Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: RE:miracles,true church and the purpose Message-ID: <601@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Mar-85 11:54:15 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.601 Posted: Fri Mar 1 11:54:15 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Mar-85 04:58:35 EST References: <1616V6M@PSUVM> Organization: Huxley College Lines: 55 > I do give Rich credit for his ability to write long postings and keep them > coherent and in accordance to his set of principles (maybe even beliefs is > appropriate). [MARCHIONNI] Thank you (I guess). > I consider his working set of axioms wrong, although he is > able to offer incisive criticisms to Christianity if one is able to see > through the heat and to respond appropriately. One good thing is that arguing > with Rich sharpens our apologetics. If you consider the axioms wrong, then why haven't you discussed precisely what's wrong with them. In the absence of such discussion, one can assume that the only reason you consider them wrong is because they simply conflict with your own. I've detailed my problems with YOUR axioms. [On Miracles] > I started this set of responses off by asking Rich how he would analyze them. > I really did want an answer. I haven't seen the reply if he gave one but I > got lots more. Thanks. Unfortunatly it is turning into a debate on the > existence of God which should be in n.r. Lets finish up this line and > I'll try to summarize what I've saved and then we try another tack. > I should have known better than to start the discussion the way I did. Briefly, my response (offered several times) is based on the very definition of "miracle": an event that appears unexplainable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God (American Heritage). An event APPEARS unexplainable (to human observers) by THE LAWS OF NATURE (i.e., current human understanding of the universe), *thus* IT IS HELD (assumed) that the event has some non-physical or supernatural or divine origin. First, this is obviously an assumption about an event: *we* (in all our great anthropocentric glory) can't explain it, thus it MUST have come from some other plane, a non-physical/supernatural/divine plane. (Why? Do we know all there is to know about THIS "plane"?) Furthermore, what is the boundary between this physical/natural plane and the supernatural/non-physical plane? I contend that the boundary exists only in human codification/classification, that if natural/physical is defined as "the world that humans can observe", and if supernatural, beyond the natural, is defined as "that which we can't observe", then that is a hopelessly arbitrary boundary line that is modified with time and with increased scientific observational capabilities. If one uses the word natural/physical to mean "that which exists", then supernatural has no realistic meaning, except perhaps "imaginary" (?). Finally, if Mr. Marchionni wishes to continue this discussion, I would suggest that he post further commentary to net.religion proper. If followups to my writings appear here, I will address them here, and I know how some people feel about that. Rather than resort to Wingate's friendly deceptive technique of altering a "Followup-to:" line without letting the responder in on his little "suggestion", I am requesting that people re-route their responses to my articles to net.religion if they don't want to see further responses here. An informatory note indicating that such discussion has moved may be appropriate when doing so as a matter of courtesy to readers. -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr