To me as a german and after reading all your posts and uncertainty I would explain it like this and I base this on the truth of what you have written:
- On a meeting in a speech Weber tried to remember people about what somebody else said. It can be very well that Weber just ADDED the word "lieber" to "Gott".
Remembering somebody on something, with an ironistic vaine (which a lot of mathematicians have), is somehow like to talking to a child. Here I would like to mention the citation of Walter Felscher in the first entry by Colin McLarty.
If it is the case that Kronecker said the sentence WiTHOUT the above word, one, as a german native, cannot deduce with so much certainty which part of the sentence should be stressed. So then one could not deduce the intentions of Kronecker, but rather the intentions of Weber as to see in the next paragraph.
- Let us now analyze with an native linguistic feeling the above sentence:
"Die ganzen Zahlen hat der lieber Gott gemacht, alles andere ist Menschenswerk."
-My claim is that the stress lies on the second half "the rest is done by human work".
Proof: Suppose the contrary. The stress was on the first part. The grammatical structure of the sentence is easy and consists of object, subject, predicate; in this ordering. The object, the "whole" numbers are not new to the listener; they were common knowledge; they are not a new invention. So the stress does not lie on the "whole" numebrs. They are common knowledge, so if the stress was there and he meant something else he would had to redefine the term "whole" numbers by specifying it in a subordinate clause.
Also with the aid of native language feeling if I wanted to stress the object I would put it to the end of the sentence. I would rather say: "Der [liebe] Gott hat die ganzen Zahlen [gemacht]". But I would even then use the word "erschaffen" which is like "create" rather than "made=[gemacht]".
So we see that the information to be distributed if the stress lied on the first half of Kronecker's sentence would then be the predicate and subject. But the predicate is simple. It is only "has made". It doesnot contain any information. I would use as said before the word "create" if the information shall be put in the predicate.
Hence, what rests is the subject "[lieber] Gott" - "lovely god". But natives in german would then stress the subject by pronouncing it more so to make clear the information to be sent. But this sounds ridiculous if I say :
"Die ganzen Zahlen hat der liieeeebe Gott gemacht" where this is to be translated as " the whole numbers were made by the looooveely god".
It does sound ridiculous because I would never talk about god seriously with the adjective "liebe(r) - lovely". If I want to stress somebody in the sentence I would not try to harm the subject or make it childish by using the word "liebe(r)" to the subject. Here I again want to make reference to the citation of McLarty about somebody using the word "liebe(r)".
Another argument, I would even change the ordering of the sentence as before so to put the subject in front and then say what he/she did.
So we see that the stress really lies on the second half of the sentence. -End of proof.
In the commentaries somebody said that it is known Kronecker to have aproved/accepted the dictum by Gauss which contains the information that numbers are product of human mind. If this is so then it even becomes more clear that Kronecker really wanted to say that the "rest is done by human".
The sentence has the structure: even ..... is true, we still have .....
In German one puts the stress/ or main information normally at the end of the sentence. (The only exception I can think of is the subject which one puts in front if one wants to stress it - ** the second half of the sentence contains no subject because a general law or fact is stated. "Something is done by..."
The subject here has become an object "by ...")
The end of the sentence is that 'the rest is done by human kind'.
If Kronecker really said it like this then I see it in the following ironisitc manner:
My dear friends, remember shortly that we can be lucky that lovely god has given as at least some numbers to be existent, but the real thing is that the rest is done by human work!
(stress on the second part)
So I dont believe the sentence to be about God.
It only uses an existence property related to God as an assumption.
- The term "ganze Zahlen" (whole numbers):
As said before the stress might not lie in this part of the sentence. The "whole numbers" are to be seen as common knowledge. But common knowledge for whole numbers back then was integer numbers I guess.
In old texts ppl use the words "ganze Zahlen" as "integer numbers".
Still, "ganz" can also be meant in german in the sense of "vollkommen" which is like "perfect" or "not extendible".
I personally do not believe he meant only natural numbers in this sentence, but well, I actually dont know much about Kronecker. This is just a linguistic attempt to the meaning of sentences.