Criticisms and responses of miracles as violations

Criticism:

• Why would God help some and not others? Needs to face some moral questions. Wiles: A God who save sindividuals but ignores those in the 9/11 is not worthy of worship.

Response:

• God is beyond our understanding. He has a plan for us that we cannot question.Miracles are part of his plan, there is a reason he chooses to offer support to some individuals through miracles and only he knows this reason. Suffering is the result of human free-will, we should be grateful for those he does save not critical of the ones he doesn't. 

Criticism:

• Aquinas and Paley use order in the world as evidence for God. But if the world was ordered why would God need to intervene? If the natural laws are being broken, this also suggests the world is not that ordered. 

Response:

• Swinburne- Design argument is not undermined by miracles. Natural laws are Gods and only he can quasi-violate them. After his miraculous action, the laws of the world stay the same and the world is still ordered which requires an explanation - God.

Criticism:

• God cannot intervene if he was already present in the world. the fact that he is intervening suggests he was not previously present which leads to a deistic view of God. He is outside the world, not the sustainer, and only steps in occasionally. 

Response:

• If we change our definition of miracles, we can still believe in the God of classical theism. Mackay-Miracles are not violatiosn of laws of nature, they are instances when God interacts in the world in a slightly different way. Holland- Miracles are events of religious significance, a miracle is just an amazing coincidence/natural event which fits with the idea of a sustainer God.