Craig Rusbult wrote:
> I don't think referring to "God working through natural
> processes" is sufficient, unless there is a modifying statement (in
> same sentence, or a nearby sentence) that clarifies the difference
> "no action" and "action that does not appear to be miraculous," and
> also acknowledges the existence of miracles (such as the resurrection
> of a
> dead person) that CANNOT be explained by science because they occurred
> processes that differ from the "normal mechanisms" postulated by
The notion of a miracle is problematic to science since repetition is
what is usually meant by physical law; for if a "miraculous phenomenon"
- i.e. resurrected bodies - occurred in a regular, observable fashion it
would then cease to be "miraculous." I often wondered what one would
observe, if given the privilege of monitoring the processes during a
"miraculous" event. Would we be able to describe it in terms of present
or perhaps newly conjectured scientific theories? If so, would this
detract from the supernatural content that is requisite to a miracle?
I prefer the notion that all of life in its natural mystery is
miraculous; hence "whether we eat or drink or what so ever we do; wo do
all to the glory of God."
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Description: Card for Andrews Jr., George
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
fn: Andrews Jr., George
n: Andrews Jr.;George
org: LeTourneau University
adr: Natural Sciences;;PO Box 7001;Longview;Texas;75607;USA
title: Assistant Professor of Physics
tel;work: 903 233 3281
tel;fax: 903 233 3282