If God exists, would God care how many people believe in Him?

[Trailblazer]

Honestly, I see human nature as the true Problem of Evil.
We're born ignorant and rather stupid. We have a batch of instincts, many of which are immoral. To a degree, we're able to learn to do better. But that ability is weak and spotty at best. And God clearly doesn't care what we believe or do or what happens to us, anybody with eyes can look around and see that.

I do not know how you think you can know that God does not care. We theists believe that God cares, but we base that belief upon scriptures that say that.

If there is a God who wants us to be better it wouldn't be difficult. We aren't much different from clever apes, with opposable thumbs and vocalization. God could do much better.

Why should God do for us what we are fully capable of doing ourselves? God has always sent Messengers to assist us to do better, that is the way God ever intervenes, although God might also aid us in ways unbeknownst to us.

If God cared. Clearly there is no such God.
Tom

I think that way sometimes when I see suffering in the world but most of the time I know God cares and that that suffering is only temporary since the spiritual world will be free of suffering.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you didn't care at all you would self terminate.

And if God did not care about humans at all God would terminate us.

 

[columbus]

God who tries to, say, hide himself from humanity to preserve "free will" (as if this would actually do that).

This is one of the more irritating aspects of many religions, especially the Abrahamic ones. The idea that somehow information impedes free will. It doesn't. Information frees us to do whatever we really want, instead of walking around blind.

Nobody can make a free choice unless they have all the pertinent information. Like nobody was free to treat infections with penecillin until we had enough information to make and use it.
Tom

 

[MonkeyFire]

And if God did not care about humans at all God would terminate us.

And if all you do is care you will know happiness.

 

[Trailblazer]

Depends which God we're assuming, but no: I can't take the idea seriously of a God who tries to, say, hide himself from humanity to preserve "free will" (as if this would actually do that).

God does not hide Himself to preserve free will. God hides His Essence to preserve humans from being extinguished by His Light. But God does not hide His Attributes because those are reflected throughout Creation and in His Messengers.

If God were to exist, I would expect that the evidence for him would be akin to our evidence for the Moon: it doesn't do much stuff directly on Earth, but it's often directly observable and it has measurable effects.

God is observable in Creation and in the Messengers but not directly. The effect of God is not known so it cannot be measured.

Back up a few steps: I don't think it's reasonable to believe that God would send human messengers at all.

Okay, I already know that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God does not hide Himself to preserve free will. God hides His Essence to preserve humans from being extinguished by His Light.

To me, this sounds like excuse-making for what would otherwise be an embarrassing lack of evidence for your God.

But God does not hide His Attributes because those are reflected throughout Creation and in His Messengers.

... you assume.

God is observable in Creation and in the Messengers but not directly. The effect of God is not known so it cannot be measured.

Then the God you're describing isn't a God I would consider plausible... even if we're taking as given that God exists.

Okay, I already know that.

Well, you're the one who asked.

 

[columbus]

I do not know how you think you can know that God does not care.

It's easy. Just look around you at the horrors.

We theists believe that God cares, but we base that belief upon scriptures that say that.

It's a delusion to think that primitive writings are more true than what anybody and everybody can well see for themselves.

Why should God do for us what we are fully capable of doing ourselves?

We are clearly not very capable. Look around you.
That's the world God made. Including humans, as God made them.

I think that way sometimes when I see suffering in the world but most of the time I know God cares and that that suffering is only temporary since the spiritual world will be free of suffering.

The problem with this sentence is that you and I have quite different meanings for the word "know". We've discussed that before.

I use "know" to denote beliefs I hold due to the strength of the evidence. You use it to denote beliefs you hold very confidently, regardless of the evidence.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is one of the more irritating aspects of many religions, especially the Abrahamic ones. The idea that somehow information impedes free will. It doesn't. Information frees us to do whatever we really want, instead of walking around blind.

I agree. It's like they don't understand the difference between "clear choice" and "no choice."

Nobody can make a free choice unless they have all the pertinent information. Like nobody was free to treat infections with penecillin until we had enough information to make and use it.
Tom

I'm not sure I'd go that far. I don't think that a choice has to be meaningful and understood to be "free."

And I make a distinction between an action (e.g. treating an infection with penicillin) and a choice.

 

[columbus]

And if God did not care about humans at all God would terminate us.

Unless, of course, God doesn't care about anything any more than gravity does.
In which case we'll probably terminate ourselves.
Tom

 

[Trailblazer]

You choose your beliefs? I don't.

What do you mean when you say you "choose" to believe in God? One meaning I can take from this is that you're saying it's a deliberate act of will that stops you from being an atheist. Is this what you mean?

No, that is not what I mean and that came out poorly. I was contrasting God making us believe to God allowing us to choose to believe by virtue of our own free will. But that does not mean that everyone can or will choose to believe.

I like what 74x12 said and I agreed:

74x12 said: God's love is fighting for people and you never know if they will believe; because no one comes to God unless the Father drew them.

I said: That is also a belief of my religion, we call it being guided. God guides those who He chooses to guide and we cannot ever know who those people will be. God has His reasons and we cannot ever know what they are. That is why we should never judge anyone. After all, any believer can fall from grace at any time.

So, if God does not force us to believe then it makes sense that God will only guide people who He knows will choose to believe. I was not searching for God and I easily found Him, but other people search for God their whole life and never find Him, so why did God guide me? It is indeed a mystery.

 

[columbus]

And I make a distinction between an action (e.g. treating an infection with penicillin) and a choice.

Maybe that wasn't the best example.

