From: Alexanian, Moorad (alexanian@uncw.edu)
Date: Sat Sep 20 2003 - 10:59:07 EDT
I believe God acts through natural phenomena, mainly, via unique events. [Although, of course, the sustaining, instant by instant, of all of creation by God is certainly miraculous.] The latter is a necessary but not by any means sufficient condition.
C.S. Lewis discusses miracles and water being turned into wine as shortcutting the natural process that man uses to make wine to the Incarnation, the apex of all miracles, which is truly beyond human comprehension. Where along the line of the miraculous one has a change in kind of this type, one does not know.
Surely, there are historical events that are beyond science and can be classified as miraculous. It seems to me that those who deny the existence of miracles are expressing personal assumptions on the par with those who believe in the past occurrence of miracles. Either group cannot basis their assumptions on science, one way or another.
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Petermann [mailto:steve@spetermann.org]
Sent: Sat 9/20/2003 10:35 AM
To: Alexanian, Moorad; allenroy; Dr. Blake Nelson
Cc: asa@lists.calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Fragility and tendentiousness
Moorad wrote:
> 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)].
>
If you are talking about God that might suffice. However, if your talking
about these "anomalous" events as non-physical that contradicts the fact
that science detects them.
Steve Petermann
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "Steve Petermann" <steve@spetermann.org>; "allenroy"
<allenroy@peoplepc.com>; "Dr. Blake Nelson" <bnelson301@yahoo.com>
Cc: <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 9:31 AM
Subject: RE: Fragility and tendentiousness
> 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)].
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Steve Petermann
> Sent: Sat 9/20/2003 9:06 AM
> To: allenroy; Dr. Blake Nelson
> Cc: asa@lists.calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Fragility and tendentiousness
>
>
>
> Allen wrote:
> > 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
> > moot?
>
>
> I agree with your argument. See prior post:
> http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200309/0365.html
>
> 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?
>
> Steve Petermann
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 20 2003 - 11:02:33 EDT