From: allenroy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Sep 20 2003 - 00:12:26 EDT
> What I am trying to say succinctly is that events that
> are sometimes labeled as supernatural -- lets take the
> resurrection -- involve divine action but do not
> necessarily involve a disruption of the created order
> or the laws of physics. That is a Humean idea of
> miracles that ignores the plain meaning of the word
> and begs the question of what constitutes a miracle.
> Miracles do not require violations of the laws of
> physics, which I tried to get across by pointing out
> that many things ascribed as miracles are clearly
> natural phenomena and scriptures dont pretend they
1. Do we know everything there is to know about how the natural world
works? Some say that the more we know, the more questions we have.
2. Since we don't know every thing there is to know about the workings
of nature, then we cannot determine for sure if an event is "natural" or
"supernatural"--i.e. a miracle. We cannot know but what may seem to be
supernatural in our limited understanding of nature, may actually be
natural in a complete understanding.
3. If it is proposed that God invented, designed and made the natural
existence, then, with our limited knowledge, we cannot say that God
functions naturally or supernaturally with the natural.
4. Therefore, isn't the entire argument of natural vs. supernatural
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 20 2003 - 00:15:42 EDT