Do you think that natural laws, such as we understand them right now, imply determinism? In what sense do you believe in determinism?

I generally assume that there is lots of room for free creativity, even in a universe that follows natural laws. It seems like live music to me, not something pre-programmed into a synthesizer. But I don't think about natural laws as much as I'm sure you do.

Nothing about determinism says that the effects of any change cannot be spatially constrained.

That's quite possibly true. If the initial conditions were centered on the smallest possible region to affect the red sea (and no outside conditions need to be adjusted in order to keep our universe a friendly smooth habitable place), it would only have propagated out in a billion parsec radius sphere. That's a fairly small part of the visible universe (about 2% the total volume), but does contain all observed galaxies.

The less God has to do in this system, the easier it is to make a brute distinction between miracles and non-miracles. If God could adjust the initial conditions very little, and in such a way that their effect could be kept to arbitrarily small regions, then you could say that miracles are anything that results from God messing with the initial conditions and non-miracles are everything else. I doubt that this is possible.

Keep in mind I don't think that God actually does this. I just think that this is possible.

If you change the initial conditions in a deterministic universe, those changes have to propagate into the future.

Into the future, yes, but not necessarily through the entire universe. Nothing about determinism says that the effects of any change cannot be spatially constrained.

As you defined it, I have still have no way to distinguish a miraculous event from an ordinary event.

I think the distinction is quite clear in the case of the parting of the sea, versus the other events that would be caused along the way.

OK. I suppose that whatever reason you have for believing that it actually happened also gives you reason to believe it had some spiritual significance distinguishing it from, let us say, today's rising of the sun.

This is the best I can do to explain how a distinction is to be made between miracles and non-miracles. If you still don't see how to make such a distinction, I must admit defeat.

As best I can assess my own motivations, I'm not being deliberately obtuse. I think I have some idea of what you're trying to say, but if I'm correct, then you're right that there is not much more clarification to be had. I appreciate your patience.

I certainly can't. Are you saying God couldn't have?

God could not have, because it would be logically impossible to do so. If you change the initial conditions in a deterministic universe, those changes have to propagate into the future. If the changes don't have to propagate, then it's not a deterministic universe.

As you defined it, I have still have no way to distinguish a miraculous event from an ordinary event.

I think the distinction is quite clear in the case of the parting of the sea, versus the other events that would be caused along the way.

Or, another example, Fatima by initial conditions. God sets the initial conditions such that three children experience visions telling them about the sun dancing, and then also sets the conditions so that a rare meteorological event occurs. It seems absurd to me to say that this is just as much a miracle as the jostling of molecules in the air, even if God set those conditions too.

This is the best I can do to explain how a distinction is to be made between miracles and non-miracles. If you still don't see how to make such a distinction, I must admit defeat. I'm not capable of explaining it better, and so not capable of helping you understand my position better. So there's no real point in going on, me trying to answer your questions.

But please let me know if this is the case, that you still don't see how the distinction is made. If nothing else, it will help me think about how to better describe my position for the future.

I would begin to answer your question about fundamental tenets by telling you how I understand the Church. I understand the Church as the Body of Christ. That is not a metaphor for me. I literally think that the living Christ manifests himself materially through the Church (notwithstanding that the Church is understood to be female, which has interesting gender implications for the living Christ), just as I literally believe that the Eucharist is a material manifestation of Christ.

Therefore, discerning what the Church truly believes is, for me, very much like discerning what a human being believes. Human beings say things that appear contradictory. They say things through their body language. They say some things out loud, and some in writing. They say some things very clearly, and other things much less so. Human beings have complex multi-compartment brains, and the different compartments are often in tension, or even at war with each other. I see all that as being true of the Church as well.

Despite all that complexity, I think some things are clear. For explicit Christians, the Resurrection is the ultimate non-negotiable (though I do buy into the idea of anonymous Christianity, wherein Resurrection faith may be held implicitly and unconsciously). Branching out from there, you immediately have the Incarnation, and then the rest of the stuff in the Creeds. Eventually, for Catholics, you land on this gradient of Church teaching that spans everything from dogmata to encyclicals to catechism to what your priest told you to what your Grandma told you. I don't think the lines between those different categories of Church teaching are clear. I think you have to do your best and make an honest assessment as to whether you are really listening to the true Church or just a Church of your own selfish imagining.

For my part, I am thoroughly convinced that I am listening to the true Church and not a Church of my own devising. I don't know Christ perfectly, and I encourage people to call me on it when I say something about Christ that is incorrect, but I don't let anyone tell me that I don't have a personal relationship with Christ. If people want to call me a cafeteria Catholic, they can go ahead. I know who I am, and I think I know who Christ is, so people can go ahead and say what they want.

I still haven't really answered your question, but I've gone on so long already that I feel I should stop here.

That's not a miracle, as I defined it above.

As you defined it, I have still have no way to distinguish a miraculous event from an ordinary event.

Now, changing the initial conditions of a deterministic universe is going to have all sorts of consequences. You can't just change it so the sea parts.

I certainly can't. Are you saying God couldn't have?

Any or all of the possibilities on my list would work for me. I'm not picky.

I don't think that would be an accurate representation of my position.

We're imagining God exists right now, and that he wanted to part this sea, and that we know he did because he told us somehow (maybe he told someone on good faith, and it got written in a book).

Now, changing the initial conditions of a deterministic universe is going to have all sorts of consequences. You can't just change it so the sea parts. Lots of other things are going to happen before that. God may not have intended the particular motions of every atom along the way. He doesn't care much if this particular nitrogen molecule happens to be a bit to the right or to the left, except insofar as its position is part of what gets the sea to part when Moses is there.

God wanted the sea to part. The sea parting is statistically unlikely. It would be hard to explain in a plausible way why such a thing would have happened by chance. It's a miracle, as I defined it before.

I stub my toe on a chair. The event in itself isn't all that unlikely. It's pretty easy to explain. In spite of some choice words, God wasn't invoked. That's not a miracle, as I defined it above.

People certainly do have different ideas about spirituality. That is why, whenever a particular believer mentions it, I have to ask what they're talking about. Knowing what others have said doesn't tell me much about what you're trying to say.

Maybe you say that the miracle happened at the origin of the universe, but I'd like to say that the directly intended effect, the parting of the sea, was a miracle too.

In either case, I don't see how the parting of the Red Sea, so explained, differs from the rising of the sun every day. It seems to me that you just proven everything that has ever happened to be a miracle.