A hypothetical that, while incredibly egotistical, can be fun and I think is a flaw in alot of the arguments for God.
Here are my thoughts and am interested in hearing yours, not just what you'd do but how would this world differ and how would religious teachings differ (ie the Bible, the structure of the church)?
- Create a universe/world etc and a sentient and sapient species as standard (possibly several species or several planets), think of what this is all in aid of (ie are they a social experiment, are they pets, like watching an ant colony grow?)
- I'd appoint religious people of virtue to have various important roles and semi-magical abilities (healers, scholars, defenders etc).
- I'd make my existance clear and beyond doubt, I would not create hell as a place of eternal torment, but maybe as a kind of sin-bin (ie killing someone you get 3 weeks in hell, then you come back).
- I'd create a system where virtuous followers earnt brownie points for their good deeds, which they could cash in these brownie points for divine intervention (ie heal someone terminally ill or save them if they're about to be mauled to death by an animal etc). Hopefully this would balance out being useful and relevent while not being a sugar daddy (ie just giving them everything they ask for).
- Have a clear agenda (ie intervening in wars etc).
- Moral laws would be more intelligent (less 'always do this, never do that', more about people understanding concepts like compassion, reason and empathy, and learning how to apply them).
- The bible would be more topic based and episodic, and more of a personal account (why I created the world and humans, why I feel certain issues are important etc). Have various different topics of the books, ranging from historical, to scientific, moral/philosophical etc.
- I would not go on long 2 page rants about how awesome I am, how humans are ungrateful little shits, and how you owe everything to me! I would not constantly test my followers (especially when I in my omniscience know the outcome), I would not inflict pain casually (ie Lot's wife looked back when her friends were being slaughtered so she turns to salt, forcing Lot to resort to incest) and would not resort to mass genocide (ie the flood) to deal with sin, just a few expressions of my extreme displeasure should sort the bastards out.
- If a moral law was outdated (say... slavery), make it clear beyond any doubt. Update them regularly for the times (though I'm a libertarian at heart).
- And most importantly... I would do my best to be CLEAR and CONSISTANT, both of which no God I know of is.
This raises the obvious question... why isn't God like that? I don't wish to sound arrogant that my ideas are perfection (assuming Gods thinking is perfection which doesn't seem to fit), but if God is real, yet creates a place of eternal torment he sends people for lacking blind faith because he chooses not to reveal himself, and only intervenes in ways that can be interpreted as accidents? Why is this so (rhetorical)?
Here are my thoughts and am interested in hearing yours, not just what you'd do but how would this world differ and how would religious teachings differ (ie the Bible, the structure of the church)?
- Create a universe/world etc and a sentient and sapient species as standard (possibly several species or several planets), think of what this is all in aid of (ie are they a social experiment, are they pets, like watching an ant colony grow?)
- I'd appoint religious people of virtue to have various important roles and semi-magical abilities (healers, scholars, defenders etc).
- I'd make my existance clear and beyond doubt, I would not create hell as a place of eternal torment, but maybe as a kind of sin-bin (ie killing someone you get 3 weeks in hell, then you come back).
- I'd create a system where virtuous followers earnt brownie points for their good deeds, which they could cash in these brownie points for divine intervention (ie heal someone terminally ill or save them if they're about to be mauled to death by an animal etc). Hopefully this would balance out being useful and relevent while not being a sugar daddy (ie just giving them everything they ask for).
- Have a clear agenda (ie intervening in wars etc).
- Moral laws would be more intelligent (less 'always do this, never do that', more about people understanding concepts like compassion, reason and empathy, and learning how to apply them).
- The bible would be more topic based and episodic, and more of a personal account (why I created the world and humans, why I feel certain issues are important etc). Have various different topics of the books, ranging from historical, to scientific, moral/philosophical etc.
- I would not go on long 2 page rants about how awesome I am, how humans are ungrateful little shits, and how you owe everything to me! I would not constantly test my followers (especially when I in my omniscience know the outcome), I would not inflict pain casually (ie Lot's wife looked back when her friends were being slaughtered so she turns to salt, forcing Lot to resort to incest) and would not resort to mass genocide (ie the flood) to deal with sin, just a few expressions of my extreme displeasure should sort the bastards out.
- If a moral law was outdated (say... slavery), make it clear beyond any doubt. Update them regularly for the times (though I'm a libertarian at heart).
- And most importantly... I would do my best to be CLEAR and CONSISTANT, both of which no God I know of is.
This raises the obvious question... why isn't God like that? I don't wish to sound arrogant that my ideas are perfection (assuming Gods thinking is perfection which doesn't seem to fit), but if God is real, yet creates a place of eternal torment he sends people for lacking blind faith because he chooses not to reveal himself, and only intervenes in ways that can be interpreted as accidents? Why is this so (rhetorical)?