mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/06/86)
Kenn Barry writes: >>To say that something is 'supernatural' (see above definition) is *not* >>necessarily saying that it is 'lawless'. It is quite possible that the >>problem lies in our understanding of nature at the time of the >>'supernatural' event. C.S. Lewis argues in >>his book, "Miracles", that supernatural occurances (ie. miracles) are not >>a result of the laws of nature being broken, but are the invocation of >>just those parts of the "*real* laws of nature" that our generalised >>'general laws' do not cover! > But this definition of "supernatural" implies that there >is some sort of Higher Law that even God is bound by. This may >in fact be true, but most who believe in the supernatural would >dispute it. Their definition of supernatural IS lawless. >Miracles happen by the Will of God, and are bound by nothing >else. So I think "lawless" is closer to the consensus definition >than yours is. The fallacy in this is that it is assumed that this higher law and the will of god are distinct things. When one takes them as being different ways of looking at the same thing, then there isn't any problem. There is a christian position which holds that part of the perfection of God's will is that it is perfectly orderly. In this case there is no need to appeal to a higher law, so everything remains perfectly consistent. Of course, one can argue quite validly that one doesn't need a deity to explain things either, on the same principle. To this I can only reply that if God had wanted faith to be easy and not require a decision, he would have been a lot more obvious about it. C. Wingate