rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha) (02/10/85)
> 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. What is the boundary between the "universe" and "outside of the universe"? If not just another arbitrary anthropocentric one? -- "I don't understand. Is it modern?" Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/12/85)
> > = Rich quoting someone unspecified.... In article <504@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha) writes: > > 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. > > What is the boundary between the "universe" and "outside of the universe"? > If not just another arbitrary anthropocentric one? All definitions are by definition arbitrary and anthropocentric. So are all boundaries that we perceive or imagine. I see nothing wrong with this definition. It works equally well with the bubble theory of our universe as with a creationist theory. The remainder of that paragraph may be consistent with the definition, but certainly cannot be derived from it. First, the definition doesn't force a non-empty set of the supernatural. Next, let's explore the creator idea further. If our universe is the watch, and God the watchmaker, what makes anyone think there is only one watchmaker? Any number of people could wear, damage, or repair the watch. The manufacturing could be automated. The design could be the result of a comittee (often I think so... :-) or the design and manufacture of any part(s) could be subcontracted or.... I'm content to let the definition stand. It poses no threat to a scientific materialist viewpoint, because it provides no support to any theological viewpoint. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/14/85)
>>> I define "natural" to mean everything within the space-time >>> continuum we call "the universe". What then could >>> be "supernatural"? 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. >>What is the boundary between the "universe" and "outside of the universe"? >>If not just another arbitrary anthropocentric one? [ROSEN] > All definitions are by definition arbitrary and anthropocentric. So are > all boundaries that we perceive or imagine. I see nothing wrong with this > definition. > > First, the definition doesn't force a non-empty set of the supernatural. > Next, let's explore the creator idea further. If our universe is the > watch, and God the watchmaker, what makes anyone think there is only one > watchmaker? Any number of people could wear, damage, or repair the watch. > The manufacturing could be automated. The design could be the result of a > comittee (often I think so... :-) or the design and manufacture of any part(s) > could be subcontracted or.... [MIKE HUYBENSZ] But how does one describe the "system" in which any/all elements of the so-called supernatural reside? Does one classify it in some different way from what *we* describe as "natural"? On what basis, if not solely because of an anthropocentric perspective? If the parts inside a closed system were to describe their system, they might claim that the closed system was all there is. Would the "watchmakers" include their "watches" as part of *their* closed system? And so on, and so on... > I'm content to let the definition stand. It poses no threat to a scientific > materialist viewpoint, because it provides no support to any theological > viewpoint. I wouldn't base judgment of a definition on whether or not it poses "threats" to particular viewpoints. I judge this dichotomous definition of natural and supernatural as bogus, precisely because, if there is a hyperuniverse that we are but a part of, we *are* but a *part* OF it; IT is the system, and our definitions of our system reek of arbitrariness in reality. -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr