Is God proud of His work?

[Greatest I Am]

Is God proud of His work?

You should know that I do not ever expect God to return at some end time because I see His judgment at the beginning of our birth in Genesis as the only judgment that he need’s render.

Genesis 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

This very good included all that is, including sin, evil and the woes that were to afflict us, without which we could not develop our moral sense.

To have Him return, red faced, to fix a perfect world is beyond my definition of God. He gets things right the first time, every time.

I believe that when we left the garden we did so with God being proud of His perfect works and not ashamed that He had started us off on the wrong foot, so to speak, from the beginning of our journey.

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

I know that many think of Genesis as the fall of man. This is false.
Man came out of Genesis only after the development of the moral sense that comes from the knowledge of good and evil.

God wanted man to have a moral sense and insured that this would happen by making sure that the talking snake/Satan was there to draw Eve out of any lethargy or laziness of mind and would be lead in the right direction.

I take the advice of the Pope and read the Bible allegorically and see Genesis as a right of passage for all humans from a state of innocence in the home/garden to a search for moral values in the greater society/talking snake.

It is this same society, with it’s differing values that hone our moral sense. It also draws us to sin. As God wants.

Why does God want us to sin?

2 Peter 3:9 KJ
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


New Jerusalem
9 The Lord is not being slow in carrying out his promises, as some people think he is; rather is he being patient with you, wanting nobody to be lost and everybody to be brought to repentance.

If we must all come to repentance then clearly we must all sin.
God makes this easy by creating us all with a sinning nature.

It is God’s will that all repent and none be lost and it must be so, if God’s will is supreme.

To think otherwise is to think that God’s will can be thwarted.
If it is then it is not God’s will at all.

So to those who await a second or third judgment from God, forget that silly notion.

He told us it was a good beginning and from good beginnings come good endings.
We are all to be saved which ends the notion of a hell. If you think about hell for just a moment, it is clear from a moral standpoint, that God would not ever invent or create such a place. It would be admitting that He has failed in saving all of us. This is against His will and must be a false interpretation of scripture.


Do you think that God is proud of His creations, or, do you think He will return in shame to -fix- His perfect works?

Regards
DL

[JoeyKnothead]

this post makes some sweeping statements. God said it was Good. I said my Toyota was good. ANd then when it got rear ended it needed to go to a panel beater. How does saying a thing is good mean it no longer needs work.

I won't call my truck "good" if it came with
a leaking gas tank
a headlight that cannot be used longer than 1 hour or it will burnout
a clutch that will inevitablely mal-func after a period of time due to design flaws

That's a Chevy.

I notice the whole issue of whether God considers something good or bad is a theological one, given there is only a given religious text by which to determine such.

[Jester]

this post makes some sweeping statements. God said it was Good. I said my Toyota was good. ANd then when it got rear ended it needed to go to a panel beater. How does saying a thing is good mean it no longer needs work.

I won't call my truck "good" if it came with
a leaking gas tank
a headlight that cannot be used longer than 1 hour or it will burnout
a clutch that will inevitablely mal-func after a period of time due to design flaws

I think perhaps there are two different analogies here.
The first is claiming that something good can be broken. The second is claiming that something which is broken is no longer good. I don't see any contradiction between these claims.
As for the claims of the Bible, it seems that the narrative presents the world as something as good that was later broken, rather than something that was broken at the time it was called good.

[TXatheist]

this post makes some sweeping statements. God said it was Good. I said my Toyota was good. ANd then when it got rear ended it needed to go to a panel beater. How does saying a thing is good mean it no longer needs work.

I won't call my truck "good" if it came with
a leaking gas tank
a headlight that cannot be used longer than 1 hour or it will burnout
a clutch that will inevitablely mal-func after a period of time due to design flaws

"Good" is subjective. My Ford Escort is nine years old with about 100,000 miles on it. I need to get the front end aligned, my front tires need replacing, it doesn't have a CD player and the A/C currently does not work. But I consider it a "good" car because it starts every time and gets me to work every day.

Also, I don't believe anyone addressed my question earlier in this post that basically asked "wasn't everything 'good' in the beginning and turned bad due to man?" Just because everything was good on day 1 (or day 6 in this case) doesn't mean that it would all be good forever.

[Cathar1950]

I suspect good and evil are not all that religious at the roots. Something is good if it makes sense, works, fits in or does what it is supposed to do. Evil is the opposite or it causes harm or even chaos.
It is a form of valuing.

For all we know the author might have been thinking God was surprised after all he seems to come across with Job as if it was really a big deal and not all that easy to create.
Maybe when God says "it is good" he means it actually worked.

[Jester]

I suspect good and evil are not all that religious at the roots. Something is good if it makes sense, works, fits in or does what it is supposed to do. Evil is the opposite or it causes harm or even chaos.
It is a form of valuing.

I would agree with this to an end, but would point out that this does not explain the terms "works", "fits in", "does what it is supposed to do", etc. How do we decide what things are for except by deciding that some goals are good and others are evil?
Generally, people believe that healing is good - and yet it could easily be said that a virus is doing what it was designed to do when it makes a person sick. Most of us consider the health and well being of a human to be of intrinsic value, whereas we consider a virus good only if it serves a purpose to aid others. As such, we're back to square one. The concept of good and evil is a religious/philosophical one; anyone who uses it has in mind certain purposes and goals, which are either weaved into reality by some deity, or more-or-less arbitrary opinions of human beings. Either way, the ultimate question is not utilitarian.

For all we know the author might have been thinking God was surprised after all he seems to come across with Job as if it was really a big deal and not all that easy to create.
Maybe when God says "it is good" he means it actually worked.

Other than repeat the above, I don't think that Job has God saying that he stretched himself to his limits in creating the world. Rather, he is comparing his own knowledge of the universe to Job's. This understanding fits the narrative of the book much better.

[Cathar1950]

I suspect good and evil are not all that religious at the roots. Something is good if it makes sense, works, fits in or does what it is supposed to do. Evil is the opposite or it causes harm or even chaos.
It is a form of valuing.

I would agree with this to an end, but would point out that this does not explain the terms "works", "fits in", "does what it is supposed to do", etc. How do we decide what things are for except by deciding that some goals are good and others are evil?
Generally, people believe that healing is good - and yet it could easily be said that a virus is doing what it was designed to do when it makes a person sick. Most of us consider the health and well being of a human to be of intrinsic value, whereas we consider a virus good only if it serves a purpose to aid others. As such, we're back to square one. The concept of good and evil is a religious/philosophical one; anyone who uses it has in mind certain purposes and goals, which are either weaved into reality by some deity, or more-or-less arbitrary opinions of human beings. Either way, the ultimate question is not utilitarian.

For all we know the author might have been thinking God was surprised after all he seems to come across with Job as if it was really a big deal and not all that easy to create.
Maybe when God says "it is good" he means it actually worked.

Other than repeat the above, I don't think that Job has God saying that he stretched himself to his limits in creating the world. Rather, he is comparing his own knowledge of the universe to Job's. This understanding fits the narrative of the book much better.

How do we decide what things are for except by deciding that some goals are good and others are evil?
By experience or knowing the results.
We are like the god knowing or experiencing good and evil. It is valuing.
I am not worried about viruses being good. The myth is not about a virus.
It is about the way we see the world and experience it.
I am not trying to fit the narrative/satire/tragedy of Job I am; I am trying to experiment with the ideas. I am not a Bible Believe and see no need to fit in the Bible any of its references besides I was making a joke about how difficult it is to make the world.

. Either way, the ultimate question is not utilitarian.

How is it not utilitarian?

[Jester]

How do we decide what things are for except by deciding that some goals are good and others are evil?

By experience or knowing the results.

How do we interpret the results except by having some concept of good results and evil ones?
If I wanted money, and completely got away with killing someone to get it, is it still evil? The results were that I got what I wanted. From a utilitarian sense, then, my action was good. If one were to argue that it was good for me, but not for the victim, or not for society, then I would point out that good for society was not my goal.
If we define good and evil in terms of achieving goals, there is no basis by which to label some goals as good and others as evil. The terms would refer only to our ability to achieve them.

Beyond that:

I am not worried about viruses being good. The myth is not about a virus.

But my mention of a virus was a valid point. The fact that you are not concerned about them suggests that you consider them to be of less intrinsic value than a human. While I agree, I've seen nothing in this line of reasoning that supports the idea that a person is valuable whereas a virus is not.
Of course, there is this:

It is about the way we see the world and experience it.

If you are arguing that such value systems are arbitrary, and we act based solely on what we perceive to be valuable, then you are making the argument that there is no intrinsic value either way and that such terms are illusory. You can take this position, but this would bring us back to "good" and "evil" being religious terms (as they would not be illusory in the event that God exists).

I am not trying to fit the narrative/satire/tragedy of Job I am; I am trying to experiment with the ideas. I am not a Bible Believe and see no need to fit in the Bible any of its references besides I was making a joke about how difficult it is to make the world.

I fully encourage experimentation with ideas, but will choose to subject those ideas to logic as best I know, commenting on what I believe their strength to be. Supporting ideas with the Bible, whether you are a believer or not, would seem appropriate for this particular topic. As such, I felt that a response about the actual narrative was called for - else I could be seen to tacitly support this interpretation.
As for the joke - sorry, it just went over my head.

Either way, the ultimate question is not utilitarian.

How is it not utilitarian?

If the ultimate question is how we decide which of our goals are good, and which are evil, we cannot offer a utilitarian explanation. This is due to the fact that such an explanation would center itself around which actions help us achieve our goals, but remain silent on the goals themselves. This would be analogous to checking a firearms instruction book to find out whether or not you should shoot someone. It will help you achieve that goal, not comment on the quality of the goal.

[Cathar1950]

How do we decide what things are for except by deciding that some goals are good and others are evil?

By experience or knowing the results.

How do we interpret the results except by having some concept of good results and evil ones?
If I wanted money, and completely got away with killing someone to get it, is it still evil? The results were that I got what I wanted. From a utilitarian sense, then, my action was good. If one were to argue that it was good for me, but not for the victim, or not for society, then I would point out that good for society was not my goal.
If we define good and evil in terms of achieving goals, there is no basis by which to label some goals as good and others as evil. The terms would refer only to our ability to achieve them.

Utilitarian is a dimension of valuing. Good and evil are values related to our experiences and to suggest it is the only dimension would be rather simple-minded as what difference does it make unless it does work?
But there are social bonds which seem to be shared by many animals too.
There are many satisfactions involved in our valuing
I don’t think anyone needs to believe in God to see the wrongness of the above position.
If you were a socio-path it might be good for you but if you live in the world with people it isn’t good. How come more people don’t act as you suggest? I would suggest because it isn’t that utilitarian because crime doesn’t pay in the long run as it harms others and the person. Our laws are useful.

Beyond that:

I am not worried about viruses being good. The myth is not about a virus.

But my mention of a virus was a valid point. The fact that you are not concerned about them suggests that you consider them to be of less intrinsic value than a human. While I agree, I've seen nothing in this line of reasoning that supports the idea that a person is valuable whereas a virus is not.
Of course, there is this:

I tend to think even a virus could have value.

It is about the way we see the world and experience it.

If you are arguing that such value systems are arbitrary, and we act based solely on what we perceive to be valuable, then you are making the argument that there is no intrinsic value either way and that such terms are illusory. You can take this position, but this would bring us back to "good" and "evil" being religious terms (as they would not be illusory in the event that God exists).

I am not arguing the world is an illusion but how we perceive it is or has been a useful illusion. There is an arbitrary dimension as valuing is relational. Why wouldn’t there be some intrinsic value? Even our images or models of God are based on what we perceive and experience. Something can be valued as good just for its beauty. Of course there are those that insist God is the measure of all value and even when God does evil it is good. So we might get people that think if God orders them to kill their cild it is good and the person doing it might even be considered righteous and believe they are doing a good think even when their guts tell them it isn’t. Or maybe a people would think God wanted them to kill ever man woman and child because God told them too even if it seems evil it must be good because God said so.
Talk about arbitrary; here even your instincts and experiences are of little value when it comes to some views of god.

