Dale, Rich, and Greg discuss providence and Genesis

What do you mean by naturally?

Without breaking any natural laws, like none were broken in the three occasions of God’s special providence just cited. God’s hand? Absolutely. Any natural laws broken? No.

Don’t forget that I believe evolution was designed (there was planning involved for exaptation, for instance), and governed by God’s providence.

Natural laws don’t exist in an ontological sense.

You are ascribing abilities to nature independent of God. What’s 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.

What’s 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 – 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.

[He] upholds the universe by the word of his power.

Dale’s idea of Providence is not what Catholicism/Aquinas teaches. Here’s a summary and explanation on the topic.

My idea of the instances of God’s special providence where he does not break any natural laws but uses extraordinary placing and timing, and sometimes physical extremes, matches reality.

…and scripture.

My kidney account is a demonstration of how God’s providence in timing and placing extends to the molecular level:

I just read what you cited and I don’t think I have a problem with it. How do you think my take is different from it?

I’ve told you before, “special providence” is special because it requires God’s intervention, upholding creation does not. You’ve invented some third kind of providence that says God intervenes (special) by usurping nature’s given course (general) and then declaring its not intervention yet still special. I honestly don’t follow the logic.

It’s 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 “declaring its [sic] not intervention”. I agree that you’re just not following the logic, honestly or otherwise.

(Thanks, @dga471. :slightly_smiling_face: We were momentarily and co-instantly working at cross purposes. :slightly_smiling_face:)

1 Like

Yes, and that’s called general providence.

This is where you say no, and insert a third kind of providence where you claim God intervenes but it’s not intervention.

1 Like

No, general providence is what happens to all people, special providence is reserved for his own.