God is indifferent

[Vera_Ljuba]

Let’s start with the hypothesis that God exists. Let’s also stipulate that God created the world, and he has the power and knowledge to make it whatever he wants.

Looking around the world as it is, we can conclude that God is neither benevolent, nor malevolent. There is both good and bad in the world. The sun shines both on the righteous and the wicked. The believers and the atheists both have their share of good and the bad. Worshipping God does you no good in this world. Not worshipping God does you no “bad” in this world. There is no correlation (and correlation generally does not imply causation) between the faith / behavior of the people and their “fortune” in this world. Good things happen to good people and to bad people. Bad things happen to good people and to bad people.

Of course some people will say that skeptics disregard the “continued” existence in some “afterlife” and to draw conclusion based upon this limited existence is unwarranted. Unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence for some “afterlife”, so it is irrational to take it into account. We can only draw conclusions based upon we experience.

Based upon this, observed world there is no sign which would point to a beneficial God, or a malevolent God. The only rational conclusion is that God is indifferent, if exists at all.

 

[inocente]

Known as deism.

Deism: Belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. (OED)

 

[Aloysium]

. . . We can only draw conclusions based upon we experience. Based upon this, observed world there is no sign which would point to a beneficial God, or a malevolent God. The only rational conclusion is that God is indifferent, if exists at all.

The world is more than what is observed by us individually and shared, as much as can be. The sharing involves an opening oneself to the ideas of others.
We do this with respect to our parents and families, our teachers, the books we read and other media to which we have access. We’re doing that here, to greater or lesser extents.
My “observed world” includes God, who is Love. It includes the Beatitudes, which make the radical statement that the world, as it understands itself, is upside down. The least is the greatest. The servant is higher than the master.
Catholic cosmology is actually obvious, describing the order that underlies creation, and which our reason can grasp.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Based upon this, observed world there is no sign which would point to a beneficial God, or a malevolent God. The only rational conclusion is that God is indifferent, if exists at all.

By what metric do you dictate if an action is “good,” or “bad?”

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I’m not sure “indifference” is the right word because we have no way of knowing God’s thoughts.

But having said that, I am firmly on the side of “God does not interfere in the natural working of the world.”

If you take the other side–God is constantly intervening in the universe–I think you are left with a whole slew of illogical consequences. God answers your prayers? But didn’t God, who knows the future, know you were going to pray long before He created the universe? So did God create the universe knowing you were going to pray at 6 pm Sunday, or did God somehow feign ignorance and wait until 6:01 pm Sunday to respond? Or does God hear the prayers of some, but not others? When the tornado hit Billy Bob’s house trailer but missed Jimmy Joe’s trailer, does that mean Jimmy Joe was a better person or prayed harder? Nonsense. You could go on and on with examples, but they’re just not logical. Does God have to be logical? Maybe not, but let’s see what Jesus has to say about all this–in a passage which is constantly ignored.

Luke 13:4: The Apostles are speculating about the sinfulness of 18 people who died when the Tower of Siloam collapsed and killed them. Jesus says “What about those eighteen people who were killed when the tower at Siloam fell on them? Do you think they were worse offenders than all the other people living in Jerusalem?” And of course there are other examples in the Gospels of Jesus explaining that just because someone is sick doesn’t mean they are sinners. What Jesus is saying is “Stuff happens.”

I know I will be immediately attacked by “pious” people. But my point of view has nothing to do with a lack of belief in God–in fact, my point of view validates the omnipotence and omniscience of God. Could God intervene in the universe if He wanted to? Sure. But why would He want to? Has God intervened in the past–for example, miracles in the Gospels? Why not? But does that mean God is constantly–millions of times a day–intervening? By saying God is constantly intervening, you are limiting God. You are saying that God can only work through direct action, not indirect action (laws of nature). If you oppose my point of view, you have to explain why you are in favor of limiting God.

 

[Beryllos]

You say it’s neither good nor bad? I think it’s pretty good, like a glass half-full.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Known as deism.

Deism: Belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. (OED)

Correct. From the lack of positive and negative interference the only logical conclusion is that if there is a “god”, it is an uncaring being. A benevolent being would limit (or eliminate) the “bad” stuff. A malevolent being would limit (or eliminate) the “good” stuff.

By what metric do you dictate if an action is “good,” or “bad?”

By its known consequences - just with everything else. Apply the duck principle. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck, it is very probably a duck.