I am not trying to fit the narrative/satire/tragedy of Job I am; I am trying to experiment with the ideas. I am not a Bible Believe and see no need to fit in the Bible any of its references besides I was making a joke about how difficult it is to make the world.

I fully encourage experimentation with ideas, but will choose to subject those ideas to logic as best I know, commenting on what I believe their strength to be. Supporting ideas with the Bible, whether you are a believer or not, would seem appropriate for this particular topic. As such, I felt that a response about the actual narrative was called for - else I could be seen to tacitly support this interpretation.
As for the joke - sorry, it just went over my head.

Either way, the ultimate question is not utilitarian.

How is it not utilitarian?

If the ultimate question is how we decide which of our goals are good, and which are evil, we cannot offer a utilitarian explanation. This is due to the fact that such an explanation would center itself around which actions help us achieve our goals, but remain silent on the goals themselves. This would be analogous to checking a firearms instruction book to find out whether or not you should shoot someone. It will help you achieve that goal, not comment on the quality of the goal.

You seem to have a rather one-dimensional view of usefulness.

[FinalEnigma]

If I wanted money, and completely got away with killing someone to get it, is it still evil? The results were that I got what I wanted. From a utilitarian sense, then, my action was good. If one were to argue that it was good for me, but not for the victim, or not for society, then I would point out that good for society was not my goal.

now wait a minute. Utilitarianism is the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Since when does utilitarianism have anything to do with fulfilling selfish goals?

[Jester]

Utilitarian is a dimension of valuing. Good and evil are values related to our experiences and to suggest it is the only dimension would be rather simple-minded as what difference does it make unless it does work?

But to say that it works is to say that it works for a specific purpose. No utilitarian comment tells us anything about whether or not the purpose is valid.

But there are social bonds which seem to be shared by many animals too.
There are many satisfactions involved in our valuing
I don’t think anyone needs to believe in God to see the wrongness of the above position.

I'm not arguing what people believe is right and wrong, I'm arguing that such beliefs about right and wrong cannot be logically established within a secular paradigm. This does not, however, prevent secular people from having ethics. I find that they are every bit as ethical as religious individuals.

If you were a socio-path it might be good for you but if you live in the world with people it isn’t good.

On what logical grounds do we claim that the average person is right and the sociopath is wrong, however? "Our experience tells us it's wrong" is an argument from authority, a logical fallacy. "Everyone knows it's wrong" is a variation on the same. "It works better" depends entirely on the purpose for which we think something ought to work. A gun works wonderfully for killing innocents and robbing banks, but it's utilitarian value does not make it inherently ethical.

How come more people don’t act as you suggest? I would suggest because it isn’t that utilitarian because crime doesn’t pay in the long run as it harms others and the person. Our laws are useful.

Our laws are only useful for the goals that we have selected. We pass laws against robbing banks and murder because we believe that they are wrong. Why do we believe as much, we can't say that it is because they aren't useful. Many empires have been founded on mass murders, and gone on to make those societies who subjugated others very rich and powerful. Exploitation can be very useful. Modern exploitation of cheap labor in poor countries is generally believed to be unethical, but is extremely useful in business.
Again, all this depends on what one's goals are. If one wants a peaceful, prosperous, loving society, then ethics are quite useful. Where my contention comes in is that utility gives no logical reason to want that over wanting to get what you want how you want it in spite of who else you may hurt. Utility tells us the best way to get what we want, not the best thing to want.

The fact that you are not concerned about them suggests that you consider them to be of less intrinsic value than a human. While I agree, I've seen nothing in this line of reasoning that supports the idea that a person is valuable whereas a virus is not.
Of course, there is this:

I tend to think even a virus could have value.

Do you mean intrinsic value, or simply value for another purpose which an individual or group may have?
If the former, on what logical grounds do you base this position?
If the latter, on what logical grounds do you base the idea that this purpose has value?

If you are arguing that such value systems are arbitrary, and we act based solely on what we perceive to be valuable, then you are making the argument that there is no intrinsic value either way and that such terms are illusory. You can take this position, but this would bring us back to "good" and "evil" being religious terms (as they would not be illusory in the event that God exists).

