Here's an interesting take on divine activity: http://renewaldynamics.com/2011/09/28/the -spirit-of-creation-modern-science-and- divine-action-in-the-pentecostal- charismatic—imagination/ It combines an emergentist approach with a semiotic realism, which seems like a vague phenomenology. To me, this approach, in general, looks like a metaphysical coat- rack on which one could hang different root metaphors, in other words, a heuristic from which competing models might proceed. For example, even if the heuristic, itself, appears agnostic as to whether a given downward causation violates physical causal closure via a robust telos or otherwise might derive from an analogous minimalist telos, this semiotic approach seems to suggest that some notions of formal and/or final causation are indispensable to reality's intelligibilityand, further, that there are no grounds for a priori ruling out either the robust or minimalist conceptions. Given this seemingly noncontroversial (and logically valid) framework, competing metaphysical accounts then argue, variously well, for different levels of abductive plausibility with pragmatic and reductio appeals and such. Even though certain facts cannot be interpreted as miracles in a syllogistically decisive manner, when properly argued, certain events can be interpreted as miraculous in an eminently reasonable manner. When | say “interpretation,” | mean that, beyond a mere factual description, a certain belief enjoys normative impetus, gifts existential actionability. As Walker Percy would say, it's not just information but NEWS. With no sacrifice of epistemic virtue, one can with confident assurance live as if theevent were a miracle, while in no peril of moral error or practical danger. My late friend, Jim Arraj, who ran innerexplorations.com , and who often discussed Aristotelian and Existential Thomisms (Maritain especially), spoke of what he intuited as "deep and dynamic formal fields" and that sounded very right- headed to me. Some laws might be "necessarily dynamic"? At least in certain models? The problem of evil in light of the best God -concepts out there seems to have 3 aspects that are most salient: 1) the logical problem, for which they formulate a defense; 2) the evidential problem, for which they formulate a theodicy; 3) the existential problem, for which they formulate responses to alleviate suffering. Best I can tell, the best theologians and atheologians recognize that there is nointellectual problem, because the best logically valid defenses just aren't controversial. Quite simply, they work as far as establishing the intelligibility of the concepts in a logically consistent way. As far as the evidential problem, one way of putting this is that, just because our God -concepts enjoy intelligibility regarding THAT God can be conceived as thus and such, it doesn't necessarily follow that His being partly apprehensible in exercising His will, in general, means that He must also be wholly comprehensible, i.e. such that we could pretend to understand HOW God effects His Will, in particular situations. Thus the atheological lament that, when it comes to the logical problem, no evidence is allowed, and when it comes to the evidential problem, no logic is allowed. That's much too facile a critique, though I understand why its gets launched. However, most of the heavy conceptual lifting hasalready been done in the original philosophical formulations of the God- concepts, formulations that most often will pre-empt many of the ad hoc questions that get raised regarding the problem of evil, questions not fully apposite to this or that formulation, which can be incredibly nuanced. The simple answer, expecting the above prose was too dense, is that one best consider the original God-concepts and their philosophical formulations, first, not evidential issues raised or theodicies offered. One will likely see the issue in a different light and ask different questions --- not necessarily getting the answers but getting, instead, more comfortable in abiding the mysteries! divine action, problem of evil, logical problem of evil, evidential problem of evil, existential problem of evil, existential actionability, performative significance, walker percy's message in a bottle,theodicy, pragmatic semiotic realism, emergentism