Re: Testing in historical science
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Sun, 16 Nov 1997 16:39:30 -0500 (EST)At 01:38 PM 11/16/97 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
>Bill Payne wrote:
>>
>> Sat, 15 Nov 1997 21:34:23 -0500 (EST) George Murphy wrote:
>>
>> > & we don't have theories of celestial mechanics detailed enough
>> > to tell us why the solar system has 9 planets. But that doesn't mean
>> > that they were designed in some way that bypassed the laws of physics.
>> > The contingency of evolutionary process, physical or biological, cannot
>> > be ignored.
>>
>> IYHO, would a miracle, e.g. the changing of water to wine, bypass the
>> laws of physics?
>
> Not neccessarily. I think it more in line with an adequate
>understanding of God's actions to see miracles as rare natural processes
>for whose possibility God has provided in the laws of nature. If we
>knew the relevant laws, we wouldn't call it a miracle. But this wasn't
>the point at issue in the post I was replying to.
> George Murphy
Turning water into wine was a mini miracle. Nature does that every time. You
water the grape vines and then you squeeze the grape juice. Christ
short-circuited the whole process in that miracle. But how about the
resurrection of Christ? Isn't that a maxi miracle definitely outside the
laws of nature?
Moorad