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.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 185 by ttruscott]

I'm not quite sure I follow you here. Atheistic evolutionary thinkers do argue it is all by chance.

There is no evolution without life. We do not call the movement of various elements within a lava flow evolution. Life is forced by chance mutation to try different ways to live. There is no impulse for your watch pieces to come together and no reason for them to take shape, no mutation that gives their shape impulse. I think it is a strawman argument.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 210 by marco]

I know I have a solid position and I am confident I can defend it. If you wish, you may disagree. And I am more than willing to offer counter-rebuttals.

[marco]

OK, so let me see if I correctly understand your position. You seem to be saying you are agnostic, up in the air as to whether there is or is not a God, right? If so, I would be interested in hearing your comments on the arguments for God's existence. What is your justification for your skepticism?

They are cerebral or semantic playthings, such a the weight which an omnipotent God cannot lift.
Essentially, reducing God to the end point of human hypotheses is to find no God at all. One can say that one "detects a something" but this can be anything from a bad cold to something inspiring and spiritual. It is ludicrous to try to deduce God from some form of words, such as "than which nothing is greater." If there is a sentient God who wishes to be known then he will make himself known to the humblest among us, not to the arrogance of philosophers. Incidentally, I would not define my position as being "up in the air." It seems to me that my position is better than one derived from presumption and hope. I simply do not know. Nor do you.

You said you don't care what some scientists think. Are you saying you aren't interested in science or what?

If you retrace the meaning in the first sentence you will see that the conclusion you attribute to me is false. You are equating some, a partial quantifier, with all, the universal quantifier. I said that the SOME scientists who are enthusiastic towards Drake's equation don't interest me. They can enthuse all they wish -it does not enhance the equation or make it more meaningful.
I have a degree in science so I would hardly wish to discredit one of my qualifications. The search for intelligence in the universe is, of course, supremely interesting. Drake's equation hardly assists it.

Another major issue I was addressing here is that fact atheistic scientists will argue order in the universe is purely due to chance or blind laws, rather than ID, then turn right around and say that a few simple beeps will show intelligent life. To me, that points to major hypocrisy in atheistic thinking.

I do not fully endorse the argument of chance but I can see it is not quite as silly as it is often described. The watch appearing out of a sandstorm! All chance requires to do is produce, once, the magical setting for progressive order. How, I have no idea. There is a difference between interpreting a fixed pattern in radio bleeps and deducing, from observing things that make us gasp, that God created the cosmos. We know that we can produce meaningful bleeps so we can search for answers to these meaningful bleeps in terms of beings like ourselves, not supermen. It is a first step. We can also look for planets that satisfy certain conditions, such as their proximity to their sun. Apparently we've found at least one good candidate.

Nevertheless, I firmly believe that if we do not even try to see the Big Picture, however abstract or imaginative it may be, we humans become sick, fragmented.

It may emerge from the sidelines not from direct assault. Sometimes we find applications in strange abstract areas. I think of group theory that seemed at first just a mathematical mind game. If we reach other planetary systems it will not be via our improved rocketry. In the same way I do not believe that our old philosophies will find God for us. I think disparate areas of learning are in fact cooperating. Probability theory is used when administering heparin, for example. I once worked on a Russian treatise that linked sun spot activity with the incidence of heart attacks. So there's more cooperation than fragmentation.

[marco]

[Replying to post 199 by marco]

"It doesn't mean any such thing"? You know that how?

I explained exactly why in my post. You said "I think X" and you drew a conclusion from X being true when in fact it was only THOUGHT to be true. Your conclusion would be correct were the assertion correct.

[marco]

[Replying to post 210 by marco]


I know I have a solid position and I am confident I can defend it. If you wish, you may disagree. And I am more than willing to offer counter-rebuttals.

We are in a thread that deals with God's responsibilities. If you wish to present your "solid position" elsewhere, then I will assuredly tell you in what way it is inadequate, if indeed it is, or I may be persuaded to join you in your confidence. Others, of course, whose skills exceed the mediocrity of Marco, may wish to refute you.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to marco]



9139.12 tokens

Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 212: Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:09 pm Re: What is God responsible for? Reply


[Replying to post 210 by marco]

I know I have a solid position and I am confident I can defend it. If you wish, you may disagree. And I am more than willing to offer counter-rebuttals.




