God is indifferent

[Bradski]

Secondly, we need to consider the type of “conclusion” that we are drawing here. There is no ‘scientific’ evidence for an afterlife, but the lack of ‘scientific’ evidence does not mean that something is fake or false or that it can’t be considered theoretically even if done on non-scientific terms. For example, I have no ‘scientific’ evidence that my wife loves me but that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t consider it or believe it based on non-scientific evidence.

The use of the term ‘scientific evidence’ is not applicable. It implies test tubes and experiments and guys in white coats in labs. It’s a diversion from the point being made.

Because of course we have no evidence for the afterlife. Zero. Nada. Rien. Zilch. A big fat zero.

And of course you have evidence that your wife loves you. I’m pretty certian that you could give us a litany of examples (evidence) of that fact. I’m equally certain that if you suggested to a friend that you suspected that she had stopped loving you, you could bring forth any number of acts and words and deeds to use as evidence.

 

[NM505StKate]

The use of the term ‘scientific evidence’ is not applicable. It implies test tubes and experiments and guys in white coats in labs. It’s a diversion from the point being made.

Because of course we have no evidence for the afterlife. Zero. Nada. Rien. Zilch. A big fat zero.

And of course you have evidence that your wife loves you. I’m pretty certian that you could give us a litany of examples (evidence) of that fact. I’m equally certain that if you suggested to a friend that you suspected that she had stopped loving you, you could bring forth any number of acts and words and deeds to use as evidence.

Pretty much this.^^

I can’t go down to my local Uni and pop into the science lab saying I am going to test the afterlife.

 

[tonyrey]

The use of the term ‘scientific evidence’ is not applicable. It implies test tubes and experiments and guys in white coats in labs. It’s a diversion from the point being made.

Because of course we have no evidence for the afterlife. Zero. Nada. Rien. Zilch. A big fat zero.

And of course you have evidence that your wife loves you. I’m pretty certian that you could give us a litany of examples (evidence) of that fact. I’m equally certain that if you suggested to a friend that you suspected that she had stopped loving you, you could bring forth any number of acts and words and deeds to use as evidence.

How do you define love? And how does it fit into the theory that all our decisions have physical causes?

 

[tonyrey]

I have also heard it said one day science will be able to explain everything. Will we then be living in a world where nothing needs explaining? I am trying to imagine what a world where nothing needs explaining would be like. Will there be nothing left to question, find out or problems to solve? Is such a world ‘atheist heaven?’

Atheists need to explain how science can explain itself.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The use of the term ‘scientific evidence’ is not applicable. It implies test tubes and experiments and guys in white coats in labs. It’s a diversion from the point being made.

My point is that there are different kinds of evidence and of course some types are better than others. This relates to the author in post #1 because he either doesn’t acknowledge that there can be different types of evidence or he or she is ignorant of the non-scientific evidence (mostly anecdotal) for the afterlife. When materialists use the word evidence, they’re usually referring to “scientific” evidence so the distinction needs to be clarified before proclaiming that “there is no evidence”.

Because of course we have no evidence for the afterlife. Zero. Nada. Rien. Zilch. A big fat zero.

Yes, the author of post #1 did not want to use the afterlife because there is no evidence for it (according to him) but then why is he discussing God who many would say lacks evidence, as well? Why would the author of the thread choose to ignore the non-evidenced topic, i.e. the afterlife, that just so happens to go against his conclusion of God being indifferent? In other words, even if good and bad people die in this lifetime, but in the afterlife people we are put in Hell and in paradise based on good and bad deeds. This doesn’t go well with the conclusion that God is indifferent, at least not when you factor in ALL of the data from Christian teachings rather than being selective or arbitrarily restrictive about it.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

In short, the OP concludes only rational conclusion is that God is indifferent, if exists He all due to the fact bad things happen to good people and there is no evidence for an afterlife.

