[MD] Natural or supernatural?

[david buchanan]

DM said to dmb:
Is what is possible part of nature? Not according to our normal conceptions 
of actuality. Is not DQ the manifestation of the possible? Is not DQ 
super-natural (more than SQ) in this sense? Silly versions of the 
supernatural obviously include the impossible rather than the possible. Yet 
how possible did human beings look 12 billion years ago?

dmb says:
The possible is not yet actual and is therefore supernatural? Sorry, but I 
think your logic is flawed in several ways here, Dave. 1) I don't see how 
the distinction between DQ and sq can be equated with the distinction 
between possible and the actual simply because DQ and sq are both actual. 2) 
There is nothing supernatural about the possible. 3) DQ and sq are both 
completely natural. 4) The inability to see 12 billion years into the future 
does not mean that the future is impossible. 5) It seems to me that 
"manifestation of the possible" would be sq and not DQ. The possible, if 
that means talk and speculation about the future, would also be static. 6) 
Basically, I think the distinction between the actual and the possible is 
almost completely irrelevant to the discussion of supernaturalism.

Hope you're well,
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Call friends with PC-to-PC calling -- FREE   
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline