(urth) Information, etc.

[Iorwerth Thomas]

>From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <danldo at gmail.com>
>On 4/11/06, Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > The religiously dangerous course to take is to say that God
> > *can't* violate the laws of nature, and some have taken it. The
> > course that has seemed safer to others is to say that God can,
> > but *won't*, violate the laws of nature for whatever reason - usually
> > because of his benevolence towards us, sometimes because of
> > his rationality, etc.
>
>Actually, this is (from the Catholic perspective) quite a dangerous
>course also, in that it denies miracles, and the Christian (and so
>Catholic, and, I presume, Wolfe's) faith is _based_ on miracles,
>from the Virgin Birth to the Resurrection, not to exclude (at least
>for Catholics) ongoing miracles such as the limited infallibility of
>Popes and the transubstantiation of the Host in the Eucharist.

Depends on what value one assigns 'miracle', I guess.  (But as a wicked 
Anglican, and hence neither truely Catholic nor Protestant, I _would_ say 
that. :) )

Siding with Wittgenstein here also.  Does this count as a form of argumentum 
ad populum?