I’m not sure you need that. If you’re willing to grant an omnipotent being, it seems like spontaneous creation of whatever he wants would be more likely than anything else.
If miracles are possible, they’re always the simplest explanation for everything. Which might itself provide a methodological reason for denying them.
Well, now we’re getting into a discussion about the nature of God.
An omnipotent, but non-omniscient God might be compatible with evolution, especially if the universe is large (as it seems to be), because perhaps God, while capable of spontaneously creating stuff, just isn’t paying attention to anything going on in our particular neighborhood of the universe.
An omnipotent and omniscient, but disinterested God would also be compatible with evolution, as he could, if he wanted to, create new species, but just doesn’t bother, as he has other things to worry about.
Etc.
If miracles are possible, they’re always the simplest explanation for everything.
What about if miracles are possible, but extremely improbable? Which I think exactly describes the universe we are currently in, assuming you are willing to accept “new organisms of a new specie spontaneously coming into existence via random quantum effects” as a possible but extremely improbably miracle.
assuming you are willing to accept “new organisms of a new specie spontaneously coming into existence via random quantum effects” as a possible but extremely improbably miracle.
Nope. by ‘Miracle’ I mean God goes *poof* and things happen. If you’ve got an omnipotent, omniscient being with his grubby little paws in everything, then he provides the simplest explanation for any phenomenon.
Not true—you would still model God as some sort of cognitive entity. Miracles which are parsimonious given the temperament revealed by his previous miracles would be simpler.
For example, given a Judeo-Christian God, if you discovered that gay men were living longer happier lives than straight men, this would not be easily explained as a miracle.
assuming you are willing to accept “new organisms of a new specie spontaneously coming into existence via random quantum effects” as a possible but extremely improbably miracle.
by ‘Miracle’ I mean God goes poof and things happen.
Hmm… I think we are talking about the same territory. It’s just that in your map, you’ve labelled the territory as “God” and in my map, I’ve labelled the territory as “random quantum effects”.
I’m not sure you need that. If you’re willing to grant an omnipotent being, it seems like spontaneous creation of whatever he wants would be more likely than anything else.
If miracles are possible, they’re always the simplest explanation for everything. Which might itself provide a methodological reason for denying them.
Well, now we’re getting into a discussion about the nature of God.
An omnipotent, but non-omniscient God might be compatible with evolution, especially if the universe is large (as it seems to be), because perhaps God, while capable of spontaneously creating stuff, just isn’t paying attention to anything going on in our particular neighborhood of the universe.
An omnipotent and omniscient, but disinterested God would also be compatible with evolution, as he could, if he wanted to, create new species, but just doesn’t bother, as he has other things to worry about.
Etc.
What about if miracles are possible, but extremely improbable? Which I think exactly describes the universe we are currently in, assuming you are willing to accept “new organisms of a new specie spontaneously coming into existence via random quantum effects” as a possible but extremely improbably miracle.
Nope. by ‘Miracle’ I mean God goes *poof* and things happen. If you’ve got an omnipotent, omniscient being with his grubby little paws in everything, then he provides the simplest explanation for any phenomenon.
Not true—you would still model God as some sort of cognitive entity. Miracles which are parsimonious given the temperament revealed by his previous miracles would be simpler.
For example, given a Judeo-Christian God, if you discovered that gay men were living longer happier lives than straight men, this would not be easily explained as a miracle.
Hmm… I think we are talking about the same territory. It’s just that in your map, you’ve labelled the territory as “God” and in my map, I’ve labelled the territory as “random quantum effects”.