Thank you for your well-articulated questions and propositions. First, I regret that my speculative assertions concerning God’s nature caused you consternation.
I concur w/you sir in that I don’t see how Christ’s resurrection was scientifically (medically) possible, but I believe it. Part of the reason I believe it is that science does not understand life and it’s components and principles, so there’s plenty of room for “miracles” in our uncertainty w/o violation of God’s natural laws (for me, this is legitimate and not a “God of the gaps” cop-out). Yet, I do not believe God stopped the rotation of the Earth (Joshua 10:12-14) for a number of reasons, which I’ll not go into at this time.
Next, I’ll address the two propositions you took issue with: 1) God breaking His own laws, and 2) God being deceitful under extenuating circumstances. First, I concur that God intervening in His creation does not necessarily result in God’s breaking of His laws. But the issue is God’s intervention in such a way that His laws are broken (e.g., via miracle). It is God’s volitional breaking of His own laws that I take issue with. Second, I contend that just because they’re God’s laws that He’s not immune to any moral consequence for breaking them (Rom. 9:20-22 not withstanding). Specifically, God’s perfect justice is not well served in requiring (eventual, post glorification) perfect obedience of man to His moral law while He simultaneously breaks His own physical laws.
In terms of God being deceitful if He in fact created a universe requiring age in an instant. First, a universe requiring age means one where a plurality of factors must advance thru their natural life-cycle for some long duration in order to yield an ecosystem suitable for sentient life. Some of these factors (and there are many) include: 1) the requirement of at least one or two complete stellar life-cycles to generate higher atomic number elements required for life; 2) decreased rate of asteroid bombardment on Earth; 3) atmospheric oxygen concentration build-up by plant life; and many others. So, the question becomes why would God break His own laws to create a universe w/attributes of great age in an instant? (and even YECs admit that the universe has the appearance of great age) If these attributes are indeed required (and they are) and they can be achieved naturally, w/o breaking His laws then why break His laws to accelerate that which does not need to be accelerated? I contend that the life-cycle of the universe doesn’t need to be accelerated because God abides in eternity. Therefore, lacking legitimate purpose to accelerate that which doesn’t need to be accelerated makes God deceitful if He indeed created by breaking His own laws. I don’t believe God is deceitful, so I don’t believe He broke His laws in His creation of the universe, hence I believe in an old universe.
Second, and a more important import is the moral nature of God, if He indeed performs (law breaking) miracles sporadically. The issue is why would God make an axe head float or stop (and then re-start) the rotation of the Earth when His precious children suffer horrendously under persecution undelivered, suffer violently under natural disasters un-helped, and suffer grievously under abuse unhealed? Mentally ill parents abuse, torment, and even kill their children; violent men abuse, injure and even kill their wives/partners; and I remember a little girl (I believe she was about 7 y/o) who was trapped in a collapsed building due to the Haitian earthquake years ago. Rescuers had to cut off her leg (w/o anesthesia) to extract her while she (being a Christian) prayed vehemently to live, only dying a couple days later in the poorly equipped and overcrowded hospital. Why make an axe head float when this beloved child could be saved/delivered/healed? What’s the better investment? What is the moral character of God? Better than that, perfect in fact, so there must be some explanation.
Jesus said (Matt. 10:29) that God even knows when a sparrow is in jeopardy. He also says that God must consent in the event of the sparrow’s death. One implication is that God is not directly causing the sparrow’s demise, but He reserves for Himself the final decision on matters of life and death. Another implication is that God (apparently) does not interfere in the natural consequences of His laws unless He has a compelling reason (justification) in so doing—I posit the argument favoring this reading of the cited verse is in God’s (passive) consent rather than His (active) volitional decision. The point of these implications is that God’s superintendence of His creation appears to be passive, which supports free-will. This does not preclude God’s active intervention in His creation by inviting and motivating people to action w/in the bounds of His laws and w/o violating our free-will.
I would further contend that God is not diminished by not being able to perform the impossible. And God is more awesome when we consider His knowledge, intellect, and operation thru the lens of science. And I believe that God is good, kind, loving, and long-suffering. So, I reconcile these seemingly disparate observations by holding that God restricts Himself to passive interaction with His creation, in deference to man’s free will, and He further restricts Himself to operations that do not break His laws (whether by necessity or volition I do not know).
C. S. Lewis in the Screwtape Letters states, “You must have often wondered why the Enemy [God] does not make more use of His power to be sensibly present to human souls in any degree He chooses and at any moment. But you now see that the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of His scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to override a human will (as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo.” Lewis teaches that God respects man’s free will to such an extent that God will take pains to ensure He does not overwhelm man and in so doing negate man’s free will (e.g., God operates substantially passively).
So, my bottom-line is best expressed by Charles Spurgeon, “God is too good to be unkind, too wise to be mistaken; and when you cannot trace His hand, you can trust His heart.” I do not understand God, and neither does anyone else, I can only trust God, and I do.