God is indifferent

[tonyrey]

It does not specify all of God’s characteristics but my point is that it should in order to represent a fair and accurate picture of the Christian god.

Your argument:
Premise 1: Good and evil exists
Premise 2: God never acts
Conclusion: Therefore God is in indifferent

Premise 2 is unproven and therefore your conclusion lacks support. Qualifying your statement with “as far as we can see” is vague and basically says that we lack evidence. To others, God has helped them “as far as they can see”. At least, that’s what the biblical writers reported. Either way, lack of evidence does not prove that something never occurs or that it does occur.

In fact there is plenty of substantial evidence that scientifically unexplained recoveries have occurred in answer to prayer at Lourdes, for example, where the International Medical Committee consists of specialists who are not necessarily Catholics.

 

[minkymurph]

It is called “doublethink”. When I first read about it in Orwell’s 1984, I thought that the author was wrong, that no sane person can hold two contradictory ideas, and believe both of them. Looks like I was mistaken.

I would say you are. F Scott Fitzgerald held the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

I can recall something like this from political theory. A way of analyzing ‘common good’ is to categorize acts as good and right, bad and wrong, good but wrong and bad but right. The ‘bad but right’ category is the most contentious.

Most people would categorize murder as bad, yet the plot to murder Hitler was considered justified.

Noam Chomsky argues western democracies are benevolent yet simultaneously commit atrocities.

I would also say the most sound, rational and reasoned theory will inevitably in some circumstance fail. A good example is where application of the current state of the law produces a just result, but when applied in the same manner in other circumstances it may produce and unjust result.

 

[Bradski]

I would say you are. F Scott Fitzgerald held the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

It’s not difficult to hold more than one idea in your mind. In fact, you couldn’t hold an internal debate as to the the validity of an argument if that was not the case.

The unnerving ability is that of being able to believe two contrasting ideas simultaneously.

 

[Bradski]

In fact there is plenty of substantial evidence that scientifically unexplained recoveries have occurred in answer to prayer at Lourdes, for example, where the International Medical Committee consists of specialists who are not necessarily Catholics.

Which simply makes them recoveries without an agreed explanation. No more. No less.

If everyone attended Lourdes believing that the FSM was going to cure them, you would still get exactly the same number of unexplained cures. Spontaneous remission from ilness is a well documented and rather humdrum fact.

 

[Bradski]

The derogatory term “capriciously” overlooks divine omniscience which enables the Creator to decide who will benefit society and themselves the most from being cured.

I would love to hear you explain to a grieving mother whose child has just died that God decided that the guy who killed her and whose cancer was in remission was more beneficial to society.

No sane person believes this, Tony. But it’s an argument that you must trot out because the alternative is an uncaring God at best.

 

[minkymurph]

It’s not difficult to hold more than one idea in your mind. In fact, you couldn’t hold an internal debate as to the the validity of an argument if that was not the case.

The unnerving ability is that of being able to believe two contrasting ideas simultaneously.

I don’t think it’s unnerving. I think it’s normal as it happens all the time. As I said, no matter how sound our reasoning is there will inevitably be some circumstance in which what we hold to be ‘good’ may in some circumstances not be. Our sense of ‘good’ does not change, yet we have the intelligence to recognize in some situations injustice or ‘bad’ may result when applied. There is no doubt such situations present us with a dilemma, particularly if the decision we make significantly effects others, and can result in cognitive dissonance. Perhaps this is why you describe it as unnerving.

Being faced with two beliefs each of which may be equally credible and struggling to which we will endorse and support is a reality of life. Perhaps this is not something you have encountered in your life. I encounter contrasting beliefs I could give equal credence to quite regularly. I also encounter situations in which I am obliged to endorse and support beliefs I personally don’t hold.

 

[minkymurph]

I would love to hear you explain to a grieving mother whose child has just died that God decided that the guy who killed her and whose cancer was in remission was more beneficial to society.

