God is indifferent

[inocente]

The **ability **to perform an act doesn’t imply the circumstances will always be favourable. Free will doesn’t mean we can do anything we like:

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions.

In spite of having free will we can lose the power of self-control, as when we get angry, and be frustrated by our limitations or those imposed by others, as when we are in prison. It’s not true that where there’s a will there is (always) a way.

Irrelevant. It would defeat the purpose of creating a predictable universe if God suspended the laws of nature whenever a person or animal is going to be harmed or killed. It would also defeat the purpose of giving us free will if God prevented us from using our power to choose what to believe, how to live and who to love. A constant spate of miracles would make it impossible not to realise a benevolent Power is protecting everyone from suffering, injured or being killed.

Ironically Luther addresses the hiddenness of God in nearly every aspect of his theology:

Quote:
Indeed, Bernhard Lohse believes the Deus absconditus is Luther’s greatest contribution to the Christian theology of God. His later writings on the **Deus absconditus **most frequently address the God who hides himself from his saints in contradiction to his given revelation of himself, in order to cause faith to become true faith. His strong experiential theology brings to light a perplexing problem on the nature of God and his relation to his saints and offers timeless wisdom for those who have found themselves confronted by the hidden God.
laurawelker.com/luthers%20hidden%20god.pdf

You already posted all of that, so it’s argument by repetition, the fallacy of “repeating an argument or a premise over and over again in place of better supporting evidence”.

CCC 206 says God is “infinitely above everything that we can understand or say: he is the “hidden God”, his name is ineffable, and he is the God who makes himself close to men”.

If God is “infinitely above everything that we can understand” then it logically follows that anyone who thinks he understands God doesn’t know God. God doesn’t conceal himself, it would not be reckless for God to show himself, God is hidden simply because he is “infinitely above everything that we can understand”.

If you knew everyone is always prevented from being harmed or killed you would be compelled to believe God exists and incapable of living a normal life.

That does not follow, as in: if you knew everyone is always subject to the force of gravity you would be compelled to believe gravity exists and incapable of living a normal life.

And CCC 153 says “Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him”. So if God gave you that gift, it doesn’t follow that you’re now incapable of living a normal life. It doesn’t follow that Catholics are incapable of living a normal life. It doesn’t follow that God did not help six million Jews because that would somehow stop them or us leading a normal life.

22So he replied to the messengers, "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Luke 7:22

The CCC index lists references to the miracles of Christ, the miracles of the disciples, and has one reference to miracles as a charism (“an extraordinary power (as of healing) given a Christian by the Holy Spirit for the good of the church” - Miriam-Webster).

I couldn’t find any reference to God himself intervening physically today, and the Apostles Creed says nothing of having to believe in a God who physically intervenes. So I think your low-level-miracles-but-not-enough-to-unambiguously-prove-God-exists theology is superfluous.

I’ve asked you several times whether the Church teaches various specific things you’ve stated, and several times you’ve not answered, so I think we’re just repeating ourselves now.

You omitted answering that again, so I think this isn’t a discussion any longer.

 

[inocente]

We are all different from each other. What is sufficient for one is not sufficient for others. Doubting Thomas was given a clear sign, when he asked for one. And God said: “Ask and you will be answered; knock and the door will be opened”. Of course it is also there that “Blessed are the ones who have not seen and yet believe”. So God likes to “hedge his bets”; wishes to eat his cake and have it too. Just like the prayers, which end with: “If it be thy will”. If God fulfills the prayer, he is good and worthy to be worshipped. If he does not, it was not his will, but since we exonerated him up front, there is no reason to complain. Remember the Church Lady: “How conveeenient!” (google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=church+lady+how+convenient&*)

And the above is the reason why some people discard the “preaching”.

I stick to the simple observation: “If someone is in the position to help and does not help, then this person is either malevolent of indifferent”. And also: “If someone is in the position to hurt others, and does not do it, then this person is either benevolent, or indifferent”. Taking both into consideration, the “intersection” is: "God is indifferent.