I’m not sure “indifference” is the right word because we have no way of knowing God’s thoughts.

But having said that, I am firmly on the side of “God does not interfere in the natural working of the world.”

I did not quote your whole post, because I agree with it. The question is: “what word would you prefer instead of indifferent”? We certainly do not know God’s thoughts (if there are any), just like we don’t know the thoughts of anyone. We infer the thoughts by observing the actions (or inactions) of others, and make a judgment call based upon the observations.

You say it’s neither good nor bad? I think it’s pretty good, like a glass half-full.

An ampoule which contains the half of what is necessary to save the victim of a snake-bite is just as bad as an empty one.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

By its known consequences - just with everything else. Apply the duck principle. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck, it is very probably a duck.

That’s not a valid metric, because the “goodness” or “badness” of the consequences is subjective from a purely human standpoint.

Take abortion for example. Several people today say that the ends are “good” because an abortion removes what they see as a burden. Many other people view the ends as a “bad” because it ends an innocent life prematurely.

If we are to base an action’s “goodness” or “badness” on the perceived “goodness” or “badness” of the outcome, what do we do in these instances where the outcome’s state is contested?

 

[fhansen]

Let’s start with the hypothesis that God exists. Let’s also stipulate that God created the world, and he has the power and knowledge to make it whatever he wants.

Looking around the world as it is, we can conclude that God is neither benevolent, nor malevolent. There is both good and bad in the world. The sun shines both on the righteous and the wicked. The believers and the atheists both have their share of good and the bad. Worshipping God does you no good in this world. Not worshipping God does you no “bad” in this world. There is no correlation (and correlation generally does not imply causation) between the faith / behavior of the people and their “fortune” in this world. Good things happen to good people and to bad people. Bad things happen to good people and to bad people.

Of course some people will say that skeptics disregard the “continued” existence in some “afterlife” and to draw conclusion based upon this limited existence is unwarranted. Unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence for some “afterlife”, so it is irrational to take it into account. We can only draw conclusions based upon we experience.

Based upon this, observed world there is no sign which would point to a beneficial God, or a malevolent God. The only rational conclusion is that God is indifferent, if exists at all.

We play God here. We’re radically free from all constraints, including the direct experience of God which would most assuredly influence our actions, and then we’ll be judged, based on what we did, on our own, with whatever lot we’d been given in our lives, good or bad.

And there is evidence for God. The tremendous power and complexity and beauty of this universe should inspire awe in all but the most dull or jaded, but awe towards what if not towards a superior “something”? And I’ll also contend that grace exists, a sort of supernatural prompting from “something” that we’re free to ignore, but that increases and edifies to the extent that we respond to it.

 

[Beryllos]

An ampoule which contains the half of what is necessary to save the victim of a snake-bite is just as bad as an empty one.

Does God not give you what you need?

 

[Vico]

Let’s start with the hypothesis that God exists. Let’s also stipulate that God created the world, and he has the power and knowledge to make it whatever he wants.

Looking around the world as it is, we can conclude that God is neither benevolent, nor malevolent. There is both good and bad in the world. The sun shines both on the righteous and the wicked. The believers and the atheists both have their share of good and the bad. Worshipping God does you no good in this world. Not worshipping God does you no “bad” in this world. There is no correlation (and correlation generally does not imply causation) between the faith / behavior of the people and their “fortune” in this world. Good things happen to good people and to bad people. Bad things happen to good people and to bad people.

Of course some people will say that skeptics disregard the “continued” existence in some “afterlife” and to draw conclusion based upon this limited existence is unwarranted. Unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence for some “afterlife”, so it is irrational to take it into account. We can only draw conclusions based upon we experience.

Based upon this, observed world there is no sign which would point to a beneficial God, or a malevolent God. The only rational conclusion is that God is indifferent, if exists at all.

For Christians, what was observed in Jesus Christ and the Prophets is evidence.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Let’s start with the hypothesis that God exists. Let’s also stipulate that God created the world, and he has the power and knowledge to make it whatever he wants.

Looking around the world as it is, we can conclude that God is neither benevolent, nor malevolent. There is both good and bad in the world. The sun shines both on the righteous and the wicked. The believers and the atheists both have their share of good and the bad. Worshipping God does you no good in this world. Not worshipping God does you no “bad” in this world. There is no correlation (and correlation generally does not imply causation) between the faith / behavior of the people and their “fortune” in this world. Good things happen to good people and to bad people. Bad things happen to good people and to bad people.

