God's 'track record'

[nobspeople]

In another thread, a poster said the following:

Does that good track record, overall include eliminating war, hunger, corruption, injustice and suffering?

It made me wonder, how would god's track record rate?

Let's look at biblically supplied highlights (not in chronical order necessarily):
God created everything
Then it made man
Then mad was tempted by satan
This would mean god made satan and allowed satan to tempt man, knowing (if god's all knowing) that man would sin
Then god got mad and pouted like a spoiled child (editorializing a bit there but you get the jest) and made man to suffer through sin and ultimately die
God asks a guy to sacrifice his son, which he tries but then god sends an angel to stop it
God gets upset with a city and obliterates it from the planet
God gets upset with humanity and drowns all terrestrial life (including babies, women in the middle of child birth, animals (which have NOTHING to do with man's sin) and plants)
God THEN offers a sacrifice to sin as himself/son/self/son/self (the debate still lingers as to the specifics of this person)
This person lives a life to his early 30s
God allows a guy to betray himself/son/self/etc and allows history to see this guy as a traitor when, in all actuality, SOME guy had to do this in order to complete god's 'plan'
Then this god/man/god/man dies and raises from the dead
God allows mankind's history to be told in 'the bible', even though there are Es and Os which cause confusion for the remainder of humanity

Being that humanity is IMPERFECT and god (is said to be) PERFECT, we can't legitimately judge the two with the same measurement.
So let's judge god's 'track record':
or
or

How would YOU judge god's work?
How should god's work be judged?

[Veridican]

I'm starting to think that you might be projecting a bit. When I was a Christian, theodicy was never one of my problems.

Actually, I hear you. It's not one of mine either. I think when people truly believe in God and Christ, when they start with fear and that turns to adoration and that leads to grace and mercy, then they start to enter that level of faith where they trust God. Bad things come, and they have led me to question the motivations of God, which I do not understand, but I've experienced too much mercy and grace; I've experienced too much protection and so much prosperity, and I've felt His presence for so long that I cannot doubt His love for me--this creature seems to matter to Him--like my dog matters to me. Surely, He loves me far more than I love my dog, and that then is a greater love than I can imagine. I rest in that.

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures:
He leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul.
He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil: for thou art with me;
Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:
Thou anointest my head with oil;
My cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life:
And I shall dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.
(Psalms 23, KJV)

If it's meaningful to say that God and we are (or even can be) eternal and God is omnipotent, then perhaps suffering in this life is somehow important to living eternally. Since we are not eternal, it's beyond our ken to know that mortal suffering is evil in the overall scheme.

Maybe that's right. Sounds like a good theory.

The problem is with the definition that you mentioned. It's not that I "leave out any real definition of God," but that none of those definitions make any sense or comport in any way with our experience of reality. It doesn't matter where one starts with the definition.

I just meant that if one insists that God is all-indulging love (which is not really love at all, but we'll set that aside for the moment), and he's all-powerful and all-knowing, then of course, they're going to have a problem with the existence of God because, in fact, that god doesn't exist. It's not an accurate definition. I will never be able to prove to you that we walk on top of the sky. I can't do that because, by definition, the sky is that thing that is above us.

The Bible paints an absurd picture of God and nothing about reality independently points to the existence of any god. Trying to define gods is what makes clear their absurdity. The only ones that aren't outright contradictory are tautologies of some sort, too vague to be meaningful, or both ("He is existence for its own sake...").

I mean, yes; I agree. The Bible, of course, does not try to prove God's existence. Jesus never tried to prove God's existence. It assumes God's existence. The Bible is not really for atheists, you know; It's for believers. And thus, it tries to provide a religious revelation of God to the believer. To say "God is existence for its own sake." is not proof of God. It's theological poetry. But it's also true: If there is a God, then he must be the beginning and end of existence, which means he's eternal. In other words, existence is an attribute of God--there is no cause for it. God exists because God is existence. Now, that's not proof that God exists. That's supposed to be a revelation of His nature, and that wouldn't really matter to an atheist. God's nature should be irrelevant to an honest atheist.

