"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir at sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<jbysxveflzcngvpbpna.hqifis1.pminews at news1.sympatico.ca>...
> On 25 Dec 2003 22:01:20 -0800, keith wrote:
>> >IMO, the natural is simply one form of God's decree. let there be
> >light, let there be garvity that is proportional to the square of the
> >distance etc. In that sense, there is no natural; only supernatural,
> >I'd say.
>> Well, say as you wish. But saying so, you've eliminated any difference
> between natural and supernatural. As a Christian, that should disturb you,
> since (if I read St Paul and Augustine correctly) the essence of Christian
> belief is that the supernatural entered into and became the natural - and
> that belief is nonsense if there is no essential difference between natural
> and supernatural (or, in Christian terms, between the creator and its
> creatures.)
I wouldn't agree with your take. Paul described Christ as becoming a
human being; labels like natural or supernatural are just
that--labels.
> Conflation of the natural and the supernatural is IMO the essence
> of paganism. IIRC, C S Lewis makes this point in his contribution to the
> Cambridge history of English literature, in a chapter in which he draws
> careful distinctions between magic and science, and points out that the
> strict differentiation Between the natural and the supernatural was the
> beginning of the transformation of medieval alchemy etc into science. -- But
> that's getting OT, perhaps.
Again, I'd say that you're making too much out of semantic labels like
natural or supernatural. I wouldn't agree you about the essence of
paganism. I'd say the essence of paganism was conflating the *created*
with the *creator*.
>> >For some people, that's true. For others "God exists" or "God doesn't"
> >are the theorems that follow from *other* things they accept as
> >axioms. The point of my post was that whatever your view, your beliefs
> >include things you hold as axioms.
> >
> >Keith
>> I'm aware of that. These people don't seem to realise that if statements
> about god's existence are theorems, then god's existence is contingent, and
> not absolute.
UNless you are using the word "contingent" in some way I don't get, I
disagree with you completely. "Contingent" means "could have been
other than the way it is". One could conclude from axioms that God
necessarily exists; if the argument is sound God couldn't have failed
to exist and God's existence wouldn't be contingent. I'm not sure what
you mean by 'absolute existence' so I can't comment about that
> It seems odd to me that people want to make god's existence
> contingent on other assumptions.
It's not that his existence is contingent on assumptions; for those
people it's that their (alleged) *knowledge* that God exists is
contingent on their (alleged) knowledge of the truth of those axions.
> That means that a) these assumptions are
> more basic and fundamental that any assumption about god's existence, and
> therefore whatever they refer to must have a more basic and fundamental
> existence than god;...
I don't think so. It's more that their knowledge about God is
contingent on those other things.
> and b), the run the risk that any future discovery about
> these things could falsify the assumptions about them, and therefore render
> god's existence logically indeterminate.
I don't agree that this would make God's existence logically
indeterminant. However, if the reasons they (allegedly) know that God
exists turn out to be wrong then the fact is they *don't* know that
God exists.
Keith