Of course some people will say that skeptics disregard the “continued” existence in some “afterlife” and to draw conclusion based upon this limited existence is unwarranted. Unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence for some “afterlife”, so it is irrational to take it into account. We can only draw conclusions based upon we experience.

Based upon this, observed world there is no sign which would point to a beneficial God, or a malevolent God. The only rational conclusion is that God is indifferent, if exists at all.

Paragraph one is fine. The problems with your argument begin in paragraph two because you are basing your conclusion upon your opinion that God should be doing more to prevent our suffering or to make Himself known to us, etc. You’re pursuing an argument from evil or from the silence of God or both. To be fair to you, these are two of the strongest arguments in the atheist’s quiver.

However, as you have stated it, your argument fails for the simple reason that it is based on your opinion of what God should or would do if He existed, and this is based upon what you think you should or would do if you were God. But you aren’t God nor are you privy to what God thinks, what He plans, and what His purposes are.

Someone else might argue that they see evidence of God’s care for us throughout all of creation every day. This, too, could be subjective. But that’s my whole point.

If the thermostat in my house is set at 68, my wife is looking for a sweater while I’m comfortable in short sleeves. Objectively, the temperature is the same for both of us, but we have very different subjective reactions to that temperature.

Similarly, you look at the world, see the negative and conclude that God doesn’t care or is not there. The believer sees the same things and reflects that “in all things God works for the good of those who love Him.” (Romans 8:28)

 

[hasantas]

When rebelling and rejecting against God became general and overall so God perished some nations in history. ( Prophet Nuh (as) and The Great Flood,Life The people of Prophet Lut (as) and The City which was Turned Upside Down The People of 'Ad and Ubar, The Atlantis of the Sands Thamud Fir’awn Who Was Drowned The People of Saba and the Arim Flood)

And God will punish or forgive sins in day of reckoning. Otherwise one Holy Attribute of God is “Sabur” which means ultimate and high patient and forbearing.

The life on the world is an exam. If ever human were punished after faults so there would be no mean in exam.

For existence of God there are many other ways and evidences. To find God human should use mind and free will. A punisher stick should not force.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

If we are to base an action’s “goodness” or “badness” on the perceived “goodness” or “badness” of the outcome, what do we do in these instances where the outcome’s state is contested?

Then we disagree. When there is only one antidote and two sick people, we cannot cure both of them. This is reality. If God would be “good”, he could simply double the antidote, so that both people could be cured. If God would be “bad”, he could spoil the antidote so that neither could be cured. But God does not do either. The only rational analysis is that God (if exists at all) simply does not care.

It would be so nice if you all would stick to the topic of the thread. Not trying to present evidence for God’s existence, because that was already stipulated (for the purposes of this discussion) in the opening post.
The sun shines on the righteous and wicked alike. Some good people have good life, other good people have a horrible life. Some bad people have good life, other bad people have bad life.
A good God would lessen (or eliminate) the bad outcomes - that is what would make God “good”. An evil God would minimize (or eliminate) the good outcomes, that is what would make God “bad”. Why can’t you discuss these simple propositions?

 

[davidv]

Then we disagree. When there is only one antidote and two sick people, we cannot cure both of them. This is reality. If God would be “good”, he could simply double the antidote, so that both people could be cured. If God would be “bad”, he could spoil the antidote so that neither could be cured. But God does not do either. The only rational analysis is that God (if exists at all) simply does not care.

It would be so nice if you all would stick to the topic of the thread. Not trying to present evidence for God’s existence, because that was already stipulated (for the purposes of this discussion) in the opening post.
The sun shines on the righteous and wicked alike. Some good people have good life, other good people have a horrible life. Some bad people have good life, other bad people have bad life.
A good God would lessen (or eliminate) the bad outcomes - that is what would make God “good”. An evil God would minimize (or eliminate) the good outcomes, that is what would make God “bad”. Why can’t you discuss these simple propositions?

These are not simple propositions because they a based on faulty presumptions of how God should act.

 

[Beryllos]

… A good God would lessen (or eliminate) the bad outcomes - that is what would make God “good”. An evil God would minimize (or eliminate) the good outcomes, that is what would make God “bad”. Why can’t you discuss these simple propositions?

How do we know what the possible outcomes are, that we could tell which is better?

