What is God responsible for?

[Willum]

Many things were done in God's name:
But what is he responsible for?

When the Catholic Nazi Germany attempts a genocide, a man is blamed.
When Hebrews commit genocide on the Canaan, it is his will.

We have plagues, on Catholic countries, for example. The Dark Ages were committed in Yahweh's name. Were they?

Why would Yahweh plunge the civilization of Rome, with health, farming and sanitation, back into the primitive squalor of ancient Jerusalem, if so?

If not, why did he not stop such a terror? It seems to be in His purview.

How does one determine if an act is done in God's will, or men's will?
Does the Bible tell us?

Understanding that free will is a constraint - we can also understand that mob's and large numbers of people lose free will, does this fall into God's purview, then?

In short, how does one know what God is responsible for;
Any group decision?
A decision influenced by prayer?

The position is that presented by Romans 13:

Obey the rulers who have authority over you. Only God can give authority to anyone, and he puts these rulers in their places of power. 2 People who oppose the authorities are opposing what God has done, and they will be punished. 3 Rulers are a threat to evil people, not to good people. There is no need to be afraid of the authorities. Just do right, and they will praise you for it. 4 After all, they are Gods servants, and it is their duty to help you.

The position of the OP is: those atrocities committed by governments, God's will, and he is responsible for them.

[marco]

Until you prove to me that a tornado moving through a railway junk yard produces a stealth aircraft, I opt for God.

And the Norseman said: "Until you prove to me that the voice I'm hearing and the flashes I am seeing are bits of nature, I opt for Thor."


Because we are ignorant of explanations does not mean that the one we choose for ourselves is right. Thor made sense as well. In any case, the arguments that use chance do not work in the simplistic way you propose. We know that the rare event needed to start off an ordered process is statistically zero. But this assumes finite populations of possible outcomes, when in fact we have close to an infinite population across time. That being so, the rare event WILL occur.

But I would not accept or reject God on that basis since it plays games with infinity, and we know that in mathematics absurdities can happen when we mess around with the order of infinite series. I cannot believe that a God, invented to satisfy human ignorance, is a respectable being.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 163 by hoghead1]


[center]Emotional neurons = Category error[/center]

There are five senses: taste, smell, hearing, seeing, touch. When I consciously hear a sound, that is the end product of a long chain of events in my brain, al of which are beneath the threshold of my consciousness.

So far, so good.


Consciousness Unconsciousness

When you consciously see something, what happened first first was that that cells of your eye had an empathic experience with, say the redness, of the light.

What do you mean by "empathic experience"?

Light hits the eye, and the sensory organ reacts... sending signals along to be processed further along the cognitive chain until we can consciously "see" something. It takes way more processing than that to produce a conscious emotional response.

_______________

Category errors:


1. Sensory stimulation Emotion

2. Lower cognitive levels Higher cognitive levels
_______________

This feeling experience was shared with the cells of your retina, who shared it with the optic nerve.

I think you are trying to smuggle in emotions into this level of cognition. You are describing a lower sensory reaction, not a higher level feeling in the emotional or "empathic" sense, whatever that means.

As far as i know, eyes and optic nerves do not have "feelings" or "emotions" or "empathic experience" . Where did you get that idea from?

Those cells shared their experience with other parts of the brain, until eventually you become conscious aware of the red light. So your conscious , sensory experience of seeing was initially a purely affective experience.

Affective, you say.

You seem to imagine that eyes and optic nerves and neurons firing have "emotions". Emotions are higher up the cognitive chain, I'm afraid. You are getting your categories confused. "Sharing" is such a lovely word. It sounds like a Church social going on in there.

There are many simple organisms, with little or no sensory apparatus, function quite well.

You've already said that. Trees are simpler organisms that humans. They function quite well, if that's what you mean. Not TOO many people are aware of their "emotions" and "empathic feelings", whatever that would mean for a tree.

Trees are alive, and they function quite well, but they don't write poetry. Trees and lower cognitive organisms, such as "eyes" are not thought of as having "emotions".

But some people might imagine them, anyway. Is that what you are doing? Imagining things? You said before that you were into "speculative theology", perhaps you are now indulging in purely "speculative neuroscience"?

Our identification with our sense organs is a purely affective connection.

I don't know what you mean by "identification with" our sense organs. I am not my sense organs, but I happen to HAVE some of those. I don't seem to "identify" with my body parts the way that you seem to. I wonder, as well, why you imagine that eyes and optical nerves and the brain itself has "emotions". The brain perhaps produces emotions, but that's a higher order function than sending electrical /chemical signals along neural pathways.

We do not see the ye make us see, but we feel it do so.

We don't actually experience "seeing" in our eyes. We "feel" sight on a higher level of cognition. Many parts of the brain takes part. And then, we can have emotions, about what we are seeing, and thoughts about our emotions, and so on... all higher levels than the stimulation of our sense organs, the "eye", in this example.

The eyes don't have feelings, and they don't actually "see". All that happens further along the cognitive chain:

There are many different parts of the eye that help to create vision. Light passes through the cornea, the clear, dome-shaped surface that covers the front of the eye. The cornea bends - or refracts - this incoming light. The iris, the colored part of the eye, regulates the size of the pupil, the opening that controls the amount of light that enters the eye. Behind the pupil is the lens, a clear part of the eye that further focuses light, or an image, onto the retina. The retina is a thin, delicate, photosensitive tissue that contains the special photoreceptor cells that convert light into electrical signals. These electrical signals are processed further, and then travel from the retina of the eye to the brain through the optic nerve, a bundle of about one million nerve fibers. We see with our brains; our eyes collect visual information and begin this complex process

https://nei.nih.gov/healthyeyes/howwesee

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 165 by hoghead1]



[center]
How do we verify the truth of these beliefs?[/center]

I did not say that I was aware right now of a subconscious event taking place in my brain.

Good, because that would make no sense at all.

I am positing there is a subconscious experience of God, true. But having a direct, immediate experience of such an event is a different story.

This sounds like you are describing a conscious event.

Yes, we can expand our consciousness, raise subconscious events into our conscious experience, but there is no easy, definite way to do so.

Much to my chagrin. But that's the problem, isn't it?
We have unreliable methods to verify the truth of these "mystical experiences".

Christian mystics tried all sorts of meditative techniques, but said you couldn't guarantee the results. However, the mystical writers reported having had a direct, immediate experience of God's presence. That's what St. Teresa of Avila talks about in her famous work "interior Castles."

That should be on my reading list.

But we have to be careful of bias. We can "believe" too little, and also "believe" way too much. Just because someone claims a supernatural connection ... doesn't mean it actually happened. The human brain is phenomenally creative.

I do not doubt that all kinds of people have reported all kinds of experiences. But it's their beliefs about those experiences that I question. It's those supernatural assumptions that I suspect.

People can and do believe the weirdest things.
As an agnostic and a skeptic, I question those beliefs.

Without some way to verify all of these fabulous claims, I have no way of knowing if their conclusions are true.

Are there, in your opinion, naturalistic explanations for even the weirdest mental events?

[Hawkins]

Many things were done in God's name:
But what is he responsible for?

When the Catholic Nazi Germany attempts a genocide, a man is blamed.
When Hebrews commit genocide on the Canaan, it is his will.

We have plagues, on Catholic countries, for example. The Dark Ages were committed in Yahweh's name. Were they?

Why would Yahweh plunge the civilization of Rome, with health, farming and sanitation, back into the primitive squalor of ancient Jerusalem, if so?

If not, why did he not stop such a terror? It seems to be in His purview.

How does one determine if an act is done in God's will, or men's will?
Does the Bible tell us?

Understanding that free will is a constraint - we can also understand that mob's and large numbers of people lose free will, does this fall into God's purview, then?

In short, how does one know what God is responsible for;
Any group decision?
A decision influenced by prayer?

The position is that presented by Romans 13:

Obey the rulers who have authority over you. Only God can give authority to anyone, and he puts these rulers in their places of power. 2 People who oppose the authorities are opposing what God has done, and they will be punished. 3 Rulers are a threat to evil people, not to good people. There is no need to be afraid of the authorities. Just do right, and they will praise you for it. 4 After all, they are Gods servants, and it is their duty to help you.

The position of the OP is: those atrocities committed by governments, God's will, and he is responsible for them.

It is easy. If God doesn't destroy the Canaanites, the stronger Canaanites will finally wipe out the Jews that God's plan for human salvation will be put to an end.

Christians (God's Elect) are living in a world doesn't belong to them. Let the world care about its own business and let Christians care about God's business.

[marco]

It is easy. If God doesn't destroy the Canaanites, the stronger Canaanites will finally wipe out the Jews that God's plan for human salvation will be put to an end.

Let us hope that's heaven's thinking and planning are not rooted in simplicity. Oops, there are some Canaanites - better kill them else our plan won't work. At what point before the 21st century did all this planning stop, and give way to the mess in the Middle East?

Christians (God's Elect) are living in a world doesn't belong to them. Let the world care about its own business and let Christians care about God's business.

I was unaware the Christians were on one side and the "world" on another. It is unfortunate that this heterogeneous mix of many beliefs fight and kill each other in the business of doing what they think is God's will. Thankfully the world sometimes stops them.

[ttruscott]

I was unaware the Christians were on one side and the "world" on another.

Are not the wars in heaven continued on the ground: Revelation 12:7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down"that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

Why discount references to the Spiritual warfare forming our reality?
Rev 13:6 And the beast opened its mouth to blaspheme against God and slander His name and His tabernacle"those who dwell in heaven. 7 Then the beast was permitted to wage war against the saints and conquer them, and it was given authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation. 8 And all who dwell on the earth will worship the beast"all whose names have not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

Zechariah 3:1-2 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. The LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!"

[marco]

Why discount references to the Spiritual warfare forming our reality?
Rev 13:6 And the beast opened its mouth to blaspheme against God and slander His name and His tabernacle

Immediately after your question about reality you move to the "beast" opening its mouth to "blaspheme." This doesn't happen in my reality. I know that erudition has broken the chains of obscurity as regards what is written in Revelation, but Marco has yet to reach that level and I doubt he ever will.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 177 by marco].
And hardly having opened its mouth God immediately allows it to overcome his saints. I suppose God has got no responsibility towards those that put his faith in him or even keeping his earlier promises divinely spoken and recorded by Paul. Romans 16:20
The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

Ultimately, being the creator of everything as it's said, responsibility for everything, good and bad, is his.
In reality (such as it is) he gets a free pass because....well I guess because the bible says he gets a free pass...?
Granted it's not like we could make him stand in the corner for a while for all the bad he did I suppose.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 171 by marco]

Science used to think that life was very rare, and so OK, maybe it is a product of a lucky chance. However, that thinking has radically changed over the yeas. Now, life is seen as occurring all over, under even quite harsh conditions. Plus, science is open to the possibility that the universe is teeming with life. Consider the Drake equation, for example. Complex structures are simply too pervasive in the universe for it all to be due to chance. Plus, we know from our common experience that complex, intricate structures always require a designing mind. Where there is a watch, there is a watch maker, unless one assumes that the way to make a highly refined watch is to simply throw the parts off the top of the Empire State Building and hope that when they hit the ground, they will assemble themselves into a watch. The chance of that happening have a zillion zeros in front of it, and when chances have all those zeros in from t of them, you can be assured its not going to happen.