CCC 548 says Christ’s miracles strengthen faith and “are not intended to satisfy people’s curiosity or desire for magic”. I see no evidence that God intervenes physically today, except through us.

The CCC also says faith is a gift from God, so if God hasn’t given you faith, that’s his business. Imho follow our own conscience and have integrity is the best we can do.

We cannot have all things to please us
No matter how we try
Until we’ve all gone to Jesus
We can only wonder why
youtube.com/watch?v=mb7fm6YCAI4

 

[petra22]

I stick to the simple observation: “If someone is in the position to help and does not help, then this** person** is either malevolent of indifferent”. And also: “If someone is in the position to hurt others, and does not do it, then this person is either benevolent, or indifferent”. Taking both into consideration, the “intersection” is: "God is indifferent.

Stars inserted around the word PERSON by me… Here is your problem. GOD is not a person and though you can pretend to be God and be more righteous, considerate and loving than God, YOU are NOT… "As far as the east is from the west, so are my way different from your ways. I think one big problem we have in this world is trying to make God behave in ways we understand… God is so much more than our understanding and our explaining God is so lacking…

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

There are many circumstances in which someone may be in a position to help and chooses not to for legitimate reasons.

Of course that is true. But I did not want to write a whole novel about the subject. The question is not if there are exceptions to this principle, rather “is it true that every instance if non-intervention can be justified”?

Where we do not know or understand what those reasons, our observations of actual or perceived inactivity could readily lead us to conclude they are malevolent or indifferent, but in the absence of the necessary knowledge and insight it cannot be stated conclusively they are malevolent or indifferent.

This is called the fallacy of “argumentum ad ignoratiam”. If you have no concrete argument why the non-intervention is preferable, then the only rational approach is the “duck principle”. No sane person would defend a child molester by declaring: “Maybe he had a perfectly legitimate reason for that molestation, and if only we knew, we would agree with the molester.”

Based on the observed world we know for a fact there are people who genuinely believe God does help.

There are also people who genuinely believe that the Earth is flat.

In conclusion, if one believes God exists it is in one’s better interests to believe He is benevolent on the ground it serves a purpose and brings benefits. If one believes God exists but is indifferent or malevolent no purpose is served, there are no benefits and one who draws such a conclusion has no reason to believe in the existence of God at all. Would you agree with these assertions?

Beliefs are not voluntary.

 

[minkymurph]

Of course that is true. But I did not want to write a whole novel about the subject. The question is not if there are exceptions to this principle, rather “is it true that every instance if non-intervention can be justified”?

I’m sure you don’t want to write a whole novel on the subject, and no it cannot be said that in every instance non-intervention can be justified. Neither can it be said non-intervention in every circumstance cannot be justified.

This is called the fallacy of “argumentum ad ignoratiam”. If you have no concrete argument why the non-intervention is preferable, then the only rational approach is the “duck principle”. No sane person would defend a child molester by declaring: “Maybe he had a perfectly legitimate reason for that molestation, and if only we knew, we would agree with the molester.”

It is a fact that there are circumstances in which non-intervention would be considered preferable and argued to be legitimate. This is not an argument that arises out of ignorance. You are of course free to believe it is. We are all free to believe what we choose, but I have every confidence you could cite those examples of circumstances in which non-intervention would be considered preferable and argued to be legitimate. equally as well as I could.

I am also confident you are not of the opinion child molestation was not one of the examples I had in mind. I have already outlined reasons as to why in my view God does not step in and prevent all harm that may ever come to us by supernatural means. Restating anything I have already said would serve no purpose - particularly if what I said was rejected in the first instance.

There are also people who genuinely believe that the Earth is flat.

There are people who genuinely believe many things. There are also people who formulate arguments to support assertions they don’t genuinely believe. If the party proposing the argument does not genuinely believe in what they are saying, why would anyone else? For example; an atheist may argue God is indifferent but as the atheist does not only not believe God exists but is convinced He does not exist, his or her arguments are highly unlikely to be persuasive irrespective of how sound he or she believes they are - other than where they are made to another atheist on the ground they are already of same mind and thus don’t need persuading.

