Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: logic
Message-ID: <578@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Jul-85 15:40:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.578
Posted: Mon Jul 29 15:40:15 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 02:22:38 EDT
References: <246@ihnet.UUCP> <365@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 24
Summary: 

In article <365@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP  writes:
>
> Wrong! My conclusion was this: Since there is nothing in the present
> structure of natural law that can account for its own origin, the Universe
> could not have created itself. Therefore, it must have had a supernatural
> origin.
>
	Actually, there *is* a logical fallacy here, you are assuming
that just because we do not *know* the mechanism it does nor exist!
So we may not have the expalnation *yet*, but this is scarcely proof
that it does not exist! To conclude the necessity of supernatural
origin you must not only demonstrate ignorance of the mechanism, but
also the impossibility of *any* naturalistic mechanism.
	As a matter of fact certain of the unified field theories
contain the basis of a mechanism by which vacuum could "decay" into
matter, there have even been two articles in Scientific American on
this subject. So you cannot even truthfully say that there is no known
mechanism for the origin of the Universe!
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen