Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!unc!bts From: bts@unc.UUCP (Bruce Smith) Newsgroups: net.misc,net.philosophy Subject: Re: Compact Divine Intervention? Message-ID: <6740@unc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 11-Feb-84 02:32:32 EST Article-I.D.: unc.6740 Posted: Sat Feb 11 02:32:32 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 14-Feb-84 01:06:51 EST References: <6735@unc.UUCP>, <6737@unc.UUCP> Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill Lines: 35 Byron says - The point is that the relative measure of miracles isn't a thing which B we humans can meaningfully judge. The Big Bang miracle, in which the Y precise concurrent alignment of many, many small things is required so R that all those smaller processes will work correctly can't usefully be O compared to the immediate creation miracle where everything is set in N place as is. I suspect the argument really begs the question and - doesn't get us any further than we are already. I've got to agree that it's hard to measure miracles, but we don't need to assign numbers to things to compare them. I don't see that the Big Bang needed much "alignment" for things to "work". The scenario runs something like this: First: BANG!!! . Things run according to "laws" . of science for a few billion . years or so. Now: Well, things have got to be in some state, and it just happens they're the way they are. (Nothing miraculous, they *could* have gotten to be this way by "natural laws".) The comparison with the "everything created 45 minutes ago" story is like this way. Both postulate creation. Both agree pretty much on how things work right now-- mechanics, heat, electricity, etc. So far, they're even. Now, the special creation theory needs to call all that "evidence" of history a miracle, the other doesn't. Sounds like a fair comparison to me. _____________________________________ Bruce Smith, UNC-Chapel Hill decvax!mcnc!unc!bts (USENET) bts.unc@CSnet-Relay (lesser NETworks)