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 God’s 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]

You may consider the Drake Equation useless, but many major scientists do not. I'll go with them, thank you.

I don't understand the point of this remark. Many major scientists agree with me. So?
The equation requires the evaluation of variables that cannot possibly be given realistic values.

If you can't use our finite existence as a basis to speak about the rest of the universe, how can you sit there and use probabilities, based solely on our knowledge of finite reality, to estimate probabilities for the universe, as you seem want to do?

I can sit here doing this because it is my area of expertise; but I don't do what you suggest. I apply probabilities properly to the area in which they have meaning. You seem to have misunderstood my illustration of how you are wrong to transfer a claim from the finite domain into the infinite. I cannot reach God by using probability theory any more than you can using theology.

For me, theology is speculation along the imaginative lines of Milton's Paradise Lost. It is interesting but any theories it comes up with are unverifiable, so they are as useful as Drake's equation.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 189 by hoghead1]

OK, lets start with a vast cloud of dust and gas, 2*10^30kg. 99.9% Hydrogen.
The heavier bits collect in what becomes the center, but not all the heavy bits. The smallest amount of asymmetry causes it to spin, which as it grows becomes a large spin.

The large spin causes different densities to group together from the central body.
You are left with really heavy stuff near the center, and lighter gases on the outside. Just like this, or any other solar system.

There aggregate eventually devouring each other to form planets of a certain very well defined energy.
Thus the solar system is formed, and order has arisen from chaos.

No brainer.

Not good enough?
Lets take water. It evaporates and forms clouds.
These clouds take the shape of dragons, clowns, rockets and so on.

Different phenomenon, but there you are.

Weather patterns.
There are many many examples of order coming from randomness.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 190 by dio9]

I think God is responsible for evolution. I don't think evolution would be possible without God. Evolution is the rise of novelty, the realization of new, creative potentials. That means there must be a transcendental, creative imagination, i.e. God.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 191 by marco]

OK, so just how is your theory that it all happened by chance verifiable? It's all speculation about what the possibilities are in the entire universe. It's all based on your finite understanding the finite reality you have seen, which you claim shouldn't be the basis for our claims.
Also, the notion that life is rare is out the window in science. For one thing, we find life occurring under very harsh conditions, where it was previously deemed impossible. Hence, it is not tat rare. And it certainly would be arrogant for us to think that we are all alone in the universe. Plus, Drake didn't pull his equation out of thin air. He based it on a solid knowledge of probabilities.

You know, it's very interesting to me how some scientists will argue all this complex order is all by accident; yet they turn around and look for a few simple, orderly beeps from out there as a sign of intelligent life.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 192 by Willum]

No, sorry, for me, it isn't good enough. It dos not explain the rise of highly complex, intricate order, such as the human body, for example.
Also, clouds do not form well-organized shapes such as dragons, rockets, any more than just throwing paint at canvas produces o Mona Lisa. You may see faces in knotty pine or in abstract art or in Rorschach Ink Blots, but that's your imagination at work here.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 195 by hoghead1]

Yes, and it will probably not ever be good enough for you, but if you are willing to let me expound... read on...

If not, don't.

So, with your permission, I'll skip to the part where the Earth is cool and rich in many chemicals.

Now let's skip back to the clouds:
You'll agree, that through simple randomness, startlingly accurate depictions of horses, ducks, towers, what have you, can be shaped by dumb currents and condensed water?

Now, imagine we don't have hours to looks at clouds, but billions of years, and we aren't working with water, but all the weird chemicals a raw Earth is able to produce.

In all that time, all those chemicals have to do is get into a state where they can replicate, ONCE.

We actually see this occasionally in nature, with inorganic films forming over large areas. This is not the same chemicals, but it is the same phenomenon.

Now once something starts to replicate, it starts to compete. The one that replicates better consumes the resources that the lesser one cannot. From there it takes no imagination at all to see how better and better chemicals cross the threshold to become life.

Good enough?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 196 by Willum]

No, that is nowhere good enough for me. I do not agree that through randomness you get startling accurate pictures of ducks or any of that. I also know that blind, mechanical forces can produce no beauty. It takes the mind of a sensitive artist with great feeling to do that. The universe is a wondrous place. Therefore, it was created by a Cosmic Artist, not blind, random forces.

[marco]

OK, so just how is your theory that it all happened by chance verifiable?

Can I make my position clear? I do not have any theory about God's existence. You outlined the objection to the idea that the universe came about from chance and I said that the use of hypothesis testing in a finite domain was inapplicable. I revealed no hint whatsoever of any theory of mine. I said that the employment of chance is debateable as is the calling into existence of a God to explain our existence. As soon as one makes a theory about God, it is open to critical examination. I may be unhappy with my ignorance but I don't use it to theorise on God.

Also, the notion that life is rare is out the window in science. For one thing, we find life occurring under very harsh conditions, where it was previously deemed impossible. Hence, it is not tat rare. And it certainly would be arrogant for us to think that we are all alone in the universe.

And why am I being told something with which I have no disagreement?

Plus, Drake didn't pull his equation out of thin air. He based it on a solid knowledge of probabilities.

I am pleased to hear it. I can see what he is doing. At no point did I say he erred in his formulaic composition. I said, clearly enough, that assigning values to his variables makes the formula useless. The best one can say is that it looks good.

You know, it's very interesting to me how some scientists will argue all this complex order is all by accident; yet they turn around and look for a few simple, orderly beeps from out there as a sign of intelligent life.

Again, what "some scientists" do is a matter of supreme indifference to me, and I hasten to distance myself from any implication of involvement there.

My position on God and his responsibilities, lest in the quagmire of misunderstanding I am again misinterpreted, is: I do not see the sense in his Biblical portrayal. I am prepared to believe that any one of a number of ideas may be in the right area of making God meaningful, but choosing one is throwing a coin. Your own idea, or the one you've picked up through some study, is both interesting and explanatory. I cannot however see why anyone would set their life's course on its validity. It's a nice idea. God and his terrestrial responsibilities remain the mystery they were.

[marco]

I think God is responsible for evolution. I don't think evolution would be possible without God. Evolution is the rise of novelty, the realization of new, creative potentials. That means there must be a transcendental, creative imagination, i.e. God.

It doesn't mean any such thing. The conclusion arises from the principal clause: I think, which is simply an observation.
"I think it will rain today. Therefore the ground will get soaked" is not a correct conclusion. It will get soaked IF what I think turns out to be correct. It is the same with hoghead's thought.

[marco]

I also know that blind, mechanical forces can produce no beauty. It takes the mind of a sensitive artist with great feeling to do that. The universe is a wondrous place. Therefore, it was created by a Cosmic Artist, not blind, random forces.

We see beauty in a child's scribbles; we see beauty in a snow-covered landscape. We are the authors of that beauty.

But I do not dismiss the possibility that our high notions are indications of something higher than ourselves. We are creators; there may be higher creators, and higher creators and so ad infinitum.

To opt for the comfort of a caring, fatherly figure, merciful and artistic, is rather like wishful thinking. We just do not know.