God is indifferent

[Roseeurekacross]

Why do you expect God to spoon feed humanity?

So again

Offer real proof on the title of this thread. All I am reading is rhetoric and reasons to own diminished responsibility.

 

[tonyrey]

No, I have no problem at all. If someone would argue that God is “evil”, I would point out the good things that exists.

Without giving a** reason **for the distinction between good and evil… Human convention?
In a Godless universe what is the rational basis for the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity?

 

[tonyrey]

That does not exonerate God’s indifference.

How could everything be perfect in a world with natural laws? An earthly paradise is an infantile fantasy for which no feasible blueprint has ever been produced…

 

[goout]

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!”

Ok then.
Indifference does not create. Indifference does nothing.
Yet you exist, not of your doing. How exactly do you find indifference when you have existence?
Indifference can be said to be worse than malevolence.

 

[inocente]

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.

The concept of the unmoved mover is part of Aristotle’s attempt to explain motion and change. It’s as far from a person as the east is from the west .

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.

I bring them up because you said “life has no intrinsic value”, which is exactly the definition of existential nihilism - “the philosophical theory that life has no intrinsic meaning or value”.

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.

Maybe you didnt intend it, but that sounds a bit like the “we live as long as we’re remembered” security blanket meme.

The fact is that if you’re right and “life has no intrinsic value”, then meaning has no foundation. That changes the basis for just about everything, including morality. Existence precedes essence. Camus and Sartre take that to its logical conclusion, without flinching, without any security blankets.

*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. *

I meant we all know it’s logically possible our daughter’s life and death are meaningless, but none of us live as if it is.

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

I’m saying that if the mother finds meaning in Jesus caring, you’ve denied yourself any opportunity to argue she’s wrong, as you’ve already said “life has no intrinsic value”. Without any objective values, she has as much right to find her own values as you. You done sawed off the logic branch you’re sitting on.

(Even then, the mother never claims that Jesus cares. She claims only that there is a law of nature that “we cannot have all things to please us”, and that we cannot fathom why it’s a law until we’ve all gone to Jesus).

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Ok then.
Indifference does not create. Indifference does nothing.

Why so? Indifference simply means that the creator does not care about the subjective well-being of its creation. The creator may very well “care” about the experiment itself, just not the participants in the process. If a researcher wishes to develop a new drug, and tests the new concoction, he does not care about the Petri-dish’s inhabitant’s “well being”. Of course this leads to another problem for the believers. Only an idiot would perform an experiment, if the result would be already known. So much for “omniscience”

Yet you exist, not of your doing. How exactly do you find indifference when you have existence?

Actually, it was my parents’ doing. And they were NOT indifferent to my well-being. They did all they could do to help me to stay healthy. well-fed, and happy.

Indifference can be said to be worse than malevolence.

Interesting concept, but I don’t share it. A malevolent person would perform acts which are painful or unpleasant for the target. A benevolent experimenter would perform acts which are pleasant or beneficial to the target. An indifferent creator allows or performs both.

 

[goout]

Why so?

Because indifference doesn’t create anything. Indifference is not love.
Love is a will for the good of another. It “goes out” in creativity. You can probably see that is opposed to indifference.

We exist.
We did not create ourselves.
Therefore something “other” gave us our being. We call that God, and so God cannot be indifferent, else you wouldn’t be here.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I bring them up because you said “life has no intrinsic value”, which is exactly the definition of existential nihilism - “the philosophical theory that life has no intrinsic meaning or value”.

What is the problem? “Value” is a meaningless word if there is no “valuer” who does the valuation. And even then, just what is this nebulous “value”? I am aware of monetary value, but I doubt that this is what some philosophers intend to say.

Maybe you didnt intend it, but that sounds a bit like the “we live as long as we’re remembered” security blanket meme.

Maybe “sounds like”, but not equal. The correct expression would be something: “as long as we are remembered we have a kind of continued pseudo-existence”. And I cannot fathom why would this be called a security blanket.

The fact is that if you’re right and “life has no intrinsic value”, then meaning has no foundation.

I wonder what is the “meaning” of the “meaning” in your usage? It is an interesting subject to explore. Many books have been written about it.

That changes the basis for just about everything, including morality. Existence precedes essence.

Existence is a meaningful word (with several “meanings” ), “essence” is not. What is the “essence” of a cow, and how does it differ from the essence of a sheep, or a yak? Of course I am aware of the definition that “essence” is “what makes something what it is”, but I have never seen this empty concept filled up with “meat”. It is one of those concoctions that philosophers create to hide that fact that they have nothing to say. (Obviously I am familiar with a “rum-essence”. )

I’m saying that if the mother finds meaning in Jesus caring, you’ve denied yourself any opportunity to argue she’s wrong, as you’ve already said “life has no intrinsic value”. Without any objective values, she has as much right to find her own values as you. You done sawed off the logic branch you’re sitting on.

I never denied her right to develop her own “value”-system.

Even then, the mother never claims that Jesus cares. She claims only that there is a law of nature that “we cannot have all things to please us”, and that we cannot fathom why it’s a law until we’ve all gone to Jesus.

Why would anyone worship someone who does not care?

 

[inocente]

What is the problem? “Value” is a meaningless word if there is no “valuer” who does the valuation. And even then, just what is this nebulous “value”? I am aware of monetary value, but I doubt that this is what some philosophers intend to say.

It’s not a problem, but you said you reject nihilism, yet you also said “life has no intrinsic value”, which is exactly the definition of existential nihilism - the belief that all values are baseless, and so all values are ultimately subjective.

You mention monetary value, which is as good an example as any. If you were the last person alive, you’d have all the money in the world, but it’s worthless, it would no longer have any value. It was only other people who collectively gave it value. You can’t even steal it if there’s no one to own it.

So if you’re right and “life has no intrinsic value”, is murder the same? Is it just other people who collectively give being alive a value? Those philosophers try to find answers, and they do end up with a morality, and Sartre’s phrase “bad faith” may consciously be repeating Paul’s “everything that does not come from faith is sin”.

Maybe “sounds like”, but not equal. The correct expression would be something: "as long as we are remembered we have a kind of continued pseudo-existence". And I cannot fathom why would this be called a security blanket.

Come on, the meme is sentimental slush. A memory can’t feel the sun on its skin, a photograph can’t think thoughts. Notice that those who believe the meme will simultaneously say the person is out of pain now - they only allow their good memories any pseudo-existence.

*I wonder what is the “meaning” of the “meaning” in your usage? It is an interesting subject to explore. Many books have been written about it.

Existence is a meaningful word (with several “meanings” ), “essence” is not. What is the “essence” of a cow, and how does it differ from the essence of a sheep, or a yak? Of course I am aware of the definition that “essence” is “what makes something what* it is”, but I have never seen this empty concept filled up with “meat”. It is one of those concoctions that philosophers create to hide that fact that they have nothing to say. (Obviously I am familiar with a “rum-essence”. )

Sartre uses it to argue that he has to exist before he can become someone, in opposition to all (I think) preceding philosophers. He then argues that we deceive ourselves (as in ‘I can only ever be a waiter, fate dealt me that hand’) when in reality we can at any time escape our essence, we can be brand new. Be born again. And switch to eggnog.

*I never denied her right to develop her own “value”-system.

Why would anyone worship someone who does not care?*

The song doesn’t say she worships. We’re told she’s a hard-nosed sharecropper who doesn’t buy into the soppy “we live as long as we are remembered” meme (“Anna’s in the churchyard she got no life at all”). In her grief she’s thinking it’s possible she loved too much, maybe it was her fault because “we cannot have all things to please us”. And she can’t rule that out “until we’ve all gone to Jesus”. She can’t make sense of her daughter’s death and is hoping Jesus can.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It’s not a problem, but you said you reject nihilism, yet you also said “life has no intrinsic value”, which is exactly the definition of existential nihilism - the belief that all values are baseless, and so all values are ultimately subjective.

But that is NOT what I say. I only assert that values are not “intrinsic”, in other words the value of something is partially based upon the attributes of the object to be valued, and partially based upon the someone who does the “valuation” and, of course, taking also the environment and the circumstances into consideration. Some of that can be objective (like air is needed for our survival) and some may be subjective (a mild breeze is better than a tornado).

You mention monetary value, which is as good an example as any. If you were the last person alive, you’d have all the money in the world, but it’s worthless, it would no longer have any value. It was only other people who collectively gave it value. You can’t even steal it if there’s no one to own it.