No sane person believes this, Tony. But it’s an argument that you must trot out because the alternative is an uncaring God at best.

Sorry for jumping in but I don’t think anyone who believes in God would make such an argument. I personally have never heard of such a belief proposed in Catholicism. If it appears to you someone is saying this is what they believe it is at least possible you have misinterpreted what they have said.

Define sanity. I know lots of people I would consider to be sane but by the same token would describe what they believe as bizarre.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

In fact there is plenty of substantial evidence that scientifically unexplained recoveries have occurred in answer to prayer at Lourdes, for example, where the International Medical Committee consists of specialists who are not necessarily Catholics.

Thanks for the reference. I started reading about the Catholic Church miracle committee just last year and I’m glad they’re taking proactive steps to evidence these claims of miracles. Your point brings to mind that there certain conditions that God acts under. For instance, in a world where God never or rarely acts, we could also conclude that it’s because it’s a world where little to no people are genuinely faithful or have faith. Jesus called his generation an adulterous one when he was asked why he couldn’t just perform a sign so that all would believe in him (Matthew 16:1-4). So it seems that Vera’s conclusion is not only without evidence but he also ignores alternative conclusions, like the conditions of which God would act under.

 

[Bradski]

I also encounter situations in which I am obliged to endorse and support beliefs I personally don’t hold.

What the…?

There are things you think are wrong and yet support?

 

[tonyrey]

Thanks for the reference. I started reading about the Catholic Church miracle committee just last year and I’m glad they’re taking proactive steps to evidence these claims of miracles. Your point brings to mind that there certain conditions that God acts under. For instance, in a world where God never or rarely acts, we could also conclude that it’s because it’s a world where little to no people are genuinely faithful or have faith. Jesus called his generation an adulterous one when he was asked why he couldn’t just perform a sign so that all would believe in him (Matthew 16:1-4). So it seems that Vera’s conclusion is not only without evidence but he also ignores alternative conclusions, like the conditions of which God would act under.

A very good point! An atheist would retort that God should (and would) be above such considerations but sharing power with us implies that He takes the customs of our society into account. Otherwise He would be condoning evils like the immense number of abortions in recent years. Miracles still occur but they are necessarily less common in a secular environment.

God is not a passive Spectator but a loving Father who is just as well as merciful. To a large extent we get what we deserve in this world as well as the next - as members of a family not isolated individuals. It works both ways because we are affected both positively and negatively by the behaviour of others but ultimately it is how we live that counts. It was a miracle that the Cure of Ars transformed the society in which he lived yet it was due to his self-sacrifice, prayer and dedication to the needs of others who came from far and wide to obtain his advice and blessing. It is worth watching the film Le sorcier du ciel on YouTube.

 

[fred_conty]

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.

Yes, I would agree with you 100% if it were not for Jesus who lived in this observed world. Tho I know about Jesus, the important part is to know Jesus, first hand. Once we turn ourselves over to him, then he touches us personally and we experience his presence. And from what Jesus said, he wishes to love each and every person thru his Holy Communion.

He said he was God, and proved it thru many miracles while he was on earth, one of which no one has never been repeated … his own resurrection from the dead.

Today his miracles still go on at Lourdes France which miracles are verified by doctors/scientists of all faiths and some without any religious faith.

As far as the bad people having something nice happen to them, it is because God is just and rewards even the bad for the good they do.

And as far as the good people having unpleasant things happen to them, it is because God is still just and will reward them for the good they do in even a better way … in the next life, which rewards will be experienced and lasting forever.

So God is very much interested in us right now and is anything but indifferent.

It is the right God gave each person to accept Jesus, or reject him. But then the consequences for this decision will also follow.

 

[minkymurph]

What the…?

There are things you think are wrong and yet support?

Of course. In the real world people support things that in their personal view are wrong all the time. If this were not the case we would be living in utopia in the sense that we would never be obliged or compelled to support anything we personally think is wrong.

