(urth) Information, etc.

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes danldo at gmail.com
Tue Apr 11 20:29:21 PDT 2006

> 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.

> 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'm not
sure what the Church's official position on the various OT miracles
is, or on the miracles in the Acts of the Apostles.) Not to mention
the inspiration of the Bible itself and the Magesterial authority
of, well, the Church (of which Papal infallibility is only a special

Now, if you're talking about "Christian belief," more generally,
then you can find someone who believes or doesn't believe almost
anything and calls himself/herself a Christian. But I think the
vast majority of Christians, even those who like to explain a lot
of the various miracles away by geographical and astronomical
trivia, would agree, at least, on the Virgin birth, miscellaneous
miracles of Christ's ministry, the Resurrection, and at least the
Pentecost miracle (if not some of the healings and freeings and
such) from the Acts.


I do not fear Satan half so much as I fear those who fear him.
                        -- St Teresa of Avila

More information about the Urth mailing list