First cause

Originally posted by rwingett
You are not omnipotent. If you were then you'd be able to save the woman without harming her attacker. Likewise, if god is omnipotent then he can sustain mankind without requiring tsunamis. Nothing unintended can occur with an omniscient and omnipotent being. Eve didn't eat the apple without god knowing. He knew when she ate it. He intended for her to eat it. And he caused her to eat it.

My thoughts were more like, God in his infinite wisdom felt that evolution was the best way to develop mankind; this could only occur if there were disparate environments; such disparate environments presuppose tectonic plate movement, which as an indirect consequence, enable tsunamis to occur in the future.

Admittedly, the Adam and Eve story is a tad fluffy. God appears priggish and childish when he punishes Eve for something he knew would happen anyway (Although I doubt the authors at the time saw God as omniscient. Only later scriptural accretions articulate that sort of theological view of God.)

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You may as well say He caused you to come to the conclusions you currently hold; He caused you to post the words you just posted; He caused you to think the thoughts you just thought.

That is exactly what I am saying. He either caused everything, or he caused nothing.

Originally posted by Conrau K
My thoughts were more like, God in his infinite wisdom felt that evolution was the best way to develop mankind; this could only occur if there were disparate environments; such disparate environments presuppose tectonic plate movement, which as an indirect consequence, enable tsunamis to occur in the future.

Admittedly, the Adam and Eve story is a tad f ...[text shortened]... s omniscient. Only later scriptural accretions articulate that sort of theological view of God.)

You don't seem to quite grasp this whole omnipotence thing. If god wants plate tectonics without tsunamis then that's what he gets. As Roger Waters says, "What god wants, god gets; god help us all."

Originally posted by rwingett
You don't seem to quite grasp this whole omnipotence thing. If god wants plate tectonics without tsunamis then that's what he gets. As Roger Waters says, "What god wants, god gets; god help us all."

Most Christians will acknowledge that there are limitations to omnipotence: God cannot do the illogical; contradict his will; or forfeit omnipotence. If tectonic plates necessarily entail tsunamis, then God cannot create tectonic plates and yet disallow tsuanmis. To say otherwise would demand a feat of the illogical from God.

(This argument only relates to God as the first cause, and presumes that he left everything alone afterwards. It is theoretically possible God could ordain a divine intervention to prevent a tsunami each time one is about to occur. However, my point is that God could not cause everything into being such that tectonic plates occur but tsunamis do not.)

Originally posted by rwingett
That is exactly what I am saying. He either caused everything, or he caused nothing.

Well, again, your logic is flawed owing to omission. You have left out of your formula the salient issue: free will of the other agent.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Well, again, your logic is flawed owing to omission. You have left out of your formula the salient issue: free will of the other agent.

I think his point is that, if God is the cause of everything, then the free will of the other agent cannot exist. And if the free will of the other agent can exist, then there exists things which God neither caused nor require a cause beyond themselves, which would refute the teleogical argument.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Most Christians will acknowledge that there are limitations to omnipotence: God cannot do the illogical; contradict his will; or forfeit omnipotence. If tectonic plates necessarily entail tsunamis, then God cannot create tectonic plates and yet disallow tsuanmis. To say otherwise would demand a feat of the illogical from God.

(This argument only relates ...[text shortened]... God could not cause everything into being such that tectonic plates occur but tsunamis do not.)

Plate tectonics is an ongoing thing. Plates are moving all the time all around the world. How often does it result in a tsunami? Especially one big enough to kill tens of thousands of people? Not very often. Obviously just the fact that plates move does not cause tsunamis in and of itself. They only occur when the plates move in a very specific way. Any god with omnipotence in his portfolio could cause plates to move in ways which do not cause tsunamis if he cared enough to do so. And he could do it without lapsing into logical contradictions. I can't believe I even have to go to the trouble of explaining this.

Later intervention is completely irrelevant and unnecessary. When he supposedly created the world (and even before), god knew that the events he set in motion would cause a tsumani on December 26th, 2004, and that 225,000 people would die. From the very beginning he knew the exact time, he knew the names of every victim, and he could have caused it all to come out differently. Later intervention would only be necessary if he didn't know a tsunami was going to hit. But being omniscient, it's not possible for him to be taken by surprise. It's not like he'd be sitting around saying, "Whoa, didn't see that one coming. Let me just intervene a little here. Hope nobody saw that."

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Well, again, your logic is flawed owing to omission. You have left out of your formula the salient issue: free will of the other agent.

Free will is completely incompatible with an omniscient and omnipotent god. And even if it weren't, you would still have to account for natural disasters, which are not caused by free will.

Originally posted by rwingett
Free will is completely incompatible with an omniscient and omnipotent god. And even if it weren't, you would still have to account for natural disasters, which are not caused by free will.

May I ask, what is your point, exactly? Why do you suppose that natural disasters are incompatible with the Christian faith? I know many Christians who have had their houses wiped out by floods, tornadoes, and their health seriously damaged by freak illnesses, etc. - none of which served to undermine their faith in God's goodness; nor have they ceased praising Him in the midst of their trials and tribulations. Christ warned His followers that in this world there would invariably and inevitably be troubles, and that no one is safe from those troubles - they are a neutral factor in life, befalling the faithful and unfaithful alike.

Originally posted by rwingett
Free will is completely incompatible with an omniscient and omnipotent god. And even if it weren't, you would still have to account for natural disasters, which are not caused by free will.

Not really; God could be omniscient and omnipotent and a sadistic prick.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Not really; God could be omniscient and omnipotent and a sadistic prick.

That goes without saying. But I fail to see how that makes room for free will.

Originally posted by rwingett
Free will is completely incompatible with an omniscient and omnipotent god. And even if it weren't, you would still have to account for natural disasters, which are not caused by free will.

This is where your logic fails to bring understanding. As has been stated previously and repeatedly, God did the impossible: created a free will agent, the other. In doing so, (eventually) the free will agents cast chaos into the otherwise perfect universe. We've been dealing with the fallout ever since.

Thankfully, God already had the solution in mind prior to beginning.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
May I ask, what is your point, exactly? Why do you suppose that natural disasters are incompatible with the Christian faith? I know many Christians who have had their houses wiped out by floods, tornadoes, and their health seriously damaged by freak illnesses, etc. - none of which served to undermine their faith in God's goodness; nor have they ceased ...[text shortened]... hose troubles - they are a neutral factor in life, befalling the faithful and unfaithful alike.

If they understood the problem of evil they'd see their faith in the goodness of god is unwarranted. But I think you are mistaken. When the tsunami struck there were many religious people who did question how such an occurrence could be compatible with a supposedly all loving god.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This is where your logic fails to bring understanding. As has been stated previously and repeatedly, God did the impossible: created a free will agent, the other. In doing so, (eventually) the free will agents cast chaos into the otherwise perfect universe. We've been dealing with the fallout ever since.

Thankfully, God already had the solution in mind prior to beginning.

The free will agent? Is Scott Boros representing free will now?

Even if we accept your gibberish at face value we see the problem still remains:

1. Chaos causes typhoons.
2. Freewill agents cause chaos.
3. God created free will agents.
4. Therefore god is ultimately responsible for causing typhoons.

Tracing the causal chain backwards leads directly to the guilty party, which is god.

Originally posted by rwingett
Free will is completely incompatible with an omniscient and omnipotent god. And even if it weren't, you would still have to account for natural disasters, which are not caused by free will.

So God can do anything EXCEPT choose to give us free will? Granted, it is a mystery but an all powerfull God can do ANYTHING he chooses to do no matter how impossible it may seem to us. As for natural disasters, what can I say? Man was kicked out of paridise.