What do you mean by naturally?
Without breaking any natural laws, like none were broken in the three occasions of Godâs special providence just cited. Godâs hand? Absolutely. Any natural laws broken? No.
Donât forget that I believe evolution was designed (there was planning involved for exaptation, for instance), and governed by Godâs providence.
Natural laws donât exist in an ontological sense.
You are ascribing abilities to nature independent of God. Whatâs the basis for this?
And the universe is not self-existant. We agree.
I am ascribing abilities to nature only those that he has given it, and I am ascribing to God the freedom to intervene at his discretion.
Whatâs your basis for saying nature has said abilities independent of God?
How is God sustaining said abilities if they run in their own unless he intervenes?
I believe in gravity â it is the God-given ability of masses to gravitate towards one another.
Ok⌠so how does God sustain Gravity?
Or is it something that is instrinsic to mass and does not need to be sustained?
Which would lead us to ask which parts of the universe are sustained by God and which are not?
You are extrapolating, reading into my words things that I have not said, without warrant. I believe that God sustains the universe.
Daleâs idea of Providence is not what Catholicism/Aquinas teaches. Hereâs a summary and explanation on the topic.
My idea of the instances of Godâs special providence where he does not break any natural laws but uses extraordinary placing and timing, and sometimes physical extremes, matches reality.
âŚand scripture.
My kidney account is a demonstration of how Godâs providence in timing and placing extends to the molecular level:
I just read what you cited and I donât think I have a problem with it. How do you think my take is different from it?
Iâve told you before, âspecial providenceâ is special because it requires Godâs intervention, upholding creation does not. Youâve invented some third kind of providence that says God intervenes (special) by usurping natureâs given course (general) and then declaring its not intervention yet still special. I honestly donât follow the logic.
Itâs not a third kind of providence, you are just not recognizing that God does not have to break natural laws to intervene on behalf of his people, but he can wonderfully orchestrate the timing and placing of events and circumstances that intersect their lives. Where any natural laws broken in any of the instances recounted, or do you deny that they were providential? I said no such thing as âdeclaring its [sic] not interventionâ. I agree that youâre just not following the logic, honestly or otherwise.
but he can wonderfully orchestrate the timing and placing of events and circumstances that intersect their lives. Where any natural laws broken in any of the instances recounted, or do you deny that they were providential?
Yes, and thatâs called general providence.
This is where you say no, and insert a third kind of providence where you claim God intervenes but itâs not intervention.
No, general providence is what happens to all people, special providence is reserved for his own.