Re: Fragility and tendentiousness

From: allenroy (
Date: Sat Sep 20 2003 - 00:12:26 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: A Logical Inconsistency in the RFEP?"

    > 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
    > are.

    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