Proofs for the existence of God are sematic playthings, you said. You know this how? Where is your argument that is the case? You've simply given your opinion. OK, fine. What is its rationale? Look, why don't you run through the major proofs, giving your rebuttal to each? For example, what's your take on the ontological argument? See, I'm hearing your skepticism alright, but I'm a wee bit suspicious you really haven't examined the proofs. If you went through one or more of them, that would put my mind at rest that you really know the material.

You said, "If there is a sentient God who wishes to be known then he will make himself known to the humblest among us, not to the arrogance of philosophers." And God hasn't revealed himself to the humblest among us? Who says god hasn't?
And are you assuming philosophers who believe in God are all arrogant? Don't you think that is a rather arrogant, unsupported opinion on your part?


You said, "Incidentally, I would not define my position as being 'up in the air.'"Yes, but you keep telling me you are unsure, you don't know. In America, we call that being up in the air on something.

You said,"It seems to me that my position is better than one derived from presumption and hope. I simply do not know. Nor do you. " Again, speak for yourself. Hope isn't important for you? Is that what you are saying? That's too bad, I think. And what do you mean by "presumption"? Are you saying I haven't well supported my position? I believe I have and can. If you feel something I've said is weak, in my case for God, then you should point it out and I will address it.








You said,"I have a degree in science so I would hardly wish to discredit one of my qualifications. The search for intelligence in the universe is, of course, supremely interesting. Drake's equation hardly assists it. " Oh? Really, why not?





You said" I do not fully endorse the argument of chance but I can see it is not quite as silly as it is often described. The watch appearing out of a sandstorm! All chance requires to do is produce, once, the magical setting for progressive order." You know that how? Can you provide any examples of watches appearing out of sandstorms?








You said, "There is a difference between interpreting a fixed pattern in radio bleeps and deducing, from observing things that make us gasp, that God created the cosmos." OK, so, what is the difference?


You said, "I do not believe that our old philosophies will find God for us." What specific "old philosophies" do you have in mind? Why do you feel they didn't work? And what about newer ones?

You said"I think disparate areas of learning are in fact cooperating. Probability theory is used when administering heparin, for example. I once worked on a Russian treatise that linked sun spot activity with the incidence of heart attacks. So there's more cooperation than fragmentation." I didn't say there wasn't any cooperation. However, I have sat in on too many interdisciplinary seminars where, yes, the participants sit and fight over territory and really don't speak the same language at all. Fragmentation is a real problem today.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 211 by ttruscott]

You said that life is forced by chance mutation. OK, you know that how?

There is no impulse in a watch for teh p8ieces to come together, you said. OK, so are you saying there is an impulse in supposedly passive, inert, dead matter to come together and form life? If so, why isn't that in the watch?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 215 by marco]

Good point. The OP assumes there is a God. Problem is, when I tried to say how I saw God's responsibilities, you tried to argue whether there was a God. So, OK, let's get back on the OP, assume God is a given here, and continue on from that.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 214 by marco]

Well, my assertion seemed correct to me. What makes you think it wasn't? And remember, we are taking God as a given here. I was simply stating what I understand God to be responsible for, not whether there is a God.

[marco]

[Replying to hoghead1]
.

You confuse knowing and opining. When you make a judgment, you seem to know it is correct. When I give an opinion, you ask how I know it.

I have been acquainted with the "proofs" since I was sixteen. If you wish to review them, do so. You will find many well-educated people consider the proofs inadequate, for they are not proofs at all; just illustrations.

I cannot simplify further what I have said in previous posts regarding your drawing wrong conclusions. Mostly it's because you have perhaps read the post quickly and misunderstood the point being made but I wouldn't presume to guess where the difficulty lies.

If you wish to discuss the standard proofs for God's existence, then you can do this on another thread. I cannot think what material you can bring that is not a regurgitation of all that has been written, for and against.