Criminal lawyers argue their clients innocence if the client claims they are innocent even though the lawyer believes they are guilty. They argue for mitigation of sentence even though in their personal view their client deserves to go to prison for a lot longer.

I don’t handle criminal cases but I have advocated cases where in personal view the opposing party was in the right. I do so because I have an obligation to my client even though I personally believe they are in the wrong because my personal view of right and wrong doesn’t the come into the equation. I may personally think the law is wrong and often do, but I concede it’s the law’s prerogative to be wrong because it is the law and construct arguments on the basis of what I personally don’t agree with.

Surely you must have encountered circumstances where individuals advocate the rights of others even though they personally don’t share their views? There are lots of things I personally believe to be wrong but would not deny others their rights. Such would be tantamount to imposing our personal values and sense of right and wrong on others. If it’s justified I would do it, but not if is not and there are occasions when it is not only not justified but tantamount to denying them their rights.

What sort of a world would we live in if we lent support only to what we personally believe to be right? A world in which no one has a voice unless they share our view of right? I would call that dictatorship.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Of course. In the real world people support things that in their personal view are wrong all the time. If this were not the case we would be living in utopia in the sense that we would never be obliged or compelled to support anything we personally think is wrong.

Criminal lawyers argue their clients innocence if the client claims they are innocent even though the lawyer believes they are guilty. They argue for mitigation of sentence even though in their personal view their client deserves to go to prison for a lot longer.

You misunderstand. The defense lawyers do NOT BELIEVE that their client innocent, when then KNOW that he is guilty. They just participate in the complex GAME of the legal profession, where they try to finagle as low a sentence as they can, while the prosecutor attempts to bring as harsh a sentence as possible, even if they do not believe that the defendant is guilty of ALL the charges brought up against him.

It has nothing to do with holding two contradictory propositions in mind at the same time and consider them both of them to be TRUE.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Yes, I would agree with you 100% if it were not for Jesus who lived in this observed world. Tho I know about Jesus, the important part is to know Jesus, first hand. Once we turn ourselves over to him, then he touches us personally and we experience his presence. And from what Jesus said, he wishes to love each and every person thru his Holy Communion.

He said he was God, and proved it thru many miracles while he was on earth, one of which no one has never been repeated … his own resurrection from the dead.

Today his miracles still go on at Lourdes France which miracles are verified by doctors/scientists of all faiths and some without any religious faith.

As far as the bad people having something nice happen to them, it is because God is just and rewards even the bad for the good they do.

And as far as the good people having unpleasant things happen to them, it is because God is still just and will reward them for the good they do in even a better way … in the next life, which rewards will be experienced and lasting forever.

So God is very much interested in us right now and is anything but indifferent.

It is the right God gave each person to accept Jesus, or reject him. But then the consequences for this decision will also follow.

There is only one problem is your argument. It is based un the unproven and unsubstantiated assertion that the miracles attributed to Jesus are correct. The story of Jesus is just another ancient fable.

And even if you accept that the story of Jesus is correct, there is STILL no change in the “setup” of this world. And there is no evidence for the alleged “next life”.

As for the so-called “miracles” at Lourdes, send a whole bunch people there with properly diagnosed problems for which there is no cure or remission (like missing limbs or advanced muscular dystrophy) and send a control group to another bathing facility. Then check if there is any statistically significant difference in the result. I can guarantee that there will be no difference.

 

[inocente]

F Scott Fitzgerald held the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

He didn’t mean double-think. His next sentence is “One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise. This philosophy fitted on to my early adult life, when I saw the improbable, the implausible, often the “impossible,” come true. Life was something you dominated if you were any good.” - esquire.com/news-politics/a4310/the-crack-up/

 

[inocente]

Your point brings to mind that there certain conditions that God acts under. For instance, in a world where God never or rarely acts, we could also conclude that it’s because it’s a world where little to no people are genuinely faithful or have faith. Jesus called his generation an adulterous one when he was asked why he couldn’t just perform a sign so that all would believe in him (Matthew 16:1-4).

