowing something. An omniscient being cannot ask any questions. — Banno

I can but 'ditto' Banno's responses. If you are omniscient then you have no purpose and I cannot perceive why such would have a desire to create and observe the scurryings of creatures such as humans.

if God desires people to know God exists — Astro Cat

One of my problems with the omnigod posit lies there.
I cant think of a rational reason for an omnipotent/omniscient god to have desires, can you?