"God is love" is meaningless. "God created everything 6000 years ago" is wrong. I've yet to see a definition of God outside that continuum.

Maybe you will.

[nobspeople]

It's not the cow's fault if some guys eye them for impure thoughts.

I'm sure they dressed provocatively.

Those dang cows.
No wonder they're worshipped in some places!

[Veridican]

Ah the old 'it's not god's fault it's ours' even when people are imperfect and can't understand a perfect being in total. Sorry I don't buy it and many don't. It's not OUR fault WE can't understand something that created US, it's the creator's fault.
But you're right in thinking NO ONE can truly understand god. But that's not what this is about. It's about what you think of god's track record.

No, it's your fault. And I didn't say you couldn't understand God. I said the reason you believe the way you do is because you're not willing to first define God. You're really just arguing against someone's version of God. God can be understood just by looking at nature. So, if you don't have God figured out, that's on you.

[nobspeople]

Ah the old 'it's not god's fault it's ours' even when people are imperfect and can't understand a perfect being in total. Sorry I don't buy it and many don't. It's not OUR fault WE can't understand something that created US, it's the creator's fault.
But you're right in thinking NO ONE can truly understand god. But that's not what this is about. It's about what you think of god's track record.

No, it's your fault. And I didn't say you couldn't understand God. I said the reason you believe the way you do is because you're not willing to first define God. You're really just arguing against someone's version of God. God can be understood just by looking at nature. So, if you don't have God figured out, that's on you.

If god exists, it's god fault, not mine, as god's all capable and I'm not.
No matter who said it, no one can understand god because god is (if as many say) perfect and imperfect being can't truly understand a perfect one.
Yeah yeah, people claim this holy spirit intercedes but that a band aid on the idea of not being able to understand god. Convenient, but that's what band aids are.
You know absolutely nothing about what I, or many others, have or haven't done, so while I respect you misplaced opinion, that's not something I need to address going further.
If god is the god it's said to be, it can do anything, like convince me (which is probably one of the easiest things it could do), after I spent decades looking (and many others as well).
It hasn't done so.
Not even close.
I mean, it's nice to believe so - placing blame on someone else and defending the one that, realistically, needs no defending. It's the typical christian response that has existed for centuries if not longer: it's not god, it's you!
Either god can't do it (which isn't what god's said to be) or won't (which isn't loving) or doesn't exists as described.


Now that this is out of the way, can you address the thread topic specifically, without placing blame?

[Diagoras]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]
You're only able to be an atheist because you conveniently leave out any real definition of God.

Have you got a 'real definition of God' to share?


Is this it?:

God, being the monistic entity, is the only thing that really exists. Everything else is His dream--His lucid dream if you will.

Conveniently unprovable, of course. And more to the point - in no way of use in navigating the real world.

[brunumb]

God, being the monistic entity, is the only thing that really exists. Everything else is His dream--His lucid dream if you will. If He wants to crumple up the piece of sketch paper He's drawing on and start again, He can do that. If He wants to destroy an innocent human being or animal, He can do that. He's not under any moral law--He writes our moral law. He's not even under the truth or existence. He is existence for its own sake, and He is the author of truth.

Wow. So we are all just products of a dream. In that dream God can kill the innocent if he wants because they're his property. It doesn't matter that they have feelings or if they are innocent children, he can simply do what he wants with them because he is God. I can see no trace of morality in that. he reminds me of an animal breeder who kills off the offspring that don't satisfy him with no conscience at all because, after all, they were his to do with as he wanted.

The only appropriate response to God is to fear Him, worship Him, and bask in whatever grace and mercy He will show you. That fear, at some point, turns to love and adoration, and that is the religious experience of man.

No. The only appropriate response is to be horrified and sickened by the very thought that such a being could exist. Fear of tyrants is natural, but having that fear turn into love and admiration is nothing less than abhorrent. Stockholm syndrome anyone? If that is religious experience then I thank Zeus that I have not succumbed to the seductive promises of rewards like protection and prosperity bestowed on me by this God, while so many of my fellow human beings are left to suffer.

[Diagoras]

God can be understood just by looking at nature.

To what extent do you agree with the ideas of pantheism and solipsism? It does rather sound as if you believe in a sort of blending of the two?

[Veridican]

God can be understood just by looking at nature.

To what extent do you agree with the ideas of pantheism and solipsism? It does rather sound as if you believe in a sort of blending of the two?

I'm a monist. That means I believe, as Spinoza put it, that there is only one Substance. There is only one thing, and that thing is God--actually, it doesn't matter what you call it because it's the only thing that actually exists. Everything else is created by It and from It. So, people think I'm being disrespectful when I say that my coffee cup is God. But it is. That's all it is because all there is, is God. Now, my coffee cup may be all God, but God is not just my coffee cup.

Everything else is a step down on the reality scale.

Now, that said: You and I are not as real as the Father. We are creations of the Father. The Father created this physical world we live in and heaven, too. We don't worship "the Substance." We can't even know the Substance, to be honest. All we can know is the Father, and we can only know the Father through Jesus Christ. Granted, everything may be a little less real than the Substance, but it is the reality we live in.

I

[Veridican]

Wow. So we are all just products of a dream.

Something like that, yeah.

In that dream God can kill the innocent if he wants because they're his property. It doesn't matter that they have feelings or if they are innocent children, he can simply do what he wants with them because he is God. I can see no trace of morality in that. he reminds me of an animal breeder who kills off the offspring that don't satisfy him with no conscience at all because, after all, they were his to do with as he wanted.

a) They are not just His property; they are his creatures, His creations from His own substance.
b) Their feelings are His feelings. They are Him, He is not them.
c) You don't have to see anything in it, morality or otherwise. God is not under morality. We are under his morality. That's why Jesus said to the rich young ruler, "Why do you call me good? Only God is good."
d) As for the animal breeder analogy, yeah, it's kind of like that. Jesus used plants (vines, wheat, etc), but it's the same concept. And God has no conscience. We have a conscience. God writes morality; He isn't bound by it. We are. We feel bad when we think we have separated ourselves from God.
e) Unless it's been a mystery to you you're whole life: God destroys everything He creates. Maybe not New Heaven-Earth, but everything up until then.

These are things you're going to have to come to terms with if you want to know God. But you're never going to know God unless you know Jesus Christ. If you want to know God, examine the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

No. The only appropriate response is to be horrified and sickened by the very thought that such a being could exist. Fear of tyrants is natural, but having that fear turn into love and admiration is nothing less than abhorrent.

That would be the case with other human beings. No doubt, but not with God. Not with the creator and sustainer of quarks and galaxies. Your...what's the word? Indignation. Is illogical and pointless. You are putting God on the same level as a man--man is not even as real as God.

Stockholm syndrome anyone? If that is religious experience then I thank Zeus that I have not succumbed to the seductive promises of rewards like protection and prosperity bestowed on me by this God, while so many of my fellow human beings are left to suffer.

Okay...what are you going to do about it? I dying to know--no pun intended.

You are an atheist, right? Or are you a believer who's mad at God? I can't tell.

[Veridican]

Conveniently unprovable, of course. And more to the point - in no way of use in navigating the real world.

No, no. It's ontologically provable, and it can be shown to be the only logical way to consider God. I mean, what do you want? Do you think we're going to go into a lab and mix chemicals and produce God? Or maybe you think we're going to psychically conjure a being that is God--during a seance, perhaps. It's actually you who are being disingenuous here. You set the parameters of proof to conveniently exclude anything that might actually be evidence of God. The EYEBALL, for Christ's sake, is evidence of God. The clotting cascade of blood is evidence of God, and that's just for starters, and if you are going to pooh-pooh that, then you're just a fool. You're just someone who wants to be an atheist for secondary gains. That's the truth.