From: Alexanian, Moorad (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Sep 20 2003 - 10:31:40 EDT
What is wrong with the word “nonphysical” to describe that aspect of reality that is “truly beyond the reaches of science no matter how it [science] is defined?” [M. Alexanian, PSCF 54, 287 (2002) and T. Trenn, PSCF 55, 137 (2003)].
From: email@example.com on behalf of Steve Petermann
Sent: Sat 9/20/2003 9:06 AM
To: allenroy; Dr. Blake Nelson
Subject: Re: Fragility and tendentiousness
> 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
I agree with your argument. See prior post:
In fact I think it might be better to use another word instead of
supernaturalism like, "anomalism" when referring to God's activity in events
that are somehow different from those described by current science.
However, it does seem from both personal experiences and scientific
investigations(where anomalies are detected) that these anomalies are small
events embedded in the fabric of regularity. They could account for emergent
systems and possibly brain function but would not be a heavy handed
mechanism. Question is, if this is true, what does that say to theology?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 20 2003 - 10:34:35 EDT