I am not arguing the world is an illusion but how we perceive it is or has been a useful illusion.

To begin, I do not consider any illusion useful for my purposes. If you consider them to be useful for yours, this is your choice, but I do not personally think that looking to an illusion as a tool is either wise or ethical.

There is an arbitrary dimension as valuing is relational.

If it is arbitrary, then we are back to the idea that "good" and "evil" are not really meaningful terms outside of religion.

Why wouldn’t there be some intrinsic value?

This strikes me as logically identical as asking the question "why wouldn't God exist". I do not mean to demand absolute proof, but would some sort of evidence to support the idea before reaching it as a conclusion.

Even our images or models of God are based on what we perceive and experience.

I agree, but we are not discussing the existence of God at the moment. I am merely suggesting that we subject the concept of ethics to the same logical tests as we subject God. Is there a reason to conclude that they are intrinsic, or are they simply common opinions.

Something can be valued as good just for its beauty. Of course there are those that insist God is the measure of all value and even when God does evil it is good.

Given the discussion, I don't know how we are determining whether or not what God does is good. The questions would be essentially the same as above:
What purpose do you believe he should have for humanity?
What purpose do you believe he should serve for us?
On what logical basis do you defend these as the correct intentions, as opposed to any other?
If we believe that humans are valuable because of an illusion that is useful to us, and God believed that he prefers viruses because of an illusion that is useful to him, is there any logical reason to accuse him of being unethical?
I personally believe that God holds humans in high regard, but the question is, for me, a very important distinction.

So we might get people that think if God orders them to kill their cild it is good and the person doing it might even be considered righteous and believe they are doing a good think even when their guts tell them it isn’t.

I completely agree that this is wrong because of the fact that this is the opposite of what the God of the Bible claims.
On what logical basis, however, do you believe that this was wrong? If it got this person to their goal of being more fanatically religious, is that an inferior goal to yours? Why?

Or maybe a people would think God wanted them to kill ever man woman and child because God told them too even if it seems evil it must be good because God said so.

I don't see how this could rightly be called evil unless God exists and says it is. If all we are concerned about is utilitarianism, then we should ask ourselves if these people can actually accomplish this goal. If not, then (by this paradigm) they are doing evil; if so, they are doing good. It is only when one insists that there are real ethics, that are true regardless of personal opinion, that this becomes intrinsically evil.

Talk about arbitrary; here even your instincts and experiences are of little value when it comes to some views of god.

Personal experiences are of little value when it comes to science as well. I've flipped more heads than tails on coins in my life, but don't feel that my experience trumps scientific data.
In ethics, however, we aren't talking about experiences, but about reactions to experiences. A reporter tells us what happened, but we decide whether that was good or bad. The event, apart from personal opinion, is neither good or bad from a purely utilitarian point of view. It is only productive or harmful for a given use a person happens to have.

Either way, the ultimate question is not utilitarian.

How is it not utilitarian?

If the ultimate question is how we decide which of our goals are good, and which are evil, we cannot offer a utilitarian explanation. This is due to the fact that such an explanation would center itself around which actions help us achieve our goals, but remain silent on the goals themselves. This would be analogous to checking a firearms instruction book to find out whether or not you should shoot someone. It will help you achieve that goal, not comment on the quality of the goal.

You seem to have a rather one-dimensional view of usefulness.

Could you elaborate on that? Hinting that I am ignorant of what you really mean by usefulness without explaining it to me does not give me a way to discover your actual meaning. As it is, I am left taking guesses about these other views, and wondering why you don't address directly the points I made just above.
I'll summarize my position a bit more cleanly. Please tell me which ones you find to be wrong (and why):
1. The entire concept of usefulness requires a goal. Something cannot be said to be useful, but for no particular purpose.
2. As such, determining whether or not something is useful for a purpose does not tell us anything about the goodness or badness of that purpose.
3. Yes, personal experiences give us positive and negative emotional reactions due, a materialist would say, to the excretion of dopamine and other chemicals in the brain. There is nothing intrinsically good about feeling good, however, as many sociopaths feel good as they commit murder.