God is indifferent

[Vera_Ljuba]

Thing is, you guys debate the god of the philosophers but that’s not what people believe.

That is an interesting observation. Most people simply do not think about the details, they simply live according to what they have been told in their formative years.

There was no problem until (almost) all people believed in the Christian God. The problems started when some people wanted to make this belief rational. These philosophers wanted to reconcile the abyss between “faith” and “reason”. But of course this attempt is futile. If you can demonstrate something rationally, there is no need for faith. And similarly, if you need faith, it is not rational.

Or you can think that what you loved most was taken by blind forces, statistics. But if you work through the logic of that without flinching, it follows that life is meaningless, reality is absurd.

Well, just because life has no intrinsic value, reality is not absurd. We can give meaning to our lives.

Either way, whatever you think, you could be fooling yourself. If you think there are only blind forces then there’s no point at all trying to convince others of that, since all humans could die off tomorrow and nothing will care. Just enjoy the ride, for the ride is all there is.

The ride is mostly enjoyable. That is why it is absurd to imagine that God is malevolent. But there is enough “bad stuff” out there to believe that God is NOT benevolent either. The only rational conclusion is that God is indifferent, if he exists at all.

But most people hope maybe there is some reason that makes sense of it all.

And that is quite understandable. After all Linus van Pelt needs his security blanket.

 

[rinnie]

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?

The reason we cannot discuss these propositions is they do not exist. There is no such thing as Evil when it comes to God Almighty.

Also we know God does not work the way you are trying to make him work.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

And if I do the same and there IS a hereafter…well, lucky me.

It would be nice… but I doubt it. We cannot “earn” our way to heaven. “Works without faith” does not count.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The reason we cannot discuss these propositions is they do not exist. There is no such thing as Evil when it comes to God Almighty.

The easiest way to “solve” a problem is to define it out of existence, and then - using the old-fashioned doublethink - deny that any re-definition took place.

Also we know God does not work the way you are trying to make him work.

And that is the problem! In my neck of the woods one is not called “benevolent” if one can prevent gratuitous suffering, but does NOT do it.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Not my God. Were he indifferent, the incaration would have never happened.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Not my God. Were he indifferent, the incaration would have never happened.

Even if someone accepts this as correct (and you really should not expect any non-Christian to accept it) there is no visible impact in this life, HERE and NOW. The rain still falls on the righteous and wicked alike, good believers are not rewarded in THIS life, nor do wicked atheists punished in THIS life.

Life, here and now has both positive and negative aspects. If God would be malevolent, he would remove the good things, if God would be benevolent, he would remove the bad things. And if someone would ask “WHY” would God act like this, the answer is simple: because that is what makes anyone malevolent or benevolent.

 

[fhansen]

Even if someone accepts this as correct (and you really should not expect any non-Christian to accept it) there is no visible impact in this life, HERE and NOW. The rain still falls on the righteous and wicked alike, good believers are not rewarded in THIS life, nor do wicked atheists punished in THIS life.

Life, here and now has both positive and negative aspects. If God would be malevolent, he would remove the good things, if God would be benevolent, he would remove the bad things. And if someone would ask “WHY” would God act like this, the answer is simple: because that is what makes anyone malevolent or benevolent.

People can be malevolent regardless of how good they have it. That’s one lesson of the story of the Fall, proved, IMO, by what we observe in life here and now.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The promise of eternal death and eternal nothingness is the best rebuttal to atheism. Who likes a philosophy that is a curse on eternal life?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

People can be malevolent regardless of how good they have it. That’s one lesson of the story of the Fall, proved, IMO, by what we observe in life here and now.

Nothing can happen in this existence, if God does NOT allow it. A malevolent God would not allow good things to happen. A benevolent God would not allow bad things happen. An indifferent God allows both good and bad to happen… because he does not care.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Nothing can happen in this existence, if God does NOT allow it. A malevolent God would not allow good things to happen. A benevolent God would not allow bad things happen. An indifferent God allows both good and bad to happen… because he does not care.

And, with respect, what makes a human believe he or she can say what God allows or doesnt allow?

You have yet to prove God, ( do you believe there is God), is indifferent.

Your argument atm is akin to

‘All Paint breds are coloured horses, yet not all coloured horses are Paint bred.’

 

[fhansen]

Nothing can happen in this existence, if God does NOT allow it. A malevolent God would not allow good things to happen. A benevolent God would not allow bad things happen. An indifferent God allows both good and bad to happen… because he does not care.

OR, He wants* us* to do the caring in our world, to be His hands-or not. And this mess provides the perfect opportunity.

 

[inocente]

That is an interesting observation. Most people simply do not think about the details, they simply live according to what they have been told in their formative years.

There was no problem until (almost) all people believed in the Christian God. The problems started when some people wanted to make this belief rational. These philosophers wanted to reconcile the abyss between “faith” and “reason”. But of course this attempt is futile. If you can demonstrate something rationally, there is no need for faith. And similarly, if you need faith, it is not rational.

Agreed that we live by faith, not by sight. And that we tend to post-rationalize. But I think there is no logic which can start from Christ and end up at an unmoved mover. They are different conceptions. One is a person, the other a theory.

Well, just because life has no intrinsic value, reality is not absurd. We can give meaning to our lives.

Sure, but I meant absurd as in Camus. When the last human has died, nothing will notice that we came and went. Our lives, so full of meaning to us, yet totally meaningless when we’re gone. Nothing even capable of noticing. Going back to that song, we find it absurd to think that our daughter’s death counts for absolutely nothing. It’s a logical possibility, yet most of us don’t live as if that could possibly be true.

