george murphy wrote:
> Guy Blanchet wrote:
> > Of course, the above becomes very academic unless it may be demonstrated that
> > a model invoquing the supernatural may be successfully constructed. This is
> > a subject that has got me going for the past 13 years. If you are interested
> > in knowing more, I'll be pleased to pass on what I've found out. (Note: In
> > my case, by supernatural, I mean the Biblical variety.)
> The biblical variety of what? The Bible doesn't use the categories
> of "natural" and "supernatural."
Precisely; to have a natural model "invoquing the supernatural" seems to me to be
doubly problematic in that it is a conflation of categories that are not well
defined to begin with. If a supernatural event is defined to be an event that is
inexplicable by natural causes - as observed through empirical investigation , then
it follows (definitionally ) that it is not in the domain of science.
-- George A. Andrews Jr. Physics/Applied Science College of William & Mary Williamsburg, VA 23188
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 20 2000 - 10:31:46 EDT