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
Subject: Re: First answer EVER to natural/supernatural question
Message-ID: <540@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Feb-85 10:54:23 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.540
Posted: Thu Feb 14 10:54:23 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Feb-85 05:25:25 EST
References: <1552V6M@PSUVM> <453@pyuxd.UUCP> <311@psivax.UUCP> <504@pyuxd.UUCP> <349@cybvax0.UUCP>
Organization: Huxley College
Lines: 44

>>> I define "natural" to mean everything within the space-time
>>> continuum we call "the universe".  What then could
>>> be "supernatural"?  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? [ROSEN]

> All definitions are by definition arbitrary and anthropocentric.  So are
> all boundaries that we perceive or imagine.  I see nothing wrong with this
> definition.
> 
> 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....  [MIKE HUYBENSZ]

But how does one describe the "system" in which any/all elements of the
so-called supernatural reside?  Does one classify it in some different way
from what *we* describe as "natural"?  On what basis, if not solely because
of an anthropocentric perspective?  If the parts inside a closed system were
to describe their system, they might claim that the closed system was all
there is.  Would the "watchmakers" include their "watches" as part of *their*
closed system?  And so on, and so on...

> 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.

I wouldn't base judgment of a definition on whether or not it poses "threats"
to particular viewpoints.  I judge this dichotomous definition of natural
and supernatural as bogus, precisely because, if there is a hyperuniverse
that we are but a part of, we *are* but a *part* OF it; IT is the system, and
our definitions of our system reek of arbitrariness in reality.
-- 
"Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end."
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr