Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxh!mhuxi!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Marhcionni on assumptions
Message-ID: <311@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Feb-85 18:39:59 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.311
Posted: Wed Feb  6 18:39:59 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 09:20:33 EST
References: <1552V6M@PSUVM> <453@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 41
Summary: 

In article <453@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Fred Mertz) writes:
>
>I'm NOT going to ask for the one hundred and n-th time to explain what is
>meant by "supernatural" as somehow distinguished from natural.  Wingate
>wouldn't do it.  DuBois wouldn't do it.  Dubuc wouldn't do it.  Sargent
>wouldn't do it.  Bickford wouldn't do it.  Why should I expect YOU to do it?
>If natural is defined as "what we can observe", and supernatural that which
>is beyond "what we can observe", doesn't that make microorganisms part of the
>supernatural (at least before the invention of the microscope when humans
>couldn't observe them)?  If supernatural is RE-defined as "all we can EVER
>observe", isn't that a bit presumptuous; first to assume that you have
>knowledge of the demarcation of a boundary of the ultimate limits of human
>observation, second to assume that one necessarily must exist!  If natural
>is RE-defined to simply mean "all of that which IS", what is beyond the
>natural, what lies in the "supernatural"?  The first definition is arbitrary
>and anthropocentric, the second is presumptuous in the extreme, and the
>third says there's no such thing as the supernatural:  anything existing in
>the universe (or out of the universe---who defines THOSE limits??) that has
>some effect on physical objects is doing so by physical means.  In what way
>would ANY such effect be taking place by NON-physical means, except by
>arbitrary exclusion from the definition "physical"?  OK, I *am* asking it.
>But I don't expect to see an answer.
>
	I will give *my* answer(as opposed to someone elses).
I define "natural" to mean everything within the space-time
continuum we call "the universe". This definition is different
from that of many other Christians in that by this definition
angels(given that they exist) are *natural*.  What then could
be "suprnatural"?  Well if you will think about it, it is clear
that the creator of the universe must *by definition* be outside
of the structure of the universe, that is since he *made* the
structure we call space-time he must be external to it.  Thus I
accept only *one* supernatural thing, the creator, who I believe
to be the God of the Bible.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
 or
quad1!psivax!friesen