"Moorad Alexanian" wrote:
> Dear George,
> Perhaps I read more into the poem that is warranted. But the real question is
> what is the minimum you need to know to determine the whole of the physical
> world. To say it differently, if a theory of everything (TEO) explains the
> flower, can we work backward from the flower and determine the TEO.
I think not. The flower really is what it is only in relationship with
its environment. The analytic procedure of isolating certain parts of the world
and trying to understand them by themselves has had a great deal fo success, but
it also has its limitations. If we're to get a "theory of everything" then we
need to consider a better approximation to "everything" than a single flower - or
any other isolated item.
> what God is, I believe that the existence of nature already tells man that
> there is a Creator and that that Creator is indeed God.
I would agree that we can conclude (though not ambiguously) from nature
that there is "a" God but not "what" (better, "who") that God is. Knowledge of
who God is comes only from God's own self-revelation.
> Now there is a
> conscious being who is observing the flower and I believe that conscious being
> can know its sin nature and thus may understand Christ very readily. Of
> course, the latter, you are right, is a historical event or else revealed
"Sin nature" is a problematic phrase but let that pass. We can conclude
that we are less than perfect things, that we do things that hurt ourselves and
other people &c just from our experience of life in the world. But that we are
"sinners" in the theological sense is again something that we know from
revelation, for it implies that we know something of God's will for us.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 02 2002 - 15:22:09 EST