Beliefs are not voluntary.

Beliefs are voluntary. Acceptance of factual evidence is not voluntary as what is blatant and obvious requires little in terms of evaluation and higher order thinking. Determining what is true - which is distinct from what is fact - requires at least degree of voluntary consent based on interpretations and evaluations of facts. You are of course free to reject this statement and present counter arguments to support your assertion beliefs are not voluntary. A good starting point may be, ‘Believing God is not indifferent’ is not a voluntary choice.’ Or alternatively, ‘Believing the earth is flat is not a voluntary choice.’

I personally have never encountered anyone who genuinely believes the earth is flat. I have however encountered individuals who claim those who do not believe in God are intellectually superior to those who do, and those who believe in God cannot possibly be intelligent on the ground believing God exists is not an intelligent belief. I would argue such individuals are making a voluntary choice. You of course are free to reject this argument and propose counter-arguments.

 

[tonyrey]

You already posted all of that, so it’s argument by repetition, the fallacy of “repeating an argument or a premise over and over again in place of better supporting evidence”.

CCC 206 says God is “infinitely above everything that we can understand or say: he is the “hidden God”, his name is ineffable, and he is the God who makes himself close to men”.

If God is “infinitely above everything that we can understand” then it logically follows that anyone who thinks he understands God doesn’t know God. God doesn’t conceal himself, it would not be reckless for God to show himself, God is hidden simply because he is “infinitely above everything that we can understand”.

That does not follow, as in: if you knew everyone is always subject to the force of gravity you would be compelled to believe gravity exists and incapable of living a normal life.

And CCC 153 says “Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him”. So if God gave you that gift, it doesn’t follow that you’re now incapable of living a normal life. It doesn’t follow that Catholics are incapable of living a normal life. It doesn’t follow that God did not help six million Jews because that would somehow stop them or us leading a normal life.

The CCC index lists references to the miracles of Christ, the miracles of the disciples, and has one reference to miracles as a charism (“an extraordinary power (as of healing) given a Christian by the Holy Spirit for the good of the church” - Miriam-Webster).

I couldn’t find any reference to God himself intervening physically today, and the Apostles Creed says nothing of having to believe in a God who physically intervenes. So I think your low-level-miracles-but-not-enough-to-unambiguously-prove-God-exists theology is superfluous.
You omitted answering that again, so I think this isn’t a discussion any longer.

This ceased to be a discussion a long time ago when you started using such personal, idiosyncratic remarks as “your low-level-miracles-but-not-enough-to-unambiguously-prove-God-exists theology” and ignoring my statements and quotations (e.g. about Luther) instead of refuting them…

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I’m sure you don’t want to write a whole novel on the subject, and no it cannot be said that in every instance non-intervention can be justified.

We can stop right here. If there is even ONE instance of non-intervention that cannot be justified, then God cannot be said to be benevolent. Some non-interventions can be justified, there is no problem there. But if there is just one event which cannot be justified, that is the end of the story.

Neither can it be said non-intervention in every circumstance cannot be justified.

Huh? That is a contradiction.

It is a fact that there are circumstances in which non-intervention would be considered preferable and argued to be legitimate. This is not an argument that arises out of ignorance.

The argument from ignorance comes when someone says: “I cannot present an argument, but it CAN be that there is a valid argument”.

Beliefs are voluntary.

Please present a proof that you can volitionally change your belief that Rudolf, the red-nosed reindeer is a fictional character, and start to believe that it is an actual (though magical) animal. You believe something if you find the evidence compelling.

 

[tonyrey]

Stars inserted around the word PERSON by me… Here is your problem. GOD is not a person and though you can pretend to be God and be more righteous, considerate and loving than God, YOU are NOT… "As far as the east is from the west, so are my way different from your ways. I think one big problem we have in this world is trying to make God behave in ways we understand… God is so much more than our understanding and our explaining God is so lacking…

:thumbsup:No one has ever presented a feasible blueprint of a superior universe for the simple reason that any finite system is bound to be imperfect. It is easy to suggest piecemeal improvements but to explain how they are incorporated into a biosphere is a totally different proposition.