The ride is mostly enjoyable. That is why it is absurd to imagine that God is malevolent. But there is enough “bad stuff” out there to believe that God is NOT benevolent either. The only rational conclusion is that God is indifferent, if he exists at all.

But that also ends in absurdity, as above.

And that is quite understandable. After all Linus van Pelt needs his security blanket.

Though I think everyone has her own security blanket. You say “life has no intrinsic value”. In which case the grieving mother in that song can only find her own meaning to her daughter’s death. An atheist mother presumably would find some other meaning, but if “life has no intrinsic value”, neither can claim she has the true meaning.

“She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist.” - Sartre

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

OR, He wants* us* to do the caring in our world, to be His hands-or not. And this mess provides the perfect opportunity.

That is just another sign of non-caring. We are - obviously - NOT qualified to deal with all the “bad stuff”. We simply do not have the wherewithal. If God would let us deal with the things we are capable of addressing, and would actively interfere with the rest, then your objection would have some merit.

An analogy might help. Suppose your have two children, a toddler and a 5 years old. If you care about the toddler, you would not abandon them and hope that the 5 years old will be your absent “hands” and will provide the necessary nutrition (etc…) for the toddler. Everyone would call you uncaring at least, but maybe worse.

 

[fhansen]

That is just another sign of non-caring. We are - obviously - NOT qualified to deal with all the “bad stuff”. We simply do not have the wherewithal. If God would let us deal with the things we are capable of addressing, and would actively interfere with the rest, then your objection would have some merit.

An analogy might help. Suppose your have two children, a toddler and a 5 years old. If you care about the toddler, you would not abandon them and hope that the 5 years old will be your absent “hands” and will provide the necessary nutrition (etc…) for the toddler. Everyone would call you uncaring at least, but maybe worse.

But few of even do all we could do to right the wrongs in this world-even the slightest effort.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Agreed that we live by faith, not by sight. And that we tend to post-rationalize. But I think there is no logic which can start from Christ and end up at an unmoved mover. They are different conceptions. One is a person, the other a theory.

Well, the theory is supposed to describe what that person is capable of doing. Of course it goes both ways, there is no “path” from the unmoved mover to Christ. But my criticism works for both. After all Jesus was alleged to do all sorts of miracles, and he is supposed to care about us.

Sure, but I meant absurd as in Camus.

I really cannot understand why you bring up Camus and/or Sartre, as if they would be the true representative of all the atheists; as if their views would be the only logical corollary of atheism. I (for one) most emphatically reject their nihilism.

Suppose that the current cosmology is correct, and eventually the universe will end in heat-death. That will not make all our efforts meaningless. The value is in the journey, not the destination. When we die, we all “linger on” in the memories of those whose lives we touched. Sure, it is limited, but everything is limited, entropy takes care of that.

When the last human has died, nothing will notice that we came and went. Our lives, so full of meaning to us, yet totally meaningless when we’re gone. Nothing even capable of noticing. Going back to that song, we find it absurd to think that our daughter’s death counts for absolutely nothing. It’s a logical possibility, yet most of us don’t live as if that could possibly be true.

Not all logical possibilities should be considered seriously. It is a logical possibility that a brick will fall on our head next time we take a walk, yet no one of a sane mind would take that into consideration, and stay in their house.

Though I think everyone has her own security blanket. You say “life has no intrinsic value”. In which case the grieving mother in that song can only find her own meaning to her daughter’s death. An atheist mother presumably would find some other meaning, but if “life has no intrinsic value”, neither can claim she has the true meaning.

I have no idea what that “true meaning” is supposed to be. No one has ever explained it to me. As for the song, I would add a line to the end:
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
Because Jesus does not care

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

But few of even do all we could do to right the wrongs in this world-even the slightest effort.

That does not exonerate God’s indifference.

 

[goout]

That does not exonerate God’s indifference.

You have a problem with “bad” but not with “good”.

You only want to hold God accountable for your side of the ledger. “Bad” is proof of indifference, but “good” is not?
Holding someone accountable means holding the whole person accountable, not just the side you wish. That becomes arbitrary persecution, not truthful accounting.

How is that consistent or reasonable?
(I’m assuming you want your point of view to be well reasoned?)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Accepting the idea of an unmoved mover is, for those who do not know Christ, the first step toward Christ. Aquinas saw this in both Plato and Aristotle; and later Greeks, prepped by their philosophers, were primed to take many more steps toward Christ after the resurrection when they realized that Christ was indeed the Unmoved Mover.

 

[tonyrey]

That does not exonerate God’s indifference.

The assumption that God never intervenes implies insight and knowledge no one possesses as well as ignoring many accounts of miraculous healing in answer to prayer.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You have a problem with “bad” but not with “good”.

No, I have no problem at all. If someone would argue that God is “evil”, I would point out the good things that exists. But you guys assert that God is benevolent, so - obviously - the bad things need to be pointed out.

Maybe you did not even read the OP. There are many good things in the world - therefore God is not “malevolent”. But there are also many bad things in the world, so God is not “benevolent” either. What remains? If a being is not malevolent and not benevolent, then the only remaining option is: “indifferent”.

That is not a value judgment about God, after all I don’t believe that God exists. It is a value judgment about YOU (the believers in general) who are inconsistent and unreasonable. You wish to praise God for all the good stuff, but wish to blame others (the devil and humans) for the bad stuff. And also argue that God is supreme, and whatever he WANTS, will happen, and whatever he DOES NOT WANT, will not happen. If there would be a sign on God’s desk, it would read: “The buck stops here!”