Which means that money has no “intrinsic” value, exactly as I say. When something is in abundance, it loses its “value”, even though it is still may be necessary and useful for something. Let’s consider a library full of books. The books are very valuable - in ONE SENSE - for those who wish to expand their knowledge. For a savage, who cannot even read, the books still have “value” on a cold, winter day, since they can be BURNED and help to survive despite the cold. Neither of these are “intrinsic” to the books.

So if you’re right and “life has no intrinsic value”, is murder the same?

It all depends… as usual. Of course “murder” is legal expression. What is considered a “murder” in one legal system can be something else in another one. In a hypothetical society (invented by Robert Sheckley) people can volunteer to play a lethal game of “Hunter - Victim” and they are allowed to kill the opposing person. The players “value” the social status which can be acquired by winning ten games (alternately as a hunter and a victim) more then their simple existence.

Come on, the meme is sentimental slush. A memory can’t feel the sun on its skin, a photograph can’t think thoughts. Notice that those who believe the meme will simultaneously say the person is out of pain now - they only allow their good memories any pseudo-existence.

That is why it is not real existence, it is merely a pseudo-existence. Remember the sign in the national parks: “Do not take anything, but pictures, and do not leave anything, but footprints”. Leave good memories behind. What we do in our life does not disappear with our death, it will affect the lives of others - at least for a while.

Sartre uses it to argue that he has to exist before he can become someone, in opposition to all (I think) preceding philosophers.

You don’t need Sartre to point out such trivialities.

The song doesn’t say she worships. We’re told she’s a hard-nosed sharecropper who doesn’t buy into the soppy “we live as long as we are remembered” meme (“Anna’s in the churchyard she got no life at all”). In her grief she’s thinking it’s possible she loved too much, maybe it was her fault because “we cannot have all things to please us”. And she can’t rule that out “until we’ve all gone to Jesus”. She can’t make sense of her daughter’s death and is hoping Jesus can.

Such attitude is fatalistic. And one can counter it with: “why does Jesus not enlighten us HERE and NOW”? But again, if that gives her peace to cope with the pain, it is her business. A typical subjective approach, and there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[petra22]

Because indifference doesn’t create anything. Indifference is not love.
Love is a will for the good of another. It “goes out” in creativity. You can probably see that is opposed to indifference.

We exist.
We did not create ourselves.
Therefore something “other” gave us our being. We call that God, and so God cannot be indifferent, else you wouldn’t be here.

This is great reasoning, IMHO!

 

[tonyrey]

…Such attitude is fatalistic. And one can counter it with: “why does Jesus not enlighten us HERE and NOW”?

Jesus **has **enlightened all of us always and everywhere by His example and teaching. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are based on the doctrine that we are all children of the same Father. They have no other rational foundation and anyone who rejects those principles has a psychopathic mentality…

 

[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.

Some statements posted can be taken as observations that there is both good and bad events in the world:

• Good things happen to good people and to bad people.
• Bad things happen to good people and to bad people.
• The sun shines both on the righteous and the wicked.
• The believers and the atheists both have their share of good and the bad.

These so called observations listed are not observations but conclusions with nothing to support them:

• Worshipping God does you no good in this world.
• Not worshipping God does you no “bad” in this world.
• There is no correlation between the faith or behavior of the people and their “fortune” in this world.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Some statements posted can be taken as observations that there is both good and bad events in the world:

• Good things happen to good people and to bad people.
• Bad things happen to good people and to bad people.
• The sun shines both on the righteous and the wicked.
• The believers and the atheists both have their share of good and the bad.

Actually, to find that there is both “good” and “bad” in the world, all you need is to open your eyes. Those observations simply show that the “good” and the “bad” are distributed evenly within the world, without preference for the believers and without the detriment for the non-believers. And these observations ARE the support for the following conclusions:

These so called observations listed are not observations but conclusions with nothing to support them:

• Worshipping God does you no good in this world.
• Not worshipping God does you no “bad” in this world.
• There is no correlation between the faith or behavior of the people and their “fortune” in this world.