If you've got a blind fold on you're as likely to walk into a tree as go over to the beer keg. Losing the blind fold, and having the information you get from seeing, doesn't force you to avoid trees and get a brewski. But it does make you free to choose that, whereas you weren't while blind.
Tom

 

[Trailblazer]

To me, this sounds like excuse-making for what would otherwise be an embarrassing lack of evidence for your God.

Or I might actually know something about this God that you don't.

... you assume.

I believe and I see.

Then the God you're describing isn't a God I would consider plausible... even if we're taking as given that God exists.

So that is why that God would not guide you to believe, since you would not consider Him plausible.

Well, you're the one who asked.

I asked it for anyone who might have an opinion, whether they believe in Messengers of God or not. It was hypothetical for atheists.

 

[columbus]

Or I might actually know something about this God that you don't.

I'm certain that you do, by your standards of knowledge. By our standards, you do not.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Or I might actually know something about this God that you don't.

I believe and I see.

So that is why that God would not guide you to believe, since you would not consider Him plausible.

I asked it for anyone who might have an opinion, whether they believe in Messengers of God or not. It was hypothetical for atheists.

Out of curiosity: by my count, this is your tenth thread asking almost exactly the same questions. Have the answers chamged at all from the first thread you posted on this?

 

[Trailblazer]

It's easy. Just look around you at the horrors.

I do not understand how that is evidence that God does not care.
I guess you are assuming that God would do something differently if He cared.
You could just as easily look around you and see all the good, as this world is a mixed bag.

It's a delusion to think that primitive writings are more true than what anybody and everybody can well see for themselves.

I do not follow primitive writings, I follow modern ones.

We are clearly not very capable. Look around you.
That's the world God made. Including humans, as God made them.

God made the world and humans and then God left humans to do what they wanted with the world, with the guidance he provided and continues to provide.

The problem with this sentence is that you and I have quite different meanings for the word "know". We've discussed that before.

I use "know" to denote beliefs I hold due to the strength of the evidence. You use it to denote beliefs you hold very confidently, regardless of the evidence.
Tom

I use the word know the same way you use it, only I view the evidence differently.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm certain that you do, by your standards of knowledge. By our standards, you do not.
Tom

I either do or I do not know.
Human standards of knowledge are not what determines that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Out of curiosity: by my count, this is your tenth thread asking almost exactly the same questions. Have the answers chamged at all from the first thread you posted on this?

No, I do not think I have ever asked these specific questions, and there are always new people responding so I always learn something new.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This post is for both believers and atheists:

• Believers: Do you think God cares how many people believe in Him?

• Atheists: If God existed, do you think God would care how many people believe in Him?

Believers and atheists:

• Do you think God cares if some people are atheists?

• If God sent Messengers, would God care how many people believed in His Messengers?

• If God sent a Messenger, would God have a certain time frame on how soon afterward people believed in His Messenger?

1. No. If he existed, I wouldn't think he would care. I'd ask why would he. Usually, humans tend to want attention in one way or another because of a need they have or desire that hasn't been fulfilled.

2. Well. If god is said to care, then I'd assume yes. He would care who is an atheist. Going by believer-logic, he would want people to believe in him and nothing else.

3. Probably not. I'd side for believing in god directly. Prayer and interaction helps get to know god directly (hypothetically, how I see it). Once you have a middle man, well, you make more relationship with the middle man or middle-scripture than you do with god

4. Don't know. God has a lot of human attributes. I guess once we figure humans out, we'd understand god a bit more.

 

[Unity of Mankind]

This post is for both believers and atheists:

• Believers: Do you think God cares how many people believe in Him?

• Atheists: If God existed, do you think God would care how many people believe in Him?

Believers and atheists:

• Do you think God cares if some people are atheists?

• If God sent Messengers, would God care how many people believed in His Messengers?

• If God sent a Messenger, would God have a certain time frame on how soon afterward people believed in His Messenger?

I think God is unknowable save through God appointed Messengers, or Prophets. Since God basically provides all humans, except people afflicted with a psychosis, the capacity to recognize the logos, or the Word of God as it appears through Prophets, I would say God is a caring, merciful provider to all of mankind.

However, God’s creation of humans involves the existence of two opposite or conflicting natures; the lower nature is entirely self serving and is constantly striving to satisfy a bottomless pit of physical gratification as can be seen throughout the animal kingdom in general whereas the higher nature strives to subordinate the physical nature in favor of questing for truth and of acquiring a sense of purpose beyond mere physical existence.

I think it is due to the influence of the higher nature that makes it possible for humankind’s capacity to recognize the Word of God through Prophets as noted above to be realized.

I think it is an open question whether God cares about how many people are believers since a means for belief has been provided. I view such a question to be unanswerable save through it being answered by a Prophet.

In my personal opinion I don’t think believers have a monopoly of expressing the higher nature. However, I think expressing the higher nature in the context of belief in God is necessary for the greater good in a societal sense. That is because Laws of God are necessary and only Prophets provide for such Laws. Witness, for example, the current failure of human laws to provide for political unity wherein peace results?

 

[LuisDantas]

Any God conception you have.

I am an ignostic. The word does not have any true meaning by itself.

I can tell you that there are no Gods and therefore no, they do not care, and it would be true.

I can tell you that they do when I conceive them as such, and they do not when I conceive them as such, and that would also be true.

I can tell you that only false gods would have such a flaw, and it would again be true.

But I prefer to say that a true god is not something to believe in, but rather to use on our own responsibility. Whether it exists is entirely immaterial and could not be less important if we established lack of significance as a design parameter.

That is one of several ways in which the Devas are superior specimens of deities when compared to Abraham's God.