This is not exactly true. The thread has nothing to do with the so-called “problem of evil”. It is just a simple analysis. There are only three kinds of attitudes which describe interpersonal relationships: “benevolent”, “malevolent” or “neutral” (or indifferent). A benevolent person would do away with all the gratuitous suffering - as much as he can. A malevolent person would prevent any pleasant, good things - as much as he can. A neutral person would not interfere either way… just lets every event play its own course.

As far as we can see, God never interferes. That is all.

It doesn’t follow that because both good things and bad things happen therefore God is both good and bad or that he is indifferent. To assume God is good and bad is to assume pantheism. To assume God is indifferent is to assume Deism. Christianity assumes none of these things.

All that means is that Christianity is inconsistent. You cannot define God is being “loving” and then disregard the evidence to the contrary.

You claim that we can’t take into account things that aren’t evidenced, like the afterlife, but then you’re willing to grant the existence of God when it fits your conclusion. So your terms are faulty.

One can stipulate a point for the sake of discussion.

For example, I have no ‘scientific’ evidence that my wife loves me but that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t consider it or believe it based on non-scientific evidence.

The empirical evidence of her love is based upon observation. That is science in a rudimentary form. And you can test it, if you so choose - and if you dare.

Why would the author of the thread choose to ignore the non-evidenced topic, i.e. the afterlife, that just so happens to go against his conclusion of God being indifferent?

Simple. Because the existence of this hypothesized afterlife has nothing to do with the point that God is indifferent HERE and NOW.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

One can stipulate a point for the sake of discussion.

Not when the terms are inconsistent and/or arbitrary. Such terms would only lead to unfair conclusions. If you want to offer a fair and accurate conclusion about Christianity or some aspect of it, it’s only logical to factor in ALL of the relevant data rather than picking and choosing which pieces to apply.

The empirical evidence of her love is based upon observation. That is science in a rudimentary form. And you can test it, if you so choose - and if you dare.

Science is not just about observation otherwise we’d have to accept the existence of bigfoot, werewolves, etc. Science is about observations that hold up to controls and repeated testing.

Simple. Because the existence of this hypothesized afterlife has nothing to do with the point that God is indifferent HERE and NOW.

I didn’t see where you specified HERE and NOW in your initial argument. If that is your point then I can consider that for this lifetime, but I can’t say God would be indifferent overall since things are different in the next life.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

A simplistic view of reality which doesn’t correspond to the facts. **We **are the ones who choose to be malevolent or benevolent. Otherwise every law court throughout the world is based on a false assumption - that we are normally responsible for our decisions and actions.

 

[tonyrey]

Simple. Because the existence of this hypothesized afterlife has nothing to do with the point that God is indifferent HERE and NOW.

You have not explained how you have infallible knowledge that God **never intervenes disregarding countless accounts of miraculous recoveries. Your argument is based on an act of faith that everything **can be explained by natural causes - which is self-refuting. If your argument has natural causes it is far more likely to be false than true because our instincts are notoriously unreliable and there are far more ways of being wrong than right…

 

[AgnosticBoy]

This is not exactly true. The thread has nothing to do with the so-called “problem of evil”. It is just a simple analysis. There are only three kinds of attitudes which describe interpersonal relationships: “benevolent”, “malevolent” or “neutral” (or indifferent). A benevolent person would do away with all the gratuitous suffering - as much as he can. A malevolent person would prevent any pleasant, good things - as much as he can. A neutral person would not interfere either way… just lets every event play its own course.

As far as we can see, God never interferes. That is all.

Lets forget about the afterlife for the sake of discussion. Lets just call this future point “x”. How do you know that God will never intervene? In other words, how do you know that he won’t intervene at future point “x”? How do you know that God has never intervened on an individual basis (only affects a particular person) as opposed to a global scale (affecting all of mankind)?

All that means is that Christianity is inconsistent. You cannot define God is being “loving” and then disregard the evidence to the contrary.

“Christianity is inconsistent” so you say, but then you leave out points about the afterlife when it is just as unevidenced as God is. How convenient!

The empirical evidence of her love is based upon observation. That is science in a rudimentary form. And you can test it, if you so choose - and if you dare.

Just to respond to the bold text part… Many people do not put their spouses through repeated and controlled love tests, assuming there is such a test for that, but yet they still accept that they’re loved.

 

[tonyrey]

Simple. Because the existence of this hypothesized afterlife has nothing to do with the point that God is indifferent HERE and NOW.

Once again your dogmatic statement that “God is indifferent HERE and NOW” is based on an act of faith that** everything **can be explained by natural causes - which is self-refuting. If your argument had natural causes it would be far more likely to be false than true because our instincts are notoriously unreliable and there are far more ways of being wrong than right - and yet you cling to it in spite of all the evidence to the contrary…

 

[tonyrey]

My point is that there are different kinds of evidence and of course some types are better than others. This relates to the author in post #1 because he either doesn’t acknowledge that there can be different types of evidence or he or she is ignorant of the non-scientific evidence (mostly anecdotal) for the afterlife. When materialists use the word evidence, they’re usually referring to “scientific” evidence so the distinction needs to be clarified before proclaiming that “there is no evidence”.

Yes, the author of post #1 did not want to use the afterlife because there is no evidence for it (according to him) but then why is he discussing God who many would say lacks evidence, as well? Why would the author of the thread choose to ignore the non-evidenced topic, i.e. the afterlife, that just so happens to go against his conclusion of God being indifferent? In other words, even if good and bad people die in this lifetime, but in the afterlife people we are put in Hell and in paradise based on good and bad deeds. This doesn’t go well with the conclusion that God is indifferent, at least not when you factor in ALL of the data from Christian teachings rather than being selective or arbitrarily restrictive about it.

Picking and choosing is the best way of losing!

 

[Bradski]

You have not explained how you have infallible knowledge that God **never intervenes disregarding countless accounts of miraculous recoveries. Your argument is based on an act of faith that everything **can be explained by natural causes.

We have as much knowedge that God never intervenes as we have of the fact that the ghost of Elvis never does.

In fact, as we know that Elvis actually did exist (been to Graceland, got the T shirt), there is a greater chance that Mr. Presley does intervene in our lives to a greater extent than any given deity.

And if you must insist that God does occasionally intervene, then you are descibing a capricious entity that is prepared to help someone with a job application or finding their cat (why pray for these things unless you hope for divine intervention) yet will ignore the pleas of the mother whose child is dying of cancer.

Pointing to anything at all which you would like to describe as divine intervention is only going to result in someone questioning ‘why here for him and not htere for her?’.

To which the only possible answer is: ‘Who can know the mind of God’. Which is another way of saying: ‘Mate, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever’.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Lets forget about the afterlife for the sake of discussion. Lets just call this future point “x”. How do you know that God will never intervene? In other words, how do you know that he won’t intervene at future point “x”?

Since I never mentioned anything about possible future interference, this question is irrelevant and futile.

How do you know that God has never intervened on an individual basis (only affects a particular person) as opposed to a global scale (affecting all of mankind)?

While absence of proof is NOT a proof of absence, but absence of evidence is a very strong evidence of absence. Besides, your attempt here is called “argumentum ad ignoratiam”, a well known fallacy.

Just to respond to the bold text part… Many people do not put their spouses through repeated and controlled love tests, assuming there is such a test for that, but yet they still accept that they’re loved.

The “test” does not have to “formal”. Every moment you spend with your spouse, every embrace, every smile, every kiss, every act of lovemaking is an evidence of love.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

We have as much knowedge that God never intervenes as we have of the fact that the ghost of Elvis never does.

In fact, as we know that Elvis actually did exist (been to Graceland, got the T shirt), there is a greater chance that Mr. Presley does intervene in our lives to a greater extent than any given deity.

