So, is a physical law "natural" — or "unnatural" (or "supernatural" by your definition)?
BTW, the etymology of the word "natural" from dictionary.reference.com includes this:
Seems to me that people tend to torture words to suit their ideological or political objectives and so it is important to consider the original terms or accurate descriptions.
For instance, journalists do not dare use the term "unborn child" - they must say "fetus" so they do not offend the feminists. But as long as people still use the term "unborn child" it is accurate - not PC, but accurate.
Earlier on the thread, posters were arguing over the term "Creationist." Some want the term narrowly construed to match their seemingly favorite target, the Young Earth Creationists. But there are many different theological views of Creation among Christians. YEC is not a majority doctrine among Christians.
Yet all we Christians recognize God as the Creator. Indeed, many non-Christians recognize God as the Creator.
God's Name is I AM.
It's not a matter of "want." Young Earth Creationists named themselves that. From CreationWiki:
In 1929 a book by one of [flood geologist] George McCready Price's former students, Harold W. Clark described Price's catastrophism as "creationism" in Back to Creationism. Previously anti-evolutionists had described themselves as being "Christian fundamentalists" "Anti-evolution" or "Anti-false science".I call them that because that's what they call themselves. And I have yet to see a modern cite for the use of "creationist" to mean something else, outside of these discussions.
Seems to me that all who believe in Creation could be accurately called "Creationist."
Could be; just aren't.
I once had a series of tapes by an 80 year old missionary to the Amazon. He claimed to have spent 7 years praying to be able to go to Heaven and come back and tell about it. Claimed to have spent 5 earth days in Heaven.
One of the interesting things he claimed was that in the Throne Roome of The Father was a
‘window looking at where God came from.’
And that
‘at some future point/time, God would wrap all this up and take it back to where He came from.’
For some reason that always struck me as a fascinating idea.
He also claimed that Heaven was a sphere a million miles in diameter—with life on the inside surface.
I don’t know if old age had struck him hard or it was all quite objectively real. It was fascinating. Don’t know what happened to the tapes. Have often wanted to listen to them again.
I still believe that time is ‘merely’
one (or a handful?)
of the ‘things’ that God likes to play with.
I think we can say that God is
—THE Japanese Time-flower Arranger,
—THE Time Arranger, Orchestrator,
—THE Time Artist,
—THE Time Birther,
—THE Time Bubbler,
—THE Time Builder, Contractor,
—THE Time Carpenter,
—THE Time Chef,
—THE Time Craftsman,
—THE Time Engineer,
—THE Time Faceter,
—THE Time Farmer,
—THE Time Fisherman,
—THE Time Flinger—recreational and occupational,
—THE Time Fountain-er,
—THE Time Gift-Wrapper,
—THE Time Harvester,
—THE Time Jeweler,
—THE Time Mechanic,
—THE Time Painter,
—THE Time Potter,
—THE Time Puzzle Master,
—THE Time Singer,
—THE Time Spinner,
—THE Time Swimmer, & Time Swimming Coach,
—THE Time Tool-Maker, Shaper, Administrator-User,
—THE Time Traveler—a time multi-singular Be-er,
—THE Time Tunneler,
—THE Time Weaver,
—THE Time Whistler,
—. . .
And likely, MORE, MUCH MORE . . .
Alamo-Girl: Excellent point. Ditto for mathematical structures, geometry, etc.
AG, geometry and math are not some "supernatural" abstractions, but representations of the observed real world. Two points and a line are not proven logically, but can be proven physically, for iof there is no corresponding physical aspect of the problem, it's proof is only hypothetical. The same can be said of circles, and other mathematical concepts.
Mathematical concepts become hypothetical when the subject they represent (the premises on which they are based) are hypothetical. The rules of reasoning are still the same (and based on real world deductions), but the results are not necessarily real because the premises are not necessarily real.
Points, circles, squares and triangles exist. Dark energy is a hypothetical concept, as interspace cosmic "aether" was, needed to balance out a formula.
Seems to me that people tend to torture words to suit their ideological or political objectives and so it is important to consider the original terms or accurate descriptions.
In all wakes of life and for all sorts of agendas.
For instance, journalists do not dare use the term "unborn child" - they must say "fetus" so they do not offend the feminists.
Look, the Church struggled with the concept of abortion for centuries. Although the church always opposed artificially ending pregnancy, the Church did not always consider it murder. St. Augustine asked "how can one kill that which is not alive?"
In fact, the whole doctrine of ensoulment is derived form the issue of abortion. The Church was not exactly sure when the soul "enters" the child. Because aborted babies in their early phases of pregnancy did not resemble something "human" and never survived on their own, the Church believed that they were not fully formed or created yet and that the they were without a soul, and therefore was neither alive nor human. Naturally, such babies could not be given Christian funerals and the act of abortion, although opposed on principle, was not considered murder, as St. Augustine aptly states.
The issue of whether it is murder or not kept going back and forth all the way to the 17th century when the Church, based on new findings of the medical science firmly established that the embryo is form the first moment of conception to be considered a (developing) human life. Of course it's human, it's not chicken! And on that basis alone abortion should have been considered murder from day one.
Modern-day abortionist politicians such as Pelosi seem to be in denial that an embryo is a developing human life and as such, by our moral codes, requires full protection.
Seems to me that all who believe in Creation could be accurately called "Creationist."
IIRC, the argument was that some believe God created the world and that from that world evolved all natural things. Creationist view is that God actually made (fashioned) everything. Creationists deny that man is an ape species and believe that man did not evolve, but was "made" form clay by God's very 'hands."
BTW, the etymology of the word "natural" from dictionary.reference.com includes this:Man himself is both "natural" and "supernatural" (so to speak); he is "natural" in that he has a physical body; he is "supernatural" in that he has an immortal soul. I Corinthians 2:14 tells us that God, in His dealings with us, speaks to us not as physical bodies, but as souls: Spirit-to-spirit as it were.c.1300, naturel, "of one's inborn character, of the world of nature (especially as opposed to man)," from O.Fr. naturelThe root word, naturel as opposed to man — or what he should be — parallels this translation of Scripture:
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. — I Corinthians 2:14
Thank you so much for this outstanding essay/post, dearest sister in Christ!