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