I like that. A lot. But then I would, wouldn’t I 
2 Likes
May be it is worth to emphasis that ID says it is both.
To stay in this analogy. People believe that there is an assembly line for an eye lens, but they can’t even imagine how this would have worked. Believing in the existence of an assembly line that one doesn’t observe or can describe is believing that the Creator couldn’t have done it another way, not?
It is Lennox who writes that there are gaps that can be filled and gaps that will not be filled. (I think in his book: Can science explain everything).
If you mean the process by which the eye evolved, you’re totally incorrect – scientists not only can imagine how it worked, they have examples of every step along the way.
His “gaps that can’t be filled” are ones where there is overwhelming evidence that there can be no scientific solution to – the Big Bang is his favorite.
2 Likes
Part of the problem is that there are multiple questions that are often not well-distinguished in claims relating to ID-type questions:
Is God at work in all “natural” processes, or is He only at work in the miraculous, or somehow more involved in the miraculous than the “natural”?
Where should we expect to find examples of miraculous action?
How do we detect examples of miraculous action?
Is this particular claim about evidence for miraculous action or lack thereof well-supported?
Does this prove that natural laws can’t explain this particular example?
Does this completely rule out the possibility of any miraculous-style action in this particular example?
Can we generally rule out miraculous-style action?
Out of the wide range of different “ID” positions, which are or are not being endorsed or criticized?
2 Likes
“Most of the time God’s present you’re never gonna see it. There’s this thing called ‘the unseen hand’, there’s this thing called ‘providence’. God isn’t just engaged, He doesn’t just sorta care when something big happens. God’s interest is unrelenting, moment by moment.”
– Dr. Michael Heiser in “Questions Theologians Aren’t Answering For You”
2 Likes
I would answer these questions as follows:
God is as much involved in natural processes by second causes as when He works directly. The only thing that God isn’t involved in is in moral evil things.
Following CS Lewis, with respect of God I would say: when it fits His other actions and His words. According to others: in times of crisis. And with respect of Satan, I would say when it fits his actions and lies. So, intermingled with delusion, lies and tricks.
May be, that most miraculous actions are not detected at all. But we can know them since we experience them ourselves (empirical), we conclude that rationally or we hear or read from it.
That is always a good question
This depends on what degree of probability is accepted and this depends both on the data and the mind set. Hume will never accept a miracle. According to Newton, the only difference between natural and miracle is the frequency of which it occurs.
it depends on how Hume-like our opinions are, how we regard this question. People can always assume a miracuous-style action if they simply don’t believe in miracles.There is always the solution that we are getting mad or that it wil be clear in the future. People that believe that miracles are possible, doesn’t need to completely rule out the possibility of any miraculous-style action. If the estimation of the probability of a miracle is higher than the probability of any miraculous-style action, then there is sufficient basis to accept a miracle.
And yet even then the power/energy to do those things comes from Him.
1 Like
Yes. Evil parasitizes on God’s goodness.
1 Like
And the flip side, God provides His energy “both to the just and the unjust”. It shows His great love; He could stop providing His energy to the wicked and they would cease to exist, but by maintaining them in existence He offers the chance for life.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.