Subject: Re: definitions of god, atheism, etc. Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 22:50:47 -0700 From: "Brian Holtz" To: "Brian Holtz" "Paul Filseth" wrote : > > Consider the case that some priest had the ability to violate > > mass-energy conservation at will, by making a crucifix appear ex > > nihilo in his hand. Instead of saying this is "supernatural", you > > would just have us amend the physics texts? > > I'm not going to call it "supernatural" because I don't > know what "supernatural" means. You really have no idea? The term is just as mysterious to you as "super-identical" or "super-existent" or "super-contradictory"? When you read about the metaphysical thesis of naturalism, you're clueless as to what the alternative thesis possibly could be? I'm super-skeptical of this.... :-) > then the conservation of energy not only doesn't govern the > material world, it also doesn't _seem_ to. A regularity doesn't have to be inviolable to seem to be operative. > what you're saying, in effect, > is that "supernaturalism" is the thesis that science isn't finished. No, I'm saying that supernaturalism is the thesis that 1) effects can be divided into two kinds: a) those consistent with the (not necessarily ironclad) regularities that usually govern the material world, and b) those that egregiously violate those regularities in a way that is miraculously consistent with the expressed will of some agency; 2) effects of type 2b exist. > in the 1800's, when Newton's law seemed to govern the material world, > Mercury was a supernatural planet. No, Mercury's motions are not consistent with the expressed will of any agency. -- Brian.Holtz@sun.com Knowledge is dangerous. Take a risk: http://humanknowledge.net