From: mattb@ctron.com (Matt Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: speed of light & age of the universe (god & magic)
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:30:23 GMT
Reply-To: mattb@olympus.ctron.com (Matt Brown)
Organization: Cabletron Systems INc.

In article <1992Jul20.202422.10216@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>In article <4550@balrog.ctron.com>, mattb@ctron.com (Matt Brown) writes:
   (I cut out lots of discussion about galaxies, God, biblical literatists)
>> 
>> It's not where they were put that is important.  What is important is that
>> if our measurements are valid, the light we see has taken x billion years to
>> reach us. If God's creation were less than a million years old, as some
>If you can move planets where you want, how difficult is it to place
>photons where and at what velocity you want? 
 
You are absolutely right, but most post-Nordic mythologies don't feature a god
who does stupid pet tricks with the universe. Basing biblical literalism on
such slight of hand is not a good way to convince anybody of anything but
the apologist's gullibility, or that the deity in question is either feeble
or capricious.

>I'll make this brief.  Once you accept the existence of an entity that
>can do anything, you have accepted the existence of magic.  And once you
>do that, it is fruitless to debate any further about mechanisms and
>possibilities.

In effect, yes.  But I wouldn't use the word magic, unless I was just trying
to aggravate the believer (which is more fun than bear-baiting, but slightly
more dangerous).  Supernatural is more accurate term.  There's a sizable
difference between the world a religious person believes in, and a Piers
Anthony novel (though perhaps not as much as the believer thinks :-) ).
Magic also (to me) implies a force that people can somehow grab onto and
utilize. It doesn't usually get intertwined with celestial mechanics. Also,
the belief that a god can do anything doesn't imply it will.  What is fruitless
is to claim that the existence of a physical phenomenon disproves the exist-
ence of such a diety.  That doesn't mean that a god couldn't build a well-
ordered, low maintenance universe that slowly degenerates into entropy, and
ocassionally provides cosmic scale fireworks.  It doesn't mean god couldn't
set some rules and follow them from then on, and look on with interest as his
creations try to figure out the puzzle.
>
>You might conjecture as to motive, perceived probabilities, extrapolate
>on knowns, or the values/ethics/moralities thereof (which I think some
>posters, including yourself, choose to do, and that's fine), but as far as
>the magic thing goes, debate is an utter waste of time.

Well, it can be amusing.
Almost a waste, but not quite. The problem is, some people are not only quite
serious about it, but they are willing to base their entire moral and societal
structure upon selected (carefully or not) passages of their book of lore. Oh,
and by the way, they would also like to base _your_ moral and societal struct-
ure on the same foundation, whether you like it or not. If a creationist or
biblical literalist uses these arguments to affect education and legislation,
then scientific observations, even if they cannot disprove a god's existence or
the literal validity of a revelation, can certainly make the believers jump
through celestial hoops to explain their god's plan.  This may make it look
silly or unfathomable enough to disqualify it as part of an American public
school education or as the basis of a constitutional ammendment. And that's
worth my money.

>(deleted rapture rap)
>
>Nothing worth thinking about, actually.
If it's true, not a lot we can do, eh?
If it's not, Jay Leno ought to have some funny material come October, as our
pals try to scramble around proving the rapture is upon us.
Anyway, thanks for your reply.

Matt
Am I my brother's keeper?<-my favorite quote to fundamentalist conservatives