Talk:Theistic realism

I think this is a very important article, as it helps Christians define themselves scientifically in which if presented in a debate with the average evolutionists, the majority of people who are not committed to the intellectual establishment at all costs, will be considered substantive.--Tony 13:52, 5 October 2010 (PDT)
 * I think your edits were very good in terms of explaining better what theistic realism means and how it is applied. Generally, Tr is seen as opposed to two basically metaphysical doctrines: naturalism and supernaturalism. In reality, though theistic realism and supernaturalism might be said to be two different ways of looking at how God fits into nature--is God subject to nature (and therefor our understanding of nature is flawed), or is God beyond nature? Really, they are not opposing philosophies because they define nature in very different ways. In one definition, nature is truly the basic logic and facts that govern everything, God included. In the other, nature refers only to the material world--the one that atheists believe in. We need to express the diff. as a paradigm difference and not a belief difference. Other than that, I think your edits are great.--ThinkerTalksee my blog 19:26, 5 October 2010 (PDT)
 * No doubt, I totally agree with your points. Should there be a mention of miracles as another way God interacts, within the Definition of nature portion?--Tony 19:28, 5 October 2010 (PDT)
 * It's really a fascinating topic, miracles. By definition, they violate one sense of "nature", but as a Godly act they must be possible and there for "natural" by other critereon. I think miracles do deserve mention, but we need to make it clear that when they violate our perception of nature, it is our perception of nature that violates them. You're right that it ought to go in Definition of nature.--ThinkerTalksee my blog 14:11, 6 October 2010 (PDT)
 * Have added a mention. Please feel free to amend or add on if you see the need.--ThinkerTalksee my blog 15:12, 6 October 2010 (PDT)
 * The additions are perfect, couldn't of said it better myself. Perhaps a little clarification here and there, nothing major, perhaps I will edit a little bit.--Tony 15:29, 6 October 2010 (PDT)