Re: Fragility and tendentiousness

From: Steve Petermann (steve@spetermann.org)
Date: Sat Sep 20 2003 - 10:35:20 EDT

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: Moses and God"

    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 - 10:40:03 EDT