You have that back to front. Only a wicked and adulterous generation asks for miracles, but Jesus says the only sign that will be given is His death and resurrection (Matt 12:38-40). Paul says the same in 1 Cor 1 - “Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified”. Christ’s sacrifice is complete.

 

[minkymurph]

You misunderstand. The defense lawyers do NOT BELIEVE that their client innocent, when then KNOW that he is guilty. They just participate in the complex GAME of the legal profession, where they try to finagle as low a sentence as they can, while the prosecutor attempts to bring as harsh a sentence as possible, even if they do not believe that the defendant is guilty of ALL the charges brought up against him.

It has nothing to do with holding two contradictory propositions in mind at the same time and consider them both of them to be TRUE.

No I don’t think I do misunderstand.

You state lawyers are participants in a game. Certainly there is some justification for your assertion. A healthy dose of cynicism does us no harm, but as an advocate the Rule of Law and upholding the rights of others is no game. To me it’s a serious matter.

You raise the matter of truth. I concede advocacy and judicial system are not essentially about truth. They are about facts and evidence and facts and evidence can lead us to conclusions that are in fact false. When faced with two contradictory positions we generally predetermine in our mind that one of them must be false. We also generally form the opinion we must decide which we believe to be true and have an obligation to fall on one side or the other. I personally don’t adhere to this as there are circumstances in which I don’t feel an obligation to arrive at a conclusion and decide what side of the fence I sit on. I would assert I have the capacity to believe two contradictory positions may be true, and it is this that enables me to function as an advocate.

As you said, the ‘game’ of the legal profession is complex. To me, so is the ‘game’ of life. What is determined to be true in one set of circumstances may in fact be false in another. Where I would move past my comfort zone is where I am obliged to make a decision in terms of what I personally believe to be true that would significantly impact on someone else to their detriment. In these circumstances believing both prepositions are equally true is a useful tool. I don’t have to recant what I think but can argue their case effectively.

 

[tonyrey]

The derogatory term “capriciously” overlooks divine omniscience which enables the Creator to decide who will benefit society and themselves the most from being cured.

Ironically I have been in the precise situation you describe but I didn’t use the crude method you describe. There is a time and place for everything if you have any compassion or understanding of another person’s feelings. The distortion of my argument with the words “the guy who killed her” is typical of some atheists’ cynicism and sarcasm I mentioned in my previous post. Thank you for proving my point so strongly…:clapping:

 

[minkymurph]

Two contrasting prepositions can be true.

Follow this link.

vth.biz/driver/sites/vth.biz/files/blogimages/trickold.jpg

Do you see:

1. A young woman?
2. An old woman?

Both prepositions are true.

 

[tonyrey]

I would love to hear you explain to a grieving mother whose child has just died that God decided that the guy who killed her and whose cancer was in remission was more beneficial to society.

No sane person believes this, Tony. But it’s an argument that you must trot out because the alternative is an uncaring God at best.

It is significant that you have totally ignored and failed to disprove the following points:

1. We are limited by** our ignorance **of the full consequences of even one miracle, let alone hundreds of thousands.
2. It would certainly be reckless for God to heal everyone nor does He limit the number explicitly to conceal His existence.
3. There would be no point in creating the laws of nature if they are going to be constantly suspended and make life unpredictable.
4. Already we complain about Big Brother observing everything we do in public. It would be far worse if we knew for certain we never have any privacy wherever we are.
5. **Constant **intervention would indeed reveal God’s existence but there are other reasons why we are left in the dark, the main one being that we would no longer be independent - and that is an objection atheists have raised on this forum. It is disconcerting to know there is a higher authority whose laws we have to obey from the moment we are born until the moment we die. The lust for power is not something we can ignore in our understanding of human nature - or reactions to the question of whether there is a “Great Dictator”…

In spite of his scepticism David Hume conceded that the laws of nature are at the root of physical evil because they cannot possibly possibly cater for every contingency. A perfect world is an infantile fantasy:

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.