RE: "Flower in the Crannied Wall"

From: Moorad Alexanian (
Date: Wed Jan 02 2002 - 15:37:38 EST

  • Next message: bivalve: "views of scientists-help needed"

    George. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Moorad

    >===== Original Message From george murphy <> =====
    >"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
    - or
    >any other isolated item.
    >> Regarding
    >> 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
    >> truth.
    > "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