rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Fred Mertz) (02/02/85)
> Do I understand the assumptions behind my arguments??? Well that is why I > try to cite my sources. I don't want the reader to assume too much. You don't explain why you assume the veracity of your arbitrary sources (the bible). That's one assumption you would apparently prefer that the reader does assume. > The problem here is that Rich considers invalid the assumption and or belief > in the SUPERNATURAL (I think) especially God. 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 believe in it and I think that I have sufficient evidence to support it. > NO I don't have his phone number. Arndt does though ask him... :-) > It is going to be difficult to get past Rich's objection since most of > my arguments stem from that. If you HAD sufficient evidence you would have provided it. Most of my arguments stem from that because most of your unwarranted assumptions stem from that. > AS FOR YOU BORN AGAINS SAYING THAT WE RC'S HAVE BEEN LED ASTRAY? ARGHHHHH!!!! > Gimme a break it's badd enough that I get it from Rosen!!! :-) Yeah, it certainly would be nice if they just realized that you were right and they were wrong, wouldn't it? -- "Pardon me for breathing which I never do anyway so I don't know why I bothered to mention it--Oh, God, I'm so depressed." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/07/85)
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