God is indifferent

[minkymurph]

When you said “We believe”, I thought you meant Catholics.

I think used the term ‘we’ was used in the context of anyone who believes in God in general.

I’m happy to amend if you think it is inaccurate.

The term ‘we’ refers to anyone who believes there is a God irrespective the faith with which they affiliate or in fact do not affiliate with any one faith with the exception of those who reject the belief He incorporated law and conscience into our nature.

 

[inocente]

I think used the term ‘we’ was used in the context of anyone who believes in God in general.

I’m happy to amend if you think it is inaccurate.

The term ‘we’ refers to anyone who believes there is a God irrespective the faith with which they affiliate or in fact do not affiliate with any one faith with the exception of those who reject the belief He incorporated law and conscience into our nature.

I like revising statements too, so I’ll add my :twocents:

Paul says (speaking of everyone): “They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.”

The secular UDHR also says all human beings have a conscience.

Neuroscience also confirms moral cognition. Can’t think of any religion or philosophy which disagrees that we all have a conscience.

So my suggested revision is that by all accounts, morality and conscience are intrinsic and fundamental elements of what it is to be human, whether or not everyone accepts that.

 

[minkymurph]

So my suggested revision is that by all accounts, morality and conscience are intrinsic and fundamental elements of what it is to be human, whether or not everyone accepts that.

I would agree.

 

[tonyrey]

Then if God is indifferent both of you seem to be made in His image and likeness.

I hope I’m mistaken…:console:

There’s plenty of evidence God isn’t indifferent judging by the number of opportunities for development, enjoyment and fulfilment there are in the world - and would be if everyone really loved one another…

 

[tonyrey]

I would concede we can’t control our thoughts…

We can control our thoughts to a large extent if we practise self-hypnosis - as I know from personal experience and the experiences of others. We are certainly not helpless victims of our genes and environment who are not responsible for our mental activity!

 

[minkymurph]

We can control our thoughts to a large extent if we practise self-hypnosis - as I know from personal experience and the experiences of others. We are certainly not helpless victims of our genes and environment who are not responsible for our mental activity!

The statement ‘we cannot control our thoughts’ was not intended to infer we are helpless victims of our genes and environment and not responsible for our mental activity.

The point of argument being discussed when I made this statement was voluntariness and belief, and I was seeking to demonstrate the process of belief distinctly differs from the process of thought. We can of course control how we interpret thoughts and the extent and manner to which we deliberate on thoughts, but by and large we can’t control every thought that comes into our heads. We cannot control what we dream though some have argued we have an element of control over lucid dreams. We cannot prevent every thought we would prefer not to have arising spontaneously. In fact, the average human has many thoughts they are not aware they are having. Further to this, we can in fact carry out acts without being aware of it. (Automatism). The same cannot be said of belief. Beliefs don’t spontaneously spring into our heads and we are not unaware of what we believe.

Can’t comment on controlling thought through self hypnosis as I don’t know anything about it other than some find it beneficial in controlling anxiety or obsessive intrusive thoughts - not so much to eradicate the actual thoughts but the extent to which they exert their control over the one having them? Is this correct?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So my suggested revision is that by all accounts, morality and conscience are intrinsic and fundamental elements of what it is to be human, whether or not everyone accepts that.

Very true, however, the source of morality and conscience have a simple and secular origin: they come from our upbringing. (Of course it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.)

 

[inocente]

Very true, however, the source of morality and conscience have a simple and secular origin: they come from our upbringing. (Of course it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.)

You’ll get no argument from me. I think it smacks of desperation to claim we couldn’t know good and evil without believing in God.

Suppose we were told that God commands us to torture children for the good of our souls. We’d immediately know that’s wrong. We know God would never command anything so evil. Which proves that we know it’s evil whether or not God tells us. No normal person needs God to tell us that torturing children is evil.

(variant on Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma)

 

[tonyrey]

Very true, however, the source of morality and conscience have a simple and secular origin: they come from our upbringing. (Of course it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.)

If the source of morality and conscience come solely from our upbringing one set of values is as good as another. In other words they are worthless.

 

[tonyrey]

The statement ‘we cannot control our thoughts’ was not intended to infer we are helpless victims of our genes and environment and not responsible for our mental activity.

The point of argument being discussed when I made this statement was voluntariness and belief, and I was seeking to demonstrate the process of belief distinctly differs from the process of thought. We can of course control how we interpret thoughts and the extent and manner to which we deliberate on thoughts, but by and large we can’t control every thought that comes into our heads. We cannot control what we dream though some have argued we have an element of control over lucid dreams. We cannot prevent every thought we would prefer not to have arising spontaneously. In fact, the average human has many thoughts they are not aware they are having. Further to this, we can in fact carry out acts without being aware of it. (Automatism). The same cannot be said of belief. Beliefs don’t spontaneously spring into our heads and we are not unaware of what we believe.

I entirely agree. The fatal flaw in materialism is its implication that we lack free will and self-control because they would violate the law of conservation of energy. Our beliefs would be simply habits - like instincts which are notoriously unreliable.

Can’t comment on controlling thought through self hypnosis as I don’t know anything about it other than some find it beneficial in controlling anxiety or obsessive intrusive thoughts - not so much to eradicate the actual thoughts but the extent to which they exert their control over the one having them? Is this correct?

Yes but we can also change our beliefs and mental habits by the power of suggestion. We are not slaves of our heredity and environment incapable of deliberately changing our attitude towards ourselves or others.

 

[minkymurph]

Yes but we can also change our beliefs and mental habits by the power of suggestion. We are not slaves of our heredity and environment incapable of deliberately changing our attitude towards ourselves or others.

What immediately comes into my mind is the, ‘Whatever you do don’t think of elephant’ argument. When you say that to someone they can do nothing but think of an elephant and try as they might this image of a big grey think with a trunk sticks in their mind.

Is that why atheists keep telling us there is no God? Like a form of hypnosis in that if they keep telling us often enough we will believe there is no God? Ooops- not believe there is a God.

Being serious -

The power of suggestion is a powerful. The most effective advocates are those highly skilled in the power of persuasion. I would agree we can change our beliefs and mental habits by the power of suggestion. There must however be a will to do it. I have heard it said you cannot be hypnotized to anything against your will?

 

[tonyrey]

What immediately comes into my mind is the, ‘Whatever you do don’t think of elephant’ argument. When you say that to someone they can do nothing but think of an elephant and try as they might this image of a big grey think with a trunk sticks in their mind.

Is that why atheists keep telling us there is no God? Like a form of hypnosis in that if they keep telling us often enough we will believe there is no God? Ooops- not believe there is a God.

Even the suggestion that you can do nothing but think of an elephant has a very limited duration. The impact of advertising is due to repetition but even then it may have an adverse effect if it becomes excessive.

The power of suggestion is a powerful. The most effective advocates are those highly skilled in the power of persuasion. I would agree we can change our beliefs and mental habits by the power of suggestion. There must however be a will to do it. I have heard it said you cannot be hypnotized to anything against your will?

If you’re not aware you’re being hypnotized you may do something you wouldn’t normally do unless you are convinced it would be wrong - such as killing some one. Fortunately hypnosis is generally used for beneficial purposes like giving up smoking or curing a mental disorder. I used to wake up in the night choking for breath until a hypnotist discovered it was nearly dying of diphtheria when I was a small child. I remember her taking me back in time as if I were looking down on myself from the sky.

I had a similar experience when I nearly drowned but it wasn’t due to hypnosis. I had swallowed so much water I must have been about to die because everything seemed remote. All I could think about was what my mother would say when she knew I was dead. That thought made me force myself to float on my back even though I was still too terrified to turn over in the choppy sea and do the backstroke to the beach against an outgoing tide. This happened long before I practised self-hypnosis, visited the hypnotist or saw yogi in India with knives in their cheeks and tongues…

 

[John_Martin]

God is not indifferent to anything, but intimately knowing everything and each individual thing eternally in one knowing.
Our job is to join him in a specific knowing, so that we experience his intimate concern - we only know one thing at a time, and can join God in a single point of his knowing, even though he is always knowing all.

