The issue of the terms natural(physical) and supernatural came up in a debate
I had with an atheist about "Is there a God?" I had to know exactly what I
meant by the physical in order to know what is the supernatural. I think the
subject matter of science is based on data collected by mechanical,
electrical, nuclear, etc. devices. Any data that cannot be collected, in
principle, by mechanical devices cannot be part of the subject matter of
science. I consider man more than a mechanical device since man can detect
God. To some this seems like an arbitrary definition, but all definitions are
and without one, one does not know what one is talking about. Moorad
>===== Original Message From bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com =====
>>the terms natural and supernatural come from the enlightenment...Having
become conscious of the inappropriateness of these terms, I am finding that I
lack a vocabulary with which to replace them. How do we construct a more
Christian way of looking
>at and speaking about Creation?<
>
>One traditional way of describing things (e.g., Westminster Confession of
Faith, V, 3) is to refer to the use of means or ordinary providence, as
opposed to other ways in which God works.
>
>The proper use of the term miracle is debated. R. C. Sproul advocates
limiting it to Biblical events in which means are set aside, rather than
calling everything miraculous. It's about like evolution-define it before you
use it and hope your
>reader pays attention to your definitions.
>
> Dr. David Campbell
> Old Seashells
> 46860 Hilton Dr #1113
> Lexington Park MD 20653 USA
> bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
>
>That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle
of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droigate Spa
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________
>Sent via the WebMail system at mail.davidson.alumlink.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 08 2001 - 17:33:21 EDT