Re: Catch 22?

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, "rev.goetz" <jimgoetz316@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 17 Jan 2006 14:26:55 -0800, "rev.goetz" <jimgoetz316@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If science permits only naturalistic explanations for evolutionary
>> >theory, can science then fairly say that there never were supernatural
>> >events in history?
>> >
>> >Or should science be consistent with itself and say that it cannot
>> >verify if there were supernatural events in history?
>>
>> Please define "supernatural". That's the first problem one must
>> overcome in looking for supernatural explanations. I do not think
>> anyone has yet successfully overcome it.
>
> Here is a technical definition of _supernatural_: an influence that is
> beyond the physics of space and time and matter.

Does that mean the big bang was initially supernatural?

Come to think of it, I'm not really sure what you mean by "beyond the
physics of space and time and matter". It sounds good at first
hearing, but I balk when I think about trying to actually apply the
definition.

For example, supposing ghosts were real & supernatural, how would your
definition catch them? Without also catching mirages and hallucinations.

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

.

Relevant Pages