A child may be unhappy that his parents do not give him candy every day. Are his parents indifferent? No. They know, as the child does not yet understand, that the delight associated with candy comes at great cost to his health. (Consider also similar metaphors of schoolwork, doctor visits, eating vegetables, etc.)

Perhaps God has acted and continues to act in the best way possible for us.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Then we disagree. When there is only one antidote and two sick people, we cannot cure both of them. This is reality.

Except for that one of the two people isn’t sick, only inconvenienced. Their body is doing exactly what bodies do, there’s nothing abnormal, about it. One person is dying so that the other person can live an easier life. This is not something can we can simply agree to disagree with, because someone is dying. This is why your entire argument falls flat. Without an external metric by which to measure right and wrong, everything is subjective, and therefore, you have no reason to claim that anything is right or wrong / good or bad. If nothing is good or bad, then if God exists, He has no obligation to prevent anything from happening, because there is nothing that is objectively bad.

If God would be “good”, he could simply double the antidote, so that both people could be cured. If God would be “bad”, he could spoil the antidote so that neither could be cured. But God does not do either. The only rational analysis is that God (if exists at all) simply does not care.

You’re right. He could. That doesn’t mean he has an obligation to, or that it would even be the best thing in the end. That’s your subjective interpretation, based purely on what your limited knowledge allows you to know. This is an incredibly limited perspective from which to declare judgment on God, whom is omniscient.

It would be so nice if you all would stick to the topic of the thread. Not trying to present evidence for God’s existence, because that was already stipulated (for the purposes of this discussion) in the opening post.
The sun shines on the righteous and wicked alike. Some good people have good life, other good people have a horrible life. Some bad people have good life, other bad people have bad life.
A good God would lessen (or eliminate) the bad outcomes - that is what would make God “good”. An evil God would minimize (or eliminate) the good outcomes, that is what would make God “bad”. Why can’t you discuss these simple propositions?

I am discussing the proposition you put forth. If you cannot quantify a non-subjective metric by which to judge what is good and bad, you have no viable reason to claim that God should or should not act in any given situation. If God has no obligation to act, then he cannot be indifferent for not acting. If He does have an obligation to act, then that means there is a non-subjective set of laws which dictate what is right and wrong.

If this non-subjective metric of right and wrong exists, then you become capable of being mistaken about if an action/inaction is right or wrong. This potential, combined with our inherently limited scope of knowledge about the repercussions of any particular action, means that maybe you don’t know if God’s action or inaction is justified.

Basically, without objective right and wrong you have no reason to complain; and with it, you have to acknowledge that it’s possible that inaction brings about the greater "good’ over the course of time, and you simply aren’t capable of seeing the end result because you are bound by linear knowledge.

 

[goout]

Let’s start with the hypothesis that God exists. Let’s also stipulate that God created the world, and he has the power and knowledge to make it whatever he wants.

Looking around the world as it is, we can conclude that God is neither benevolent, nor malevolent. There is both good and bad in the world. The sun shines both on the righteous and the wicked. The believers and the atheists both have their share of good and the bad. Worshipping God does you no good in this world. Not worshipping God does you no “bad” in this world. There is no correlation (and correlation generally does not imply causation) between the faith / behavior of the people and their “fortune” in this world. Good things happen to good people and to bad people. Bad things happen to good people and to bad people.

Of course some people will say that skeptics disregard the “continued” existence in some “afterlife” and to draw conclusion based upon this limited existence is unwarranted. Unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence for some “afterlife”, so it is irrational to take it into account. We can only draw conclusions based upon we experience.

Based upon this, observed world there is no sign which would point to a beneficial God, or a malevolent God. The only rational conclusion is that God is indifferent, if exists at all.

You could also conclude that you just don’t have knowledge of things unseen. If you have no knowledge of God, how could you know how he acts?
God and angels etc… are invisible after all, and there is no evidentiary proof of them.

By things unseen I am not talking about hidden material values, but metaphysical values that although unseen, have tremendous value.
Love for instance.

If you limit your universe of knowledge only to material values, perhaps you are missing the major part of reality.

 

[MPat]

Let’s start with the hypothesis that God exists. Let’s also stipulate that God created the world, and he has the power and knowledge to make it whatever he wants.

Provided that this “whatever” is logically consistent?

Looking around the world as it is, we can conclude that God is neither benevolent, nor malevolent. There is both good and bad in the world.

How much of “good” and how much of “bad”?

