David M. Payne

Nice post HD, It should come in useful in arguing with the theists here.

David

Celsus

Davo,

Even if the theists don't want to accept the direct control of God, this verse comes in handy depending on the degree of literalism they hold:

Great post HD, I've often tried to argue from this angle, but never realised it had such a fancy name.

Joel

Davo

joejoejoe,

I assume it's the line "works out everything in conformity to his will" that you're focusing on. Keep in mind that it's possible for everyone to simultaneous act of their own free will and act in conformity to God's will.

Celsus

I agree with you, but then I wouldn't bring up issues that can be argued on the basis of free will in the first place - three of the four horsemen for example.

Heathen Dawn

That's not what I think. I'll tell you what I observe: a 2×2 matrix of the fatal possibilities. Thus:

1. Good people who prosper
2. Good people who suffer
3. Evil people who prosper
4. Evil people who suffer

without any apparent rhyme or reason to it. Could you please tell me, if it is so clear that God is under control, what the pattern of fatal control is? Again, retreating to "God's ways are unknown to us" will backfire on you, because then you can't know anything else about God.

What I wish to know is this: theists, whence the knowledge that God is under control? I argue that your only sources for this knowledge are post hoc rationalisations (as in "I blasphemed God, therefore I fell and broke my leg" - no! He'd have fallen and broken a leg even if he hadn't blasphemed!) and Holy Scripture. Without Holy Scripture harping on about the lordship of God over all things, people would see the uncontrolled universe for what it is and stop believing this ancient, foolish doctrine of divine control.

The universe as we observe it is full of free-flowing, autonomous elements, the sum of whose independent moves equals blind fate. If you argue otherwise - if you argue that there is an external sovereign overarching control over their fates - then the burden of proof is on you. By default, the sovereign-God does not exist.

Davo

Heathen Dawn,

Who said it's so clear that God is under control?

I don't follow your logic here. God's control over the world is unknown to us; therefore everything about God is unknown to us? Non sequitur.

It's a belief, and it's not necessarily derived from an ability to discern clear patterns in the fates of humans. Your question is akin to asking "Whence the knowledge that God exists?". It will have the same answer, but it's an awfully broad question.

You mean the universe as you observe it. Others may not, and many do not, have the same observation or perspective. You only have to look at horoscopes to realise that a great many people think what happens in the universe is very regulated. I certainly don't accept blind fate, chance, randomness, and atheism as the default position, even if in the area of human fate our observations generally don't lead rational people to conclude that God's in control. As I argued earlier, even if God is technically in control, the universe could still quite easily exhibit what we would consider to be an unfair dealing of fates.

Heathen Dawn

Holy Scripture. Men of the cloth. Priests. In fact, the whole of theism is dependent on the notion of God's clear control of the universe. Without this notion, theism simply cannot be. See also <a href="http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/nonsystematic.htm" target="_blank">here</a> for an explanation.

Sequitur, because the ignorance of this important fact about God sheds doubt on everything else. Holy Scripture provides <a href="http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/anthropocentrism.htm" target="_blank">very human ideas</a> about what God likes and dislikes and commands and prohibits; all of a sudden, Holy Scripture should be silent about this all-important matter of how God controls the world? If you cannot explain how God controls the world, this puts the very fact of God's control into doubt - it is demonstrative of the possibility that this is all a con-job.

Good admission: it's a belief without any evidence whatsoever to support it. A belief despite the fact that there is loads of evidence against it.

But it's a serious question that theists, time and again, have failed to answer. This isn't empty philosophy we're talking about here; this is a business of real-world claims! It is one thing to say God created the universe; but to say prayer to Him can make it rain is quite another, and here's where I oppose theism vehemently. You can keep your God to yourselves, theists; just stop claiming He has anything to do with the real world, because materialism is the only worldview that wins the day in making real-world claims.

No, I mean the universe as any impartial, un-anthropocentric individual observes it. The moment you stop placing humankind at the centre of the interests of the universe, you realise mankind isn't treated differently by natural fate than fish, birds and bugs.

Horoscopes are a fraud of conjecture. The fact that none of the astrologers, diviners, tarot readers or Nostradamus thumpers managed to predict 2001-SEP-11 is proof enough that they have no power to make any real-world claims whatsoever.

Well you should. Atheism, blind fate, chance and randomness are the only correct logical conclusions to follow an impartial observation of how the universe works. Dawkins again:

</strong>

No, it could not. If God is technically in control, there would be some pattern whereby fates are dealed. The fact that most religions push all just reward and punishment into the afterlife is absolute proof of their bankruptcy with regard to reward and punishment in this world. If this world exhibited a fair dealing of fates, there would be no need to invent the afterlife. As it happens, this universe does not value humans any higher than it values fish, birds and cockroaches. And in the light of the naturalistic Genesis story (aka evolution by natural selection), where mankind is just another animal among many, it is quite clear why this is so.

(edited to fix a date)

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: Heathen Dawn ]</p>

Davo

Heathen Dawn,

I'm not sure whether you were expecting me to reply to this post, but I'm unsure how I can, when so often you use unsupported assertions. Here are some examples:

If you want me to reply to any arguments that I could actually formulate a response to, I'm afraid I won't be able to as I'm going away for eight days or so.

Jobar

Davo, when HD said "Who said it's so clear that God is under control?", he obviously meant *in* control instead of *under* control. The context should have made that very clear.

And one of the great things about a discussion board is that you can go back to a topic days, weeks, or months later, and continue it. So please feel free to demonstrate why HD's assertions are unsupported, in your own time, and your own words. We will await you with interest.

Scrutinizer

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: Scrutinizer ]</p>