If this is a real question, you can go back to any of the dozen other threads where we have discussed this topic.
Science is a method of inquiry into what can be measured.
One speaks to high probability events occurring (given known (name removed by moderator)uts). We know how planets form, given existing cosmic environments. We know what forces cause earthquakes and other phenomena. However, what we don’t know is whether abiogenesis occurs. Extrapolating from an unknown, using vectors from known phenomena, leads to interesting thought experiments… but I’m not sure that I’d say that it produces valid results.
The classical approach to Deism is the “divine watchmaker”, who sets the universe in motion and steps back and lets it do its thing. That’s what @IWantGod mentioned in his post.
I saw more of the “watchmaker” vibe in his post.
We might say that the universe itself is an activity of God. To say that God must miraculously intervene in the natural processes of the universe in order to explain natural events implies a narrow and less powerful God than one that causes all things, including natural principles, all at once and forever.
I’ve got to disagree with you, there. “Personal” =/= “less powerful”.
A God that allows things to act and manifest according to their own nature doesn’t necessitate Deism, like Wesrock has explained.
Because to create a natural order that cannot produce the physical reality he intends does not make sense. That’s where the limitation rears it’s ugly head.
OK. So… “sustaining in existence”, but not “causing things to happen aside from setting them in motion in the first place”?
Unless, that is, he intends His personal care and action to be part of the plan from the very beginning…
And allowing things to act according to the principles of it’s nature through the actualizing power of God. That is not deism, it’s Thomism.
Psst… that’s what I said.
Then why create a natural order? The point of the OP is that from the moment of the Big Bang it seems that God has allowed nature to run it’s course, so why stop when it comes to possibility of abiogenesis?
It’s His creation. He doesn’t get to make it work in the way He wants?
The still-unaddressed-600-pound-gorilla is whether what we see actually is “nature running its course.” If we can’t make that determination, we can’t draw conclusions from it as a premise.
True, but at the same time his actions do have the right to make senseIt’s His creation. He doesn’t get to make it work in the way He wants?
IWantGod:
To Him or to you?
God did not miraculously intervene to create the universe. A miracle is an effect that occurs contrary to the natural order, and there is no natural order logically prior to creation. Creation ex nihilo isn’t a miracle, it is a simple act of God.
Direct action isn’t in question, but rather whether or not God interjects a miraculous effect into the natural processes in order for the natural process to progress according to its nature. If we say that the mitosis of a bacterium is a natural process, and that base chemical reactions are a natural process, but that chemical reactions can’t get to bacterium without miraculous intervention, then we are asserting that created nature (considered as a whole) is not sufficient to produce natural effects. This diminishes God’s Power because it means that God can not create a nature that acts according to its design.
Therefore, an action in a void counts as “not natural to the existing order”.
“Its nature” according to its physical existence, or according to God’s plan? If it were His plan all along, then we’re not talking about something extraordinary (just something divine).
Great. In other words, there’s no such thing as a “miraculous intervention”, since it’s still part of the eternal act of creation.
Void isn’t an existing order, and a simple act of God is not outside of the existing order. God isn’t interjecting anything by the simple act of creation.Therefore, an action in a void counts as “not natural to the existing order”.
Its physical existence is God’s plan. The activity of the nature is God’s plan. The very existence of created nature is God’s activity. Creatures do not have any being apart from the direct activity of God.
Miraculous refers to an effect that is interjected into a natural process. The fact that the natural process itself is an act of God is irrelevant.Great. In other words, there’s no such thing as a “miraculous intervention”, since it’s still part of the eternal act of creation.
Unless it’s beyond our comprehension like being timeless, i expect God’s actions to make sense since he is the very ground of intelligibility, which is the reason why science exists in the first place.
One must consider the effects of the fall.