Information, etc.

Jeff Wilson · 13 Apr 2006, 03:56 · from 2006-April.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: jwilson at io.com (Jeff Wilson)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:56:33 -0500
Subject: (urth) Information, etc.
In-Reply-To: <1f7617370604112029h19acdffcufb70c66cf0f2faa2 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <705c5fe0dae91a2ae07cac881836f29d at ou.edu>	<BAY102-F41D2AA87FF98EB0E92B19E86CD0 at phx.gbl>	<1f7617370604111516k2335ba48jb4df6bdaf33993eb at mail.gmail.com>	<443C6A3A.1010304 at io.com>
	<1f7617370604112029h19acdffcufb70c66cf0f2faa2 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <443DCBF1.3020006 at io.com>

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

>>I think Chris is probably thinking more along the lines of Aquinas,
>>whose limits to God's power to do the impossible were more about the
>>ability of humans to construct paradoxes, prefiguring Godel's Theorem.
> 
> 
> I see what you mean -- but I read the discussion as being about
> physical, as opposed to logical, impossibilities. (Chris? Comment?)
> I suppose that you could argue that there's a logical impossibility
> in God's violating the physical laws He established, but only if
> you assume that He meant for Himself to be bound by them in
> the first place.

I mean things like disproving God's omnipotence by asking can God make a 
rock so big He can't lift it. This shortcoming is only valid in a 
superficial, rhetorical sense. Mathematically, this is a comparison of 
two infinite quantities, and their lack of finite magnitude is more 
apparent.

>>As for miracle-based faith, IIRC the only overt miracle formally
>>required for Christian belief is Christ's Resurrection. Papal
>>infallibility and the incidental qualities of the Host are not
>>observable or falsifiable.
> 
> 
> H'mmm. Well, they are required by _Catholic_ (i.e., Wolfe's)
> faith, as are the Virgin birth and the Assumption of Mary, plus
> miscellaneous miracles Jesus performed along the way. 

I think this leads to another rhetorical paradox; how can the church be 
truly catholic and universal if they exclude followers of Jesus who 
don't have the same "miracles believed in" boxes checked off?

I am going by the Nicean Creed when I say the miracle of Christ's 
Resurrection is the only overt miracle required for belief. The divine 
and virginal origin of Jesus is not something that would require obvious 
mirqaculous goings on, but an obviously dead first century man gettinng 
up and talking, then floating into the sky, in front of multiple 
witnesses, that would have to be miraculous.

-- 
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com
< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net