 

[tonyrey]

Please present a proof that you can volitionally change your belief that Rudolf, the red-nosed reindeer is a fictional character, and start to believe that it is an actual (though magical) animal. You believe something if you find the evidence compelling.

If we can never choose to modify our beliefs they are worthless. We are not biological machines but independent, rational beings with insight and self-control.

 

[tonyrey]

Beliefs are voluntary. Acceptance of factual evidence is not voluntary as what is blatant and obvious requires little in terms of evaluation and higher order thinking. Determining what is true - which is distinct from what is fact - requires at least degree of voluntary consent based on interpretations and evaluations of facts. You are of course free to reject this statement and present counter arguments to support your assertion beliefs are not voluntary. A good starting point may be, ‘Believing God is not indifferent’ is not a voluntary choice.’ Or alternatively, ‘Believing the earth is flat is not a voluntary choice.’

I personally have never encountered anyone who genuinely believes the earth is flat. I have however encountered individuals who claim those who do not believe in God are intellectually superior to those who do, and those who believe in God cannot possibly be intelligent on the ground believing God exists is not an intelligent belief. I would argue such individuals are making a voluntary choice. You of course are free to reject this argument and propose counter-arguments.

:clapping: If we cannot choose what to believe we cannot be responsible for any of our conclusions, decisions or actions.

 

[tonyrey]

Please present a proof that you can volitionally change your belief that Rudolf, the red-nosed reindeer is a fictional character, and start to believe that it is an actual (though magical) animal. You believe something if you find the evidence compelling.

A false dilemma. Usually evidence is not so compelling that it leaves no room for doubt. Dogmatism is a sign of intellectual inflexibility - and inferiority…

 

[tonyrey]

Beliefs are not voluntary.

If beliefs are not voluntary neither are our conclusions, actions or decisions. Why should they be** the sole exceptions** to our power of independent thought?

 

[minkymurph]

We can stop right here. If there is even ONE instance of non-intervention that cannot be justified, then God cannot be said to be benevolent. Some non-interventions can be justified, there is no problem there. But if there is just one event which cannot be justified, that is the end of the story.

I agree, we can stop right there - on the ground there will be no meeting of minds of this point of argument and even if there was any concession on either of our parts it would be a ‘paper concession’ neither of us genuinely endorse.

Huh? That is a contradiction.

I did say I do not profess to know why God would choose not to intervene. I also said there will inevitably be exceptions to every ‘general rule’ irrespective of how sound the rule is. If we assert this is not the case, we are asserting the ‘general rule’ we are endorsing is irrevocable and absolute in every circumstance. That is not a claim I would make in regard to any ‘general rule’ I would endorse in principle.

The argument from ignorance comes when someone says: “I cannot present an argument, but it CAN be that there is a valid argument”.

I don’t think I was saying, ‘I cannot I present and argument but it can be that there is a valid argument.’ I would concede valid arguments exist in regard to many issues that at present I am not aware of. If asserting this is possible constitutes presenting argument from ignorance I am guilty as charged - but I would say any rationale person willing to utilize their insight would concede valid arguments they personally are not aware of exist.

 

[inocente]

I personally have never encountered anyone who genuinely believes the earth is flat.

The Flat Earth Society

They have a forum where they argue that everyone but them is wrong, using a labyrinth patchwork of complicated theories. They obviously must have invested a great deal of their time inventing these theories. Perhaps they do it just to exasperate their opponents, or perhaps they genuinely believe the Earth is flat. But I think they never convert anyone nor does anyone convert them.

 

[minkymurph]

Please present a proof that you can volitionally change your belief that Rudolf, the red-nosed reindeer is a fictional character, and start to believe that it is an actual (though magical) animal. You believe something if you find the evidence compelling.

Why? The reason I ask is why would I present arguments for something I don’t believe to be true?

My assertion beliefs involve choice was made with reference to beliefs held by adults - those held by children merely seeking to indulge their imaginations. To my knowledge that was the intention behind the story of Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer, and not this will provide a society of people with a moral code that is beneficial to society in terms of promoting and regulating just and ethical dealings between its citizens.

It is true we form beliefs based on evidence. I prefer to use the term conclusions but for now we will categorize conclusions as beliefs. It cannot be said we never form beliefs in the absence of compelling evidence, and it cannot be said evidence is always compelling irrespective of the issue. There are also circumstances in which we are faced with competing beliefs that based on our evaluations may equally be true. To say this not the case is to say this circumstance does not and cannot exist.

There is evidence many individuals who believe in God are not only intelligent, but more intelligent than at a least some people who do not believe in God. This being the case, would you say it is at least possible someone who asserts, ‘People who believe in God are not intelligent’ is making this assertion based on what they would like to believe rendering it a voluntary choice as opposed to a legitimate conclusion they have drawn on serious evaluation of the evidence?

All this aside, let’s assume you are right - God is indifferent. Let’s further assume God is not capable of being anything other than indifference. If God is not capable of being anything other than indifferent, there is no fault. We cannot attribute fault where someone or ‘something’ - the something being God - is incapable of being moved to intervene.

You also said there is no benefit to believing in a benevolent God. Again - Let’s say you are right but we would be obliged to define what constitutes a ‘benefit’ as we cannot leave it open to interpretation. I would define a ‘benefit’ as something that is advantageous or good. Feel free to expand and refine. Is it advantageous and good to believe God is indifferent?

I have conceded you are right in that there are no benefits to believing in a benevolent God, and thus will not present any counter-arguments to any of your assertions. Personally speaking I think there is an element of futility in seeking to persuade another to accept something you don’t genuinely believe in yourself - unless of course the objective of the debate is not in fact to persuade another but simply demonstrate to yourself you are right. I would concede there is a degree of self satisfaction in such debates, but by the same token it can also serve to demonstrate you have control of the facts. If you can present an argument from one perspective or position only, it implies you do not have control of the facts.

I concede this is not my area of expertise but will attempt to outline the benefits of believing God is indifferent. Believing God is indifferent would relieve me of any responsibility to act benevolently - other than in circumstances where I feel I have something to gain by doing so. I can of course choose to do it simply out of kindness of my heart, but have no responsibility to act out of the kindness of my heart. I can set my own moral code, can instill my personal moral code into my children - subject to the law of the land of course in order to avoid fines or prison, I don’t have to justify my moral code to anyone other than in circumstances where I demand they adhere to it, I have no responsibility to defend any position even God is indifferent because I can choose not to care what others believe other than in circumstances where they attempt to impose what they believe to be to will or command of God on me, I am relieved of the responsibility of going to Mass and can instead do whatever I wish, I can hurt others if I choose to, believe it to be legitimate and there will be no repercussions, though of course I can choose not to simply out of the kindness of my heart, and I will never be held to account for anything I do in the after life because God is indifferent to anything I do. Feel free to strike the last comment given the existence of an after life doesn’t appear to be a point of contention.

How am I doing?

 

[minkymurph]

The Flat Earth Society

They have a forum where they argue that everyone but them is wrong, using a labyrinth patchwork of complicated theories. They obviously must have invested a great deal of their time inventing these theories. Perhaps they do it just to exasperate their opponents, or perhaps they genuinely believe the Earth is flat. But I think they never convert anyone nor does anyone convert them.

I have heard of The Flat Earth Society and someone wants to believe the earth is flat they are free to do so. Where you don’t seek to convert anyone else and insist it is taught in schools as fact no harm in it as far as I see. The only person I know who is member joined for a laugh because he likes arguing things that in his view are bizarre.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Why? The reason I ask is why would I present arguments for something I don’t believe to be true?

To support what you just said: “Beliefs are volitional”. If beliefs were truly volitional, then they would be subject to be changed if you would choose to do it. Even to something that you currently reject as nonsense. To choose or not to choose is a volitional act. To believe or not believe happens in the subconscious, and we have no direct control over it.

There is evidence many individuals who believe in God are not only intelligent, but more intelligent than at a least some people who do not believe in God.

No one has “dibs” on intelligence. I am genuinely astonished that some very intelligent people are capable to suspend their rationality, they are able to redefine words and concepts when it comes to their deity. They are fine when the conversation is about some other people’s deity (who are also intelligent!); they can point out the irrational arguments, but when it comes to their own, they pluck their fingers into their ears and chant: “I can’t hear you!”

All this aside, let’s assume you are right - God is indifferent. Let’s further assume God is not capable of being anything other than indifference.

It does not matter. Whether God is incapable of anything than indifference, or he chose to be indifferent, in neither case does he merit worship.

You also said there is no benefit to believing in a benevolent God.

I don’t remember I said that. I don’t remember that I said anything about “benefit”. Can you quote me saying that?

I concede this is not my area of expertise but will attempt to outline the benefits of believing God is indifferent. Believing God is indifferent would relieve me of any responsibility to act benevolently - other than in circumstances where I feel I have something to gain by doing so.

Correct. Also relieves you of the frustration of not doing things that you might want to do, but dare dot to do it. I met several people who said that the only reason they do not commit all sorts of mayhems, do not engage in all sorts of sexual practices is that they fear God’s wrath. Scary thought that they might have been honest about it.

I can of course choose to do it simply out of kindness of my heart, but have no responsibility to act out of the kindness of my heart.

Except the kindness of your heart compels you. And that is a very good thing. We are never “free” of our basic personality.

I can set my own moral code, can instill my personal moral code into my children - subject to the law of the land of course in order to avoid fines or prison, I don’t have to justify my moral code to anyone other than in circumstances where I demand they adhere to it, I have no responsibility to defend any position even God is indifferent because I can choose not to care what others believe other than in circumstances where they attempt to impose what they believe to be to will or command of God on me, I am relieved of the responsibility of going to Mass and can instead do whatever I wish, I can hurt others if I choose to, believe it to be legitimate and there will be no repercussions, though of course I can choose not to simply out of the kindness of my heart, and I will never be held to account for anything I do in the after life because God is indifferent to anything I do.

Except the kindness of your heart, AND the desire to avoid punishment due to the laws of society.

How am I doing?

You are doing just fine.

 

[minkymurph]

To support what you just said: “Beliefs are volitional”. If beliefs were truly volitional, then they would be subject to be changed if you would choose to do it. Even to something that you currently reject as nonsense. To choose or not to choose is a volitional act. To believe or not believe happens in the subconscious, and we have no direct control over it.

I would concede we can’t control our thoughts, but we do have an element of control over what we believe. As a convert to Catholicism I wold have to state beliefs are and should be subject to be change. If beliefs were involuntary my conversion to Catholicism would not have been possible.

I could list many examples in which I personally would uncertain as to what is true - distinct from what is fact. Thus, on this point we have to agree to differ.

No one has “dibs” on intelligence.

I agree - but based on my observations there are people who choose to believe others are not intelligent.

I am genuinely astonished that some very intelligent people are capable to suspend their rationality, they are able to redefine words and concepts when it comes to their deity. They are fine when the conversation is about some other people’s deity (who are also intelligent!); they can point out the irrational arguments, but when it comes to their own, they pluck their fingers into their ears and chant: “I can’t hear you!”

Well, it’s not something that astonishes me. Politics is another area where people choose to put their fingers in their ears when it comes to criticisms of their own position yet have no difficulty pointing out the failings of others. I live in Northern Ireland - need I say more?

It does not matter. Whether God is incapable of anything than indifference, or he chose to be indifferent, in neither case does he merit worship.

Ok you’ve got me confused. If God is not or may not be indifferent, would this not render the hypothesis He is indifferent untrue?

I don’t remember I said that. I don’t remember that I said anything about “benefit”. Can you quote me saying that?

Nope - it’s an implied interpretation of your assertion bad things happen to good people. The interpretation being there is no point to believing in a benevolent God as He is indifferent and thus won’t do anything for you. I’m happy to strike if you desire.

