On the natural law defense and the disvalue of ubiquitous miracles

In this paper I explore Peter van Inwagen's conception of miracles and the implications of this conception for the viability of his version of the natural law defense. I argue that given his account of miraculous divine action and its parallel to free human action, it is implausible to think that God did not prevent natural evil in our world for the reasons van Inwagen proposes. I conclude by suggesting that on the grounds he provides for "epistemic humility" about modal claims and value judgments "unrelated to the concerns of everyday life," the theist should simply embrace skeptical theism and not further attempt to construct a defense of God's permission of evil.