For example, what if our ability to pet dogs and cats (“good”) requires existence of, let’s say, mosquitoes (“bad”)? In such case, isn’t it important to find out if such trade is worth it before simply proclaiming “There is both good and bad in the world.”?

After all, good God could be expected to accept both if He decides that the trade is worth it.

So, how are you going to measure “good” and “bad”?

Worshipping God does you no good in this world. Not worshipping God does you no “bad” in this world. There is no correlation (and correlation generally does not imply causation) between the faith / behavior of the people and their “fortune” in this world. Good things happen to good people and to bad people. Bad things happen to good people and to bad people.

That can be answered in at least two ways: 1) good people / believers do have a better life, 2) there is some separate good in having good and bad things happen to both good and bad people / believers and unbelievers.

And there is truth in both of them.

First, we can see some benefits of being good / believer. For example, lower suicide rate (ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303) or better “life satisfaction” (halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00566120/document). We can also look to history and notice that Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were evil - and they are no more, while Catholic Church is good - and it has already survived for about 2000 years.

Second, we can notice that there might be some good in not making those benefits too strong. For example, it might make the world consistent and knowable. One more trade-off.

Of course some people will say that skeptics disregard the “continued” existence in some “afterlife” and to draw conclusion based upon this limited existence is unwarranted. Unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence for some “afterlife”, so it is irrational to take it into account. We can only draw conclusions based upon we experience.

“Absolutely no evidence”? As opposed to “relatively no evidence”?

Naturally, such evidence exists and is not hard to find. There are reports of near-death experiences, reports of visions of saints, reports of miracles made by intercession of saints, even ghost stories. You might claim those pieces of evidence are weak or misleading, but it is obvious that they exist and at least seem to point towards existence of afterlife.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

However, as you have stated it, your argument fails for the simple reason that it is based on your opinion of what God should or would do if He existed, and this is based upon what you think you should or would do if you were God.

These are not simple propositions because they a based on faulty presumptions of how God should act.

To both Randy and David: Not what I think. What those words MEAN. If doing “X” is good when God does it, and it is evil when humans do it, then “good” and “evil” are meaningless concepts. The statue of Justitia (the goddess of Justice) is depicted with a blindfold. “Who” does it is irrelevant, “what” is being done is important.

A child may be unhappy that his parents do not give him candy every day.

Sorry, I am not interested in the opinion of children and the mentally retarded.

Perhaps God has acted and continues to act in the best way possible for us.

“Perhaps” and “maybe” are not arguments.

You’re right. He could. That doesn’t mean he has an obligation to, or that it would even be the best thing in the end.

I did not mention “obligation”. A father may not have an obligation to care for his children, but if he does not care for them, we would declare him a deadbeat dad.

That’s your subjective interpretation, based purely on what your limited knowledge allows you to know.

We always make judgment based upon our limited knowledge. And there is no problem with it. If you say that I am not qualified to utter a negative judgment based upon my incomplete knowledge, then you are also not qualified to utter a positive judgment, since you are exactly as ignorant as I am…

This is an incredibly limited perspective from which to declare judgment on God, whom is omniscient.

Sorry, that does not wash. God is free and welcome to come down and explain his (non-)actions. But since he does not, it remains incumbent upon you (the apologists in general) to speak for him. But all you can say is “perhaps” and “maybe”. And that is not sufficient.

If you cannot quantify a non-subjective metric by which to judge what is good and bad, you have no viable reason to claim that God should or should not act in any given situation.

It is obvious what “good” is. Useful, beneficial, pleasurable, enjoyable, satisfying, etc… are its synonyms. Something that promotes life and its quality. “Bad” is the opposite.

Love for instance.

Love is part of the physical reality.

If you limit your universe of knowledge only to material values, perhaps you are missing the major part of reality.

“Perhaps” is STILL not an argument.

Naturally, such evidence exists and is not hard to find. There are reports of near-death experiences, reports of visions of saints, reports of miracles made by intercession of saints, even ghost stories. You might claim those pieces of evidence are weak or misleading, but it is obvious that they exist and at least seem to point towards existence of afterlife.

I would not place fairy tales into the bag of “evidence”.

---

There is a basic incompatibility between our assessments. You want to use a different measuring rod when you speak of humans and of God. That is not acceptable, and it seems to be the number one obstacle to having a conversation between believers and skeptics. And, of course the abundant usage or “perhaps” and “maybe”.