Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference

Yes, of course my question involved theodicy.

It seems to me there are two possibilities, (perhaps there
are others), the first possibility is a God that is not
involved in his creation and just lets everything happen
by chance, or to run by whatever laws he created. The
second is a God that is continuously involved in his
creation, within which things happen that appear senseless
and random, or even evil.

I see serious issues with both.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:29:45 -0500
  "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Was it the will of God that a child be crushed by that
>boulder? Does God will anything evil? There's a serious
>theodicy question here in the context of these
>reflections about natural/human caused events, as you
>imply.
>
> I answer no to both questions.
>
> Bob
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From:
><drsyme@cablespeed.com>
> To: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>; "Freeman,
>Louise Margaret" <lfreeman@mbc.edu>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 8:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference
>
>
>>I think the important question to answer here is was it
>>the Will of God that the boulder rolled down the hill or
>>not?
>>
>> If the parents of the child are believers, I am sure
>>they are comforting
>> themselves with the claim that this was God's will, (or
>>perhaps they are
>> angry with God).
>>
>> If it is just an unlikely event, made more likely by
>>human choices (not
>> securing the boulder, the choice of where the house was
>>built, etc.), but
>> something that otherwise happened for no apparent
>>reason, and was
>> ultimately a result of natural causes, then where was
>>God in all of this?
>>
>> If God is in all things, then there really is no such
>>thing as random, and
>> everything thing that happens, even seemingly random
>>things, is the Will
>> of God.
>>
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:22:22 -0500
>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Louise, this is an easy one -- the law deals with cases
>>>like this all the
>>> time. The family will sue the mining company for
>>>negligence. Experts
>>> concerning mining procedures will testify about the
>>>standard of care for
>>> handling boulders resting near a grade, and the
>>>probability (usually
>>> expressed in general, not mathematical terms) of a
>>>boulder coming loose
>>> and
>>> rolling down the grade if the boulder is not properly
>>>secured or
>>> pulverized. A jury will examine the evidence concerning
>>>how the mining
>>> company handled this particular boulder and compare it
>>>to the standard of
>>> care.
>>>
>>> If the mining company's work fell below the standard of
>>>care for securing
>>> or
>>> removing the boulder, the jury will assess causation.
>>>First, the jury
>>> will
>>> ask, but for the breach of the standard of care, would
>>>the boulder have
>>> come
>>> loose and struck the house? If the answer to that
>>>question is "no," the
>>> mining company will be legally at fault. If the answer
>>>to that question
>>> is
>>> "yes," the jury will then ask, even so, was the mining
>>>company's breach
>>> of
>>> the standard of care a "substantial factor" in the
>>>boulder coming loose
>>> and
>>> striking the house. If the answer to that question is
>>>"yes," the mining
>>> company will be liable. If the answer is "no," the
>>>injury will be deemed
>>> not to have been caused by the agency of the mining
>>>company (i.e., it was
>>> a
>>> "natural" accident that would have happend without the
>>>mining company's
>>> agency).
>>>
>>> Every day, in every critical area of society -- law,
>>>business, medicine,
>>> government, etc. -- human beings assess questions of
>>>agency and
>>> causation,
>>> using practical reason, without a requirement of
>>>absolute rigorous proof.
>>> If it were otherwise, society would grind to a halt.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/17/06, Freeman, Louise Margaret <lfreeman@mbc.edu>
>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, don't make it a rock thrown out of a window. Make
>>>>it a boulder,
>>>> loosened by strip
>>>> mining, rolling down a mountain and smashing through a
>>>>house and killing
>>>> a sleeping
>>>> child (this happened in Virginia last year:
>>>> http://www.ohvec.org/links/news/archive/2005/fair_use/01_06.html
>>>> Although in this case the boulder had some help from
>>>>some careless strip
>>>> miners,
>>>> boulders can and do roll down hills without intelligent
>>>>intervention
>>>>
>>>> I can see two "extremes" of explanations:
>>>> "Pure" intelligent design, where a genius evil
>>>>mastermind with extensive
>>>> knowledge of the
>>>> terrain, the laws of physics and the layout of the
>>>>unfortunate boy's
>>>> house intentionally sets
>>>> the boulder rolling with the express purpose of killing
>>>>the child.
>>>>
>>>> "Random and unguided" Boulder, loosened by natural and
>>>> non-human-related events
>>>> (soil erosion, etc) rolls down hill and kills child.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see how Dembski's process is especially useful
>>>>in distinguishing
>>>> those two
>>>> explantions (which clearly are both incorrect) or in
>>>>leading to what is
>>>> considered the
>>>> correct explanation: intelligent human activity (strip
>>>>mining) increased
>>>> the liklihood a
>>>> boulder would roll down the mountain: once the boulder
>>>>was moving, the
>>>> child's death was
>>>> a random and unplanned consequence.
>>>>
>>>> If you try to consider all the probabilities: from the
>>>>mountain being
>>>> formed where it was,
>>>> that exact size and shape of boulder being deposited
>>>>there, the child's
>>>> parents meeting,
>>>> conceiving him, moving into the house and placing his
>>>>bed on that
>>>> particular wall, this can
>>>> only be considered an extremely improbable event. In the
>>>>grand scheme of
>>>> things , the
>>>> actions of the strip miners in starting the boulder
>>>>rolling probably
>>>> increases the probabilty
>>>> only very slightly. Yet they mining company is (rightly)
>>>>blamed for the
>>>> child's death.
>>>>
>>>> So, was this child's death "designed" or "chance"?
>>>>
>>>> __
>>>> Louise M. Freeman, PhD
>>>> Psychology Dept
>>>> Mary Baldwin College
>>>> Staunton, VA 24401
>>>> 540-887-7326
>>>> FAX 540-887-7121
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>>>> To: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>
>>>> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>>>> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:18:57 -0500
>>>> Subject: Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference
>>>>
>>>> > Sure you would. Check its angle, velocity, etc. It
>>>>likely would be
>>>> > pretty
>>>> > clear that it was thrown out the window.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>>>>with
>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
>>>>message.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> David W. Opderbeck
>>> Web: http://www.davidopderbeck.com
>>> Blog: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
>>> MySpace (Music): http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>>with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
>>message.
>>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
>message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 17 10:28:25 2006