Correct. Also relieves you of the frustration of not doing things that you might want to do, but dare dot to do it. I met several people who said that the only reason they do not commit all sorts of mayhems, do not engage in all sorts of sexual practices is that they fear God’s wrath. Scary thought that they might have been honest about it.

I would say that’s not the best reason not to commit mayhem or engage in certain sexual practices. Fear of punishment is a deterrent, can be a good deterrent and one that brings benefits in terms - among other things - curtailing harm, but fully embracing what we believe to be true and commitment to it for our own benefit and that of others is more fulfilling.

Except the kindness of your heart compels you. And that is a very good thing. We are never “free” of our basic personality.

I would agree we are never free of our basic personality.

As to the kindness of the heart, I did say I wouldn’t rebut your arguments through counter argument, but I did not say I wouldn’t reject an assumption. There are days when my heart is not open to being very kind and highly unlikely to run away with me. I cannot of course speak for anyone else, but as an educated guess I would say I am not alone.

You are doing just fine.

Glad to be of assistance - and also demonstrate a sane person can make sound arguments that endorses something they don’t believe. Unless of course you wish to argue I am insane and who knows - you may have a point. :whacky:

Would you like reciprocate the gesture and argue the benefits of believing in a benevolent God?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Would you like reciprocate the gesture and argue the benefits of believing in a benevolent God?

Certainly. For those who do believe that God exists and is benevolent, there are many subjective benefits. Don’t forget, I used to be a believer myself. Just a few that come to my mind:

• A strong belief that there is an afterlife, and that belief is very reassuring.
• Also the belief that you meet again with your deceased loved ones.
• The belief that you will be rewarded in the next life.
• The belief that the suffering in this life is just temporary, and it is irrelevant compared to the eternal “bliss”.

**There are many, many more. **But they are all perceived, subjective benefits. God does not give you “brownie points” in this life. Belief does not make you smarter, stronger, healthier, wealthier, happier etc…

The “only” trouble is that all these perceived benefits are the results of blind faith. There is no evidence of an afterlife. But blind faith can be reassuring. And since it is blind, it is impervious to falsification.

Many people prefer this kind of faith compared to the harsh reality. Personally, I prefer the reality. But each 'is own.

 

[minkymurph]

Certainly. For those who do believe that God exists and is benevolent, there are many subjective benefits. Don’t forget, I used to be a believer myself. Just a few that come to my mind:

• A strong belief that there is an afterlife, and that belief is very reassuring.
• Also the belief that you meet again with your deceased loved ones.
• The belief that you will be rewarded in the next life.
• The belief that the suffering in this life is just temporary, and it is irrelevant compared to the eternal “bliss”.

**There are many, many more. **But they are all perceived, subjective benefits. God does not give you “brownie points” in this life. Belief does not make you smarter, stronger, healthier, wealthier, happier etc…

I am someone who tends to avoid sweeping generalizations. The reason is sweeping generalizations will be true in some circumstances, but will always fail I am sure you are familiar with the ‘all a’s are b’s, all b’s are c’s therefore all c’s are a’s’ logic.

Belief does not make you smarter, but then enhancing our intelligence is not the purpose of belief. It will not make you wealthier, but neither is this the purpose of belief. I do believe it has the potential to make you happier and subsequently healthier, but would concede it does not follow persuading another to accept what we believe will guarantee they will be happier and healthier, but I would also say where we seek to persuade another of our beliefs this is not necessarily our objective.

I don’t see the practice of faith in this life as a means of accumulating ‘brownie points’ with God. I do believe that in the absence of faith the fulfillment of life cannot be reached. I believe this on the ground those who possess belief are inspired to do things as a consequence. Knowing a fact may have some potential to inspire, but infinitely less. A negative in the sense of believing something is false has little potential to inspire. In short, belief is fundamental to inspiration and being pro-active, and inspired, pro-active individuals have greater potential to live fulfilling lives, and enhance the fulfillment of others lives.

I agree beliefs are subjective, but the fact they are subjective does not necessarily invalidate them completely. There are also circumstances in which a subjective rather than objective approach is preferable.