Would God have the Right to Rule the Earth?

Of course not Smi, wouldn't that be a denial of freewill

I really don't understand this question. What do you mean by 'right'? 'Right' and 'wrong'are human concepts and have no meaning when considering a putative deity.

Ha ha, Dale, Im not so sure free will means you can do what you want. For instance I believe that I am free to do my own will, however that does not mean I can venture outside the guidelines set by a government that is over me.

Lustig, my apologies. I intended the use of the noun rather than the adjective, does that help? or am I misunderstanding your misunderstanding?

Thanks for the clarification, but I still don't see how a consideration of human law applies to a question about the divine.

You really have to read the small print on that one.

thnx for pointing that out, fm.

Im no expert in words, which is probably why I am so very nonplussed right now my friend. Perhaps I could try again?

If a man built a business and filled it with employees, would he have the right to dictate policy?

In kind, if God (according to the account of creation) did indeed exist, would it be fair to consider him the entrepeneur in the story?

Yes to both questions.

Yes, but only within the rules, laws and regulations of the local and State authorities.

God, if such a being existed, could also dictate policy, but he (or she or it) would be bound by the laws set down by Himself as the moment of creation.
(That's why he never recreates the chopped leg of anyone.)

Joe(natural law trumps all)Nation

I don't think he can prove that he's a natural-born citizen of the US, so he can't rule us.

You mean, god is not omnipotent? What kind of god is not all powerful and not always right?

How do you know it's a "he?" How do you know it wasn't consumed in the act of creation? How do you know it didn't just go away after the act of creation? Why would this god care more for this small corner of such a vast "creation" than anywhere else in the cosmos?

This is an exercise in unwarranted conceit.

Being a non human entity it is likely that God is neither he nor she, although most christians have a habit of humanising their deity, depending on where one takes ones references. All my references suggest he, I am happy to address God such at my own peril.

I also distinctly remember his voice to be male in all the films

That aside, I am talking about the principality of the matter. Does a theoretical God have the right to exercise authority over his creation?
Wether he would want to or how he would go about it, wether he is still around at all is all for another discussion.

More to the point, why would a unique entity have a sex at all? To what purpose?

true my friend, although stepping back to the theory of a God installed world, God would essentially be writing policy for mans interaction with God, mans interaction with man and mans interaction with his environment. Gods interaction with man would be his own.

What is the chopped leg reference, i am intrigued

The word you wanted was whether. If we are talking about an entity sufficiently powerful to create a cosmos (and by inference sufficiently powerful to destroy it), then it is foolish to think in terms of "rights." Furthermore, it is foolish to assume it does not already "rule" all of that cosmos, if for no other reason than that it has already ordained the physical laws which "rule" said cosmos. This is an exercise in conceit because it assumes a significance for this planet which is unwarranted.

Set you have never been more right, there is an H in whether.

I think your premise would render this discussion irrelevant, I will give you that. My premise however does not.

We are unable to challenge the laws of the cosmos, you are right there also, so 3 out of 3 ain't bad.

What of moral law and the governance of every day human life? The ability to dictate what is right and wrong?

It's not my premise. You posit a creator god, that means you're stuck with those premises.



Oh yes, your premise does make the discussion irrelevant, you just don't see it, or don't want to see it.

Whether or not there is such a thing as "moral law" is an entirely different and separate discussion. However, it does give us a hint about why you posed this silly question.

I asked the question to start a discussion, I have a viewpoint, I like to pitch my thoughts in an open arena to challenge and be challenged. I quite enjoy the banter that goes with it, even yours dear Set

You premise that a theoretical God would have no more interest in the Earth than any of the other billion galaxies ( I have no extended knowledge on the exact number of stars) I might be wrong of course, I have been before

I premise that the creative God has a long term project that involves the Earth. (another conversation for another thread)

I dont like to think myself entirely ignorant. I am happy to consider a decent explanation as to why my discussion is pointless. You could be right for all I know, I just need more convincing is all.

Morality is purely the distinction between right and wrong, so essentially the question can be extended to ask does it belong to a theoretical creator God to decide what is right and wrong? by that definition I think it fits this conversation just fine.