So the conclusions are well supported. But you are welcome to provide actual refutations, based upon statistics that the conclusions are false. Good luck. Show us that being a faithful worshipper of God is rewarded HERE and NOW. Show us that being an atheist carries a punishment HERE and NOW. Because I am not aware of any statistical support for your claim.

Let me reiterate the basic premise: Since there is a lot of good in this world, God is not malevolent. Since there is a lot of bad in this world, God is not benevolent. If God is neither benevolent nor malevolent, the only option which remains is that God is neutral, or indifferent toward OUR FATE in this world.
This is such a simple syllogism, that I am baffled why some people wish to argue against it. It does not mean that God is totally indifferent toward EVERYTHING. It may well be that God has some preferred outcome. But our well-being in this world is not one of them.

 

[Vico]

Actually, to find that there is both “good” and “bad” in the world, all you need is to open your eyes. Those observations simply show that the “good” and the “bad” are distributed evenly within the world, without preference for the believers and without the detriment for the non-believers. And these observations ARE the support for the following conclusions:

So the conclusions are well supported. But you are welcome to provide actual refutations, based upon statistics that the conclusions are false. Good luck. Show us that being a faithful worshipper of God is rewarded HERE and NOW. Show us that being an atheist carries a punishment HERE and NOW. Because I am not aware of any statistical support for your claim.

Let me reiterate the basic premise: Since there is a lot of good in this world, God is not malevolent. Since there is a lot of bad in this world, God is not benevolent. If God is neither benevolent nor malevolent, the only option which remains is that God is neutral, or indifferent toward OUR FATE in this world.
This is such a simple syllogism, that I am baffled why some people wish to argue against it. It does not mean that God is totally indifferent toward EVERYTHING. It may well be that God has some preferred outcome. But our well-being in this world is not one of them.

Refutation of:

• Worshipping God does you no good in this world.
• Not worshipping God does you no “bad” in this world.
• There is no correlation between the faith or behavior of the people and their “fortune” in this world.

The three statements are easily refuted each by one example each contrary to what is stated. “In this world” means for a living human being. Collins Dictionary, “fortune, noun: 2 [also pl.] what happens or is going to happen to one; one’s lot, good or bad, esp. one’s future lot.”

Psychological benefit has been reported by those that Worship God compared to when not. Seventh Day Adventists have shown lower the mortality rate from cardiovascular disease corresponding to earlier the age at entry into the religious practice.

Fønnebø, V. (1992). Mortality in Norwegian Seventh-Day Adventists 1962-1986.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 45: 157-167.

Findings from this study by Strawbridge, et. al., show that those who attend religious services have lower mortality rates overall.

Strawbridge, W.J., Cohen, R. D., Shema, S.J. & Kaplan, G.A. (1997). “Frequent Attendance at Religious Services and Mortality over 28 Years.” American Journal of Public Health 87: 957-961.

John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid.

 

[inocente]

But that is NOT what I say. I only assert that values are not “intrinsic”, in other words the value of something is partially based upon the attributes of the object to be valued, and partially based upon the someone who does the “valuation” and, of course, taking also the environment and the circumstances into consideration. Some of that can be objective (like air is needed for our survival) and some may be subjective (a mild breeze is better than a tornado).

You’re not saying anything to separate yourself from existential nihilism, as they will readily agree that air is needed for life.

But you are contradicting what you said before, which was “Value is a meaningless word if there is no valuer who does the valuation”. Which was correct. Air has no value without life. It only has value because we put a value on it.

Which means that money has no “intrinsic” value, exactly as I say. When something is in abundance, it loses its “value”, even though it is still may be necessary and useful for something. Let’s consider a library full of books. The books are very valuable - in ONE SENSE - for those who wish to expand their knowledge. For a savage, who cannot even read, the books still have “value” on a cold, winter day, since they can be BURNED and help to survive despite the cold. Neither of these are “intrinsic” to the books.

Which again means books have no value if there are no valuers who do the valuation.

*It all depends… as usual. Of course “murder” is legal expression. What is considered a “murder” in one legal system can be something else in another one. In a hypothetical society (invented by Robert Sheckley) people can volunteer to play a lethal game of “Hunter - Victim” and they are allowed to kill the opposing person. The players “value” the social status which can be acquired by winning ten games (alternately as a hunter and a victim) more then their simple existence. *

If the only value of life is what society gives it, then the sharecropper’s daughter in the song was less valuable than Johnny Depp’s or Trump the Trump’s daughter. That’s the issue if you take away the Valuer and don’t establish a new foundation for morality, as did people like Sartre and Camus. Life becomes a mere commodity with a value set by supply and demand.

