Why "mysterious ways" don't matter.

[Mudhammam]

My mention of chaos theory was to support the sentence that we are not in a position to judge if God has a morally justified reason for allowing something to happen. The discussion on miracles was in the context of science proving that no such thing exists. If God chooses to cause a miracle to happen, He would still know the infinite ramifications of it.

Your mention of re-arranging the entire chain does not apply if you believe that God already has the foreknowledge of everything that will happen. The miracle would have already been part of the chain.

You talk about philosophical slippery slopes below, I think in a dubious way, but here it genuinely applies. How on earth could one ever distinguish between a miracle that is intrinsic to the natural processes and an anomaly? You can call everything a miracle, and some Christians actually do, but you cannot offer any justification for calling a single event a miracle under your definition. Moreover, for one who thinks that free will cannot coincide with the laws of nature, how do you justify God's foreknowledge? In other words, the Future is ever-present from a God's-eye-view of time, which means the actions I will commit tomorrow are present to God's foreknowledge, and you seem accepting of this notion but in the name of free will protest the idea of Laplace's demon? Please elaborate and clarify what you mean by free will. If you think actions or thoughts are somehow Uncaused, then your only mechanism for the source of all thoughts and actions are their random spontaneous appearance in the will, and that hardly preserves the quality of freedom you insist upon any more than the scientifically informed point of view.

Believing there are no objective moral values is a philosophical slippery slope. Judgments about right or wrong are not possible. If Hitler had won WWII and established his new order with his views, would it still have been wrong to exterminate the Jews and other undesirable people groups? Is it objectively wrong the way women are treated in Afghanistan?

Now, I can understand why it would seem impossible to make judgments about right or wrong under theism, which basically renders all moral statements to the determination of an authority--the irony being that that's exactly how a sociopathic racist like Hiter was able to persuade so many to his cause; duping them into surrendering free, rational, honest, introspective dialogue about the nature of humans, race, and the individual to society for complete devotion and trust in his grand, sovereign, "good" plan. However, under a godless paradigm of morality, we do not derive evaluative statements from supreme leaders, gods, or authorities, but rather rational debate that includes what it is we in fact mean by good, evil, and moral value, shaped by our experiences which are constantly expanding as knowledge progresses. If your locus of moral value does not begin with sentient beings, then you really have no objective paradigm by which to have rational discourse--all you have are competing theologies...which gets one no where.