Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ll-xn!nike!aurora!ames!barry
From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: A reply to Stuart Gathman
Message-ID: <1686@ames.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 1-Oct-86 13:08:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: ames.1686
Posted: Wed Oct  1 13:08:47 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 07:42:13 EDT
References: <203@BMS-AT.UUCP> <629@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <813@aicchi.UUCP>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 26
Xref: linus talk.religion.misc:352 talk.philosophy.misc:121

From: mdb@aicchi.UUCP (Blackwell):
>To say that something is 'supernatural' (see above definition) is *not* 
>necessarily saying that it is 'lawless'.  It is quite possible that the
>problem lies in our understanding of nature at the time of the 'supernatural'
>event.  C.S. Lewis argues in
>his book, "Miracles", that supernatural occurances (ie. miracles) are not
>a result of the laws of nature being broken, but are the invocation of 
>just those parts of the "*real* laws of nature" that our generalised
>'general laws' do not cover!
>
>In short, the two *can* co-exist, and a 'supernaturalist' can invoke
>sience, without implying irrationality.

	But this definition of "supernatural" implies that there
is some sort of Higher Law that even God is bound by. This may
in fact be true, but most who believe in the supernatural would
dispute it. Their definition of supernatural IS lawless.
Miracles happen by the Will of God, and are bound by nothing
else. So I think "lawless" is closer to the consensus definition
than yours is.

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                      Kenn Barry
                                                NASA-Ames Research Center
                                                Moffett Field, CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 	ELECTRIC AVENUE:	 {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry