Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!bellcore!clyde!caip!rutgers!nike!cit-vax!elroy!smeagol!usc-oberon!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!cc From: cc@locus.ucla.edu (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: A reply to Stuart Gathman Message-ID: <1870@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Thu, 2-Oct-86 13:21:37 EDT Article-I.D.: curly.1870 Posted: Thu Oct 2 13:21:37 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 09:34:08 EDT References: <203@BMS-AT.UUCP> <629@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <813@aicchi.UUCP> <1686@ames.UUCP> Reply-To: oac6.oleg@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) Followup-To: talk.religion.misc Distribution: world Organization: Right down the hall, on your left (UCLA Computer Club) Lines: 26 Xref: linus talk.religion.misc:404 talk.philosophy.misc:148 Blackwell at some point states >... 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 article <1686@ames.UUCP> barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) responds: > 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. "Supernatural" (and magic), as viewed by most Neo-Pagans, conforms to the ideas to which Blackwell seems to subscribe. Such view, consistent with Ritual Magic concepts and WitchCraft, and presupposes non-existance of a "Supreme Being" which is uncontrollable and not bound by any laws (as most (all?) monotheistic deities appear to be). It would seem to me that the conflict between this "definition" and prevalent interpretation of "supernatural" arises only when a Jewdeo-Xtian (and Islamic) theology is taken as a basis for the analysis. Now, what WAS Blackwell trying to say??? Oleg Kiselev HASA, "A" division