George Andrews Jr. a écrit:
> george murphy wrote:
> > Guy Blanchet wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > 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."
> > Shalom,
> > George
> 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.
I have to agree with you that what you are saying is quite in sync with current
thinking. I commend you for using the phrase "...seems to me...". You're leaving
yourself open to be surprised. That's called wisdom.
> George A.
> George A. Andrews Jr.
> Physics/Applied Science
> College of William & Mary
> Williamsburg, VA 23188
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 08:24:34 EDT