> An action differs from an ordinary event in that an action
>involves intentionality, and this brings in the agent. An agent performs
>an action for the purpose of bringing about a certain state of affairs.
>If this intention is rational and significantly free, then it is
>personal.
> Agent causation may be a viable alternative explanation to a
>naturalistic explanation for a certain phenomenon.
Why do you view "agent causation" as an alternative to a naturalistic
explanation? Are you implying that God's intentionality is not involved
where we can recognize a series of cause-and -effect processes? If so,
this would contradict the testimony of scripture. If not, I don't see that
"agent causation" is any different from the doctrine of providence. Am I
missing something?
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.ksu.edu
http://www.ksu.edu/~kbmill/