That is why it is not real existence, it is merely a pseudo-existence. Remember the sign in the national parks: “Do not take anything, but pictures, and do not leave anything, but footprints”. Leave good memories behind. What we do in our life does not disappear with our death, it will affect the lives of others - at least for a while.

You’re contradicting yourself, as those signs remind you not to affect anything. And when you do then anonymous random acts of kindness ensure you’re not trying to get a reward.

You don’t need Sartre to point out such trivialities.

You only think it’s trivial until you think it through.

Such attitude is fatalistic. And one can counter it with: “why does Jesus not enlighten us HERE and NOW”? But again, if that gives her peace to cope with the pain, it is her business. A typical subjective approach, and there is nothing wrong with it.

I think the songwriter’s lyric is saying something fairly profound about meaning, but maybe it’s more trivialities to you. Thing is, we both agree that “value is a meaningless word if there is no valuer who does the valuation”. So once you remove the Valuer, and there’s only you and that sharecropper to evaluate life, you’ve left yourself no means to argue that your approach has any more intrinsic merit than hers. Which was my point, that you left yourself no objective means to argue that God is indifferent.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

But you are contradicting what you said before, which was “Value is a meaningless word if there is no valuer who does the valuation”. Which was correct. Air has no value without life. It only has value because we put a value on it.

I have no idea what is your point. I said before and I keep saying that there is no “intrinsic” value. That does not deny that “value” exists.

That’s the issue if you take away the Valuer and don’t establish a new foundation for morality, as did people like Sartre and Camus.

There is no need to capitalize “valuer”. And I said nothing about morality. My assessment of benevolent / malevolent behavior is neutral, just like I would point out that alkalinity or acidity can be determined by a litmus paper.

Which was my point, that you left yourself no objective means to argue that God is indifferent.

Just like I have no objective means to show that a substance is neither acidic nor alkaline if the litmus paper does not change its color? It looks like perfectly objective to me.

 

[tonyrey]

You’re not saying anything to separate yourself from existential nihilism, as they will readily agree that air is needed for life.

But you are contradicting what you said before, which was “Value is a meaningless word if there is no valuer who does the valuation”. Which was correct. Air has no value without life. It only has value because we put a value on it.

Which again means books have no value if there are no valuers who do the valuation.

If the only value of life is what society gives it, then the sharecropper’s daughter in the song was less valuable than Johnny Depp’s or Trump the Trump’s daughter. That’s the issue if you take away the Valuer and don’t establish a new foundation for morality, as did people like Sartre and Camus. Life becomes a mere commodity with a value set by supply and demand.

You’re contradicting yourself, as those signs remind you not to affect anything. And when you do then anonymous random acts of kindness ensure you’re not trying to get a reward.

You only think it’s trivial until you think it through.

I think the songwriter’s lyric is saying something fairly profound about meaning, but maybe it’s more trivialities to you. Thing is, we both agree that “value is a meaningless word if there is no valuer who does the valuation”. So once you remove the Valuer, and there’s only you and that sharecropper to evaluate life, you’ve left yourself no means to argue that your approach has any more intrinsic merit than hers. Which was my point, that you left yourself no objective means to argue that God is indifferent.

Irrefutable.A glorious example of a self-destructive argument! To deny the **value **of reasoning is to destroy the validity of every proposition one has presented…

 

[tonyrey]

I have no idea what is your point. I said before and I keep saying that there is no “intrinsic” value. That does not deny that “value” exists.

If values exists solely in our minds our conclusions have no objective value and are worthless. There is nothing to distinguish a wise person from an idiot.

There is no need to capitalize “valuer”. And I said nothing about morality. My assessment of benevolent / malevolent behavior is neutral, just like I would point out that alkalinity or acidity can be determined by a litmus paper.

In other words the distinction between good and evil is** arbitrary** and can be safely ignored…

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

In other words the distinction between good and evil is** arbitrary** and can be safely ignored…

Try to drink a little sulphuric acid and see if you can “safely” ignore the effects.