Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: First answer EVER to natural/supernatural question
Message-ID: <349@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Feb-85 13:51:31 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.349
Posted: Tue Feb 12 13:51:31 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Feb-85 04:02:11 EST
References: <1552V6M@PSUVM> <453@pyuxd.UUCP> <311@psivax.UUCP> <504@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 40
Summary: 

> > = Rich quoting someone unspecified....

In article <504@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha) writes:
> > 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.
> 
> What is the boundary between the "universe" and "outside of the universe"?
> If not just another arbitrary anthropocentric one?

All definitions are by definition arbitrary and anthropocentric.  So are
all boundaries that we perceive or imagine.

I see nothing wrong with this definition.  It works equally well with the
bubble theory of our universe as with a creationist theory.  The remainder
of that paragraph may be consistent with the definition, but certainly
cannot be derived from it.

First, the definition doesn't force a non-empty set of the supernatural.

Next, let's explore the creator idea further.  If our universe is the
watch, and God the watchmaker, what makes anyone think there is only one
watchmaker?  Any number of people could wear, damage, or repair the watch.
The manufacturing could be automated.  The design could be the result of a
comittee (often I think so... :-) or the design and manufacture of any part(s)
could be subcontracted or....

I'm content to let the definition stand.  It poses no threat to a scientific
materialist viewpoint, because it provides no support to any theological
viewpoint.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh