hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (02/21/85)
> Dear Rich, > > Did you ever get my netmail??? > > I don't understand about "writing in your absence". Any article in which > I mentioned you I assumed that you would read, along with half of the > civilized world in the electronic village. > > BTW everybody I DID apologize to Rich over my ascerbic comments. I really > have been trying to be better. > > Now Sean on the other hand.....makes me look saintly. > > Now that you are reading this Rich. What is your position on > miracles? The Roman Church goes to GREAT LENGTHS (it's in N.Dakota) to > prove physically that a miracle took place. We do this by trying to prove > that no known physical laws could have accounted for said miracle. Here we try > to use science to prove that an occurance has no PHYSICAL explanation and MUST > have come from God. > > We have three basic sources for things > > NATURE and therfore explainable by science > GOD and the saints and angels for supernatural good things like grace and help > DEVIL for supernatural bad things like Demonic Possession and temptations > (see life ain't so difficult or complicated :-) ) > > I KNOW that you define away God, angels, saints and devils. But what > about explaining things that science can't? > > One way of looking of looking at miracles is an "experiment" which proves > something by arguing to a contradiction. > > Something like this: > > We want to prove that there is a God that has multiple properties. > We agree that science explains the natural and it does so COMPLETELY. > There are two planes of existence the natural and the supernatural. > Our God rules all of existence (this is one of His properties above). > We observe an occurrance that science CANNOT explain therefore it is not > in the natural plane. > There is only one plane left so it must be from God and supernatural since > natural forces (weather for example) obey scientific laws and man accounts for > other happenings also obeying scientific laws (unless it is a metaphysical > problem which are not the point here since miracles are NOT metaphysical > events). > > I grant that the above may be oversimplified but I would appreciate your > comments. REALLY!!!!!!! > > Vince ________________________________________________________________________ MAJOR FALLACIES: 1. You assume that there exists only two modes of existence, NATURAL and SUPERNATURAL. (Try to prove that if you can ... and then prove that they are exclusive, as you try to point out. Obviously, you must first prove that there is such an animal as a supernatural `plane`.) 2. You assume that there exists a God; as opposed to the non-existence of deities or the existence of more than one or the existence of other types of supernatural entities, etc ... (You should ignore any personal assumptions like the existence of God.) 3. Science cannot associate itself with the supernatural. Science contains only the natural sciences. (Do not include things like political science!) I recently read a creationist pamphlet that said that science is moving toward the spiritual rather than the material. WRONG! Spiritual things are by definition beyond the material, which is all that science deals with. I am sure that there are many pseudoscientists that hunt ghosts and prove miracles; they are not real scientists. (Those of you thinking of flaming me for this paragraph should spend your time doing more pro- ductive things. If you think that science does deal with the super- natural, you are hopelessly ignorant. A simple understanding of the definition of natural science and of the scientific method ought to tell you the obvious.) 4. You have managed to incorporate a fallacious argument type. You assume that that which science cannot explain must necessarily be explainable by supernatural means. (Creationists are great at using this false argument, though I am not accusing you of being one of them.) 5. You assume that science is static; that is, the scientific knowledge available now is, always has been, and always will be the same. Therefore, if it cannot be explained now, it is forever beyond science to explain it. This is obviously NOT true. 6. ... In short, you have made many assumptions which are not substantiable in the proper context. (Some of them are impossible to substantiate in any context!) You also made simple analogies using `planes` which may sound great but poorly serve your point. (After all, what, exactly, is a `plane`?! It is certainly not a two-dimensional euclidean plane ... I am 3-D.) You also failed to give any specific example of a so-called `miracle`. So what were you trying to prove? (This is a real question!) Keebler