George. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Moorad
>===== Original Message From george murphy <email@example.com> =====
>"Moorad Alexanian" wrote:
>> Dear George,
>> Perhaps I read more into the poem that is warranted. But the real question
>> 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
>its environment. The analytic procedure of isolating certain parts of the
>and trying to understand them by themselves has had a great deal fo success,
>it also has its limitations. If we're to get a "theory of everything" then
>need to consider a better approximation to "everything" than a single flower
>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
>that there is "a" God but not "what" (better, "who") that God is. Knowledge
>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
>> 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
>that we are less than perfect things, that we do things that hurt ourselves
>other people &c just from our experience of life in the world. But that we
>"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 - 15:38:36 EST