And if you must insist that God does occasionally intervene, then you are descibing a capricious entity that is prepared to help someone with a job application or finding their cat (why pray for these things unless you hope for divine intervention) yet will ignore the pleas of the mother whose child is dying of cancer.

Pointing to anything at all which you would like to describe as divine intervention is only going to result in someone questioning ‘why here for him and not htere for her?’.

To which the only possible answer is: ‘Who can know the mind of God’. Which is another way of saying: ‘Mate, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever’.

The usual solid or undisputed points with these types of moral arguments are that there are good and evil acts in the world. How, why, or when God responds tends to be the gray areas that both sides use, unreasonably in a lot of cases (filled with assumptions and/or faulty logic), to support their conclusions. Vera_Ljuba conclusion is that God is indifferent and his supporting reason is that God never intervenes. Besides his supporting reason being an assumption and ignoring of the biblical stories involving divine intervention, he should also answer the questions that you raised before we can consider his view as being more reasonable than the alternative views. So far it is not looking good when we consider the view that God will intervene on a global scale at some future point just as Christian teachings mention. And if there are too many assumptions and speculations to make a conclusion, then I dare say that the conclusion should be that we don’t have enough data, theoretically or real-world, to make any reasonable conclusion to support atheism or theism.

ashe’s waiting for the ‘fullness of sin’ to be reached so-to-speak (like in Sodom and Gomorrah’s case)

 

[fisherman_carl]

All that means is that Christianity is inconsistent. You cannot define God is being “loving” and then disregard the evidence to the contrary.

No, it just means you can not comprehend it.

 

[minkymurph]

This is not exactly true. The thread has nothing to do with the so-called “problem of evil”. It is just a simple analysis. There are only three kinds of attitudes which describe interpersonal relationships: “benevolent”, “malevolent” or “neutral” (or indifferent). A benevolent person would do away with all the gratuitous suffering - as much as he can. A malevolent person would prevent any pleasant, good things - as much as he can. A neutral person would not interfere either way… just lets every event play its own course.

To say there are only three kinds of attitudes that describe interpersonal relationships; benevolent, malevolent or neutral (or indifferent) is in my view oversimplification. Interpersonal relationships are quite complicated. They do not fit neatly into one of these three categories.

A malevolent person can simultaneously be benevolent, and a benevolent person can be malevolent depending on the situation and who they are dealing with. Malevolent people do not necessarily prevent any pleasant, good things. They do not interfere with anything they gives them pleasure, deny themselves good things, or deny others pleasure and good things when there is something in it for them. There are other occasions when perhaps they just can’t be bothered to be malevolent and let it go.

I can’t say I have ever encountered person I would describe as malevolent who is malevolent ALL the time and expends a great deal of energy denying all pleasure and good things to others. Neither have I encountered someone I would describe as benevolent who is benevolent ALL the time - they can have their moments - or someone who is neutral ALL the time.

It is also the case that ‘neutral’ does not necessarily mean inactive or non-interfering. A judge hearing a court case is neutral in that he or she is not on one side or other, but they intervene to ensure the court hears best possible evidence and ensure a fair hearing. When they make a judgement they are not being neutral. They are deciding for one party or the other. Another example I would give are those the profess neutrality in regard to which side they support in sociopolitical upheaval, conflict or war, but they intervene in terms of negotiating a settlement or assisting victims of conflict or war. Thus, I do think you are over simplifying things.

In your OP you said 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. If I am paraphrasing this correctly your observation is no more ‘bad’ happens to atheists and no more ‘good’ happens to believers, and there is no correlation between the faith/behaviour of people and their ‘fortune’ in this world. In my view this argument is too easily countered. In the first instance you are determining what in your view constitutes ‘bad’ and ‘good.’ What you perceive as ‘bad’ others may perceive as ‘good’ and vice versa. I would also say there is a correlation in that the more often you do ‘bad’ to others the chances of others doing bad to you. If you are indifferent you increase your chances of being met with indifference. The more often you do good towards others the more you increase your chances of others doing good to you, and if you embrace an ideology or belief you consider compels you to do good to others, it is likely you will do good to others more often than if you don’t. Such can be readily observed.

