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