If you were God, what kind of God would you be?

The question does not merit serious thought.

Perhaps I should expand on my first reply:Atheists to not believe a god exists. This includes many different concepts of god, not your particular fantasy. We can guess at your fantasy, but you didn't specifically define it.If you *had* specifically defined your concept of God then asking how we would be exactly like that concept is pointless. You must be asking what our concept of a god is, and I don't have one. Remember, I don't think any exist.A third option that actually might be considered is to consider how we would act or behave if we were different in an important aspect. Many here have pointed out that some aspects are impossible to reasonably consider, such as omniscience or omnipotence... even immortality may be difficult to conceive. The problem is that everyone is guessing at aspects of what you consider to be God, because you didn't specify any differences to consider. It would be equally reasonable to investigate how I would act if I had the burning desire for human hearts of an Aztec god.In this case you would be asking how someone would act if they are "different", either in one of an infinite ways, or in every way in which case they wouldn't really know. The topic is poorly defined to the extent of being no topic at all.

For some people love is caring for someone, and doing what you think is the best for them. Others think it is respecting their wishes even if you disagree with them. Still others think it is whipping them and stomping on their reproductive organs while wearing a gas mask."Love" is not a basis for absolute morality. What you are proposing is an arbitrary theocracy, nothing more.

The countless sects and interpretations of morality and God's law and intentions disagree with everyone knowing what it is. Also, the interpretations have changed so it isn't consistent. There is no way of figuring out what God's standards might be given that nobody can even prove his existence. I am starting to wonder if you even thought about what you typed.That being said, theocracy is the worst possible method of justifying a moral framework simply because it is based on a lie. Ideally morality would be based on what is good for the whole, or what the society in general agrees to be appropriate. A poor basis would be "Because it makes me happy". The worst basis is "I am the mouthpiece of God, my dreams are law". Theocracy anyone?

Then it sure would be nice if God was distinguishable from imagination, right? It would be nice if he was real, and good, and did good things for us in the real world. Then he could kiss our problems and make them better.It appears that you think you are conveying something more than glazed eyes and the acknowledgment that things could be better, so please elaborate on how a theocracy would be a good idea without fundamental changes to reality as we know it.