You also said not worshiping God does you no ‘bad’ in this world. Perhaps you as an individual see no bad occurring your life as a consequence of not worshiping God. I can’t guarantee more good things will happen to you if you start worshiping God, but neither can it be determined those who worship God experience no more ‘good’ based on your personal observations and determination of what constitutes ‘good’ and ‘bad’. What one individual perceives as ‘bad’ may be ‘good’ to another or vice versa. If someone believes they experience more good as a result of worshiping God, who are we to say to say they are not? If there is in fact no God or one who is indifferent, it could be argued it is a ‘placebo effect,’ but it can also be argued even if it is a ‘placebo’ effect it is still a good effect, and an effect that will not come about in the absence of the ‘placebo.’ and a good effect and a better than no ‘placebo’ at all. I thought it worked but also thought I may have been conned, so I asked a doctor who specialized in allergies if they did in fact work. His reply was, ‘It doesn’t matter if you put a garden gnome at the end of your bed. If you think it works it probably does.’ The same of principle of course can be applied to ‘bad.’

Of course I am not suggesting you try worshiping a garden gnome.

 

[Bradski]

The usual solid or undisputed points with these types of moral arguments are that there are good and evil acts in the world. How, why, or when God responds tends to be the gray areas that both sides use, unreasonably in a lot of cases (filled with assumptions and/or faulty logic), to support their conclusions. Vera_Ljuba conclusion is that God is indifferent and his supporting reason is that God never intervenes.

It appears that it needs to be pointed out that neither Vera or myself believes that God is indifferent. Because, obviously, we don’t believe that He exists.

The point is being made, and apparently not being grasped, that if Christians insist on any single instance of divine intervention resulting in a beneficial outcome, then God, by that very fact, must be exhibiting indifference in countless other instances when no intervention has obviously ocurred.

If you are going to insist that God can help you find your cat or even save your child, then you are going to have to admit that He specifically chose not to save others.

 

[Bradski]

His reply was, ‘It doesn’t matter if you put a garden gnome at the end of your bed. If you think it works it probably does.’

Which reminds me of a story told about Neils Bohr, one of the greates scientific minds of the modern era.

Someone was visiting him and noticed a horseshoe nailed to his office wall. He expressed surprise that a man as practical as Bohr without a single superstitious bone in his body would trust in a lucky horshoe and said to Bohr: ‘But you don’t believe that it will bring you luck, surely’.

To which Bohr replied: ‘No. But apparently they work whether you believe in them or not’.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Since I never mentioned anything about possible future interference, this question is irrelevant and futile.

It is a valid point to consider, especially when you make claims that God “never” (in the past, present, and future) intervenes.

While absence of proof is NOT a proof of absence, but absence of evidence is a very strong evidence of absence. Besides, your attempt here is called “argumentum ad ignoratiam”, a well known fallacy.

This also applies to your point when you are making claims without evidence. To be consistent, if you wanted to have a scientific discussion then the conversation here would be over since there is no evidence for God or an afterlife. If you want to speak on theoretical/philosophical about CHRISTIANITY, then you must factor in all of the data like on God intervening with the Israelites and the modern-day claims. This is just as theoretical as presuming that God exists but does not intervene.

The “test” does not have to “formal”. Every moment you spend with your spouse, every embrace, every smile, every kiss, every act of lovemaking is an evidence of love.

As Bradski remarked earlier, we don’t need labcoats and test tubes to utilize the scientific process but we would still need controls and experimentation in order to call it science. Being an expert on the matter goes a long way, as well. With that said, none of what you mentioned would lead me to scientific certainty since it ignores brain chemistry, motives, etc. I doubt there is even an exact science for love. I know people who are good at doing what you described with multiple women just to give the appearance of love rather than sexual variety.