You join God in a specific knowing by calling to his mind and yours a specific point of his knowing, such as Abraham’s servant called God to remember his knowing of Abraham, in which knowing there was favor and blessing: (from Genesis 24):** "12 And he said, “O LORD, God of my master Abraham, please grant me success today and show steadfast love to my master Abraham. "**
When God hears this prayer, both you and he are now focused on Abraham, and God loves Abraham in his knowing, and as the servant asks, God is going to now show steadfast love to Abraham in this specific knowing that he and the servant are participating in, and grant success to the servant, whose master is Abraham, and God loves Abraham in his knowing.

If the servant joined God in knowing some other knowing of God, “God who punished the people of Babel, hear me…” he would have joined God in a knowing of wrath, and that knowing is not a pleasant place.

Where do you join God when you pray? Prayer is ascension into God, into an individual knowing of God. He does not change in any of his knowing, but you can change, choose, where in his knowing you meet him.

 

[tonyrey]

God is not indifferent to anything, but intimately knowing everything and each individual thing eternally in one knowing.
Our job is to join him in a specific knowing, so that we experience his intimate concern - we only know one thing at a time, and can join God in a single point of his knowing, even though he is always knowing all.

You join God in a specific knowing by calling to his mind and yours a specific point of his knowing, such as Abraham’s servant called God to remember his knowing of Abraham, in which knowing there was favor and blessing: (from Genesis 24):** "12 And he said, “O LORD, God of my master Abraham, please grant me success today and show steadfast love to my master Abraham. "**
When God hears this prayer, both you and he are now focused on Abraham, and God loves Abraham in his knowing, and as the servant asks, God is going to now show steadfast love to Abraham in this specific knowing that he and the servant are participating in, and grant success to the servant, whose master is Abraham, and God loves Abraham in his knowing.

If the servant joined God in knowing some other knowing of God, “God who punished the people of Babel, hear me…” he would have joined God in a knowing of wrath, and that knowing is not a pleasant place.

Where do you join God when you pray? Prayer is ascension into God, into an individual knowing of God. He does not change in any of his knowing, but you can change, choose, where in his knowing you meet him.

The problem with the concept of a wrathful God who punishes the guilty and innocent alike is that it seems unjust. Why should people suffer when they have done nothing wrong and are innocent?

 

[John_Martin]

The problem with the concept of a wrathful God who punishes the guilty and innocent alike is that it seems unjust. Why should people suffer when they have done nothing wrong and are innocent?

The people of Babel were not innocent, not doing justice to the Lord, whose Name is ‘I AM’. They sought to make a Name for themselves, a Shem for themselves, rather than humbly knowing that ‘I AM’ gave his Name, his Shem, to the son of Noah.

In Sodom, the LORD did not punish the so called ‘innocent’ with the guilty, but called them to a different place - In God, he always knows himself destroying Sodom, and always knows himself sparing Lot and his Family.
Are you angrily re-membering an angry God over Babel or as Angels of ‘I AM’ in Sodom?
Or are you re-membering ‘I AM’ in his mercy to Lot, his friendship with Abraham, his Father hood to Jesus, etc.

God is always wrathful and always merciful, and he sends his messengers to call us to re-position ourselves into the light of his mercy.

 

[tonyrey]

The problem with the concept of a wrathful God who punishes the guilty and innocent alike is that it seems unjust. Why should people suffer when they have done nothing wrong and are innocent?

The key words in your response are:

“In Sodom, the LORD did not punish the so called ‘innocent’ with the guilty, but called them to a different place.”

I was misled by “The people of Babel were not innocent” which gives the impression that they were all to blame.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

False! God doesn’t have the power and knowledge to make it whatever he wants if He respects the freedom of His creatures… Not only that. In a complex, orderly world there are bound to be events which are dysteleological, i.e. purposeless.

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.

In a Godless universe “good and bad” are merely human ideas. If everything exists by chance there is no reason to regard anything as positive or negative. Things would just exist purposelessly.

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.

All our conclusions are worthless if our intelligence is the product of blind forces. GIGO

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.

There is no such thing as “rational conclusion” in an irrational universe, i.e. one which just happens to exist for no reason. That is a logical conclusion reached by two atheists, Camus and Sartre, who pointed out that everything is absurd in a universe which exists by chance.