Talk:Epistemic theory of miracles
30 August, 2008. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Another view of Spinoza
[1] Where it is argued that Spinoza uses the same argument to dispute the possibility of miracles Peter Damian (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute, what?
I will post my thoughts on this theory as this wikipedia article is the first I'd heard of it. If my comments show that the article doesn't explain it well enough as evidenced by my not understanding it, this will I think help to improve the article.
This theory seems to depend on redefining the term "the laws of nature" to include the causes of supernatural events. All it seems to be saying is that, "The supernatural is merely another part of nature that we haven't discovered yet." The trouble is that this changes the mesning of the word "nature" in mid-sentence without making the distinction clear between nature as in, "that which is physical" and nature as in "that which is governed by laws." As such it is like saying, "Bare is bear," a
- Although this will no doubt draw down the Wrath Of Peter Damian upon me, I think there is a case for moving this to iridescent 12:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)]
Velikovsky
It seems to me that the theories of
I wonder if we can find a source saying as much. At present, this observation is in violation of