Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Absence of Thought
Message-ID: <1051@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 11-Aug-85 15:27:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.1051
Posted: Sun Aug 11 15:27:57 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Aug-85 20:22:03 EDT
References: <890@oddjob.UUCP> <376@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 35

> >> 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.
> 
> >Now Dan might mean one of two things by this, depending on how you
> >interpret his phrase "present structure of natural law".  He could
> >be saying that because we do not yet know a scientific cause for
> >the the existence of the universe, there cannot be a scientific
> >cause.  Or he could mean that he knows somehow that the laws of
> >nature forbid the spontaneous origination of a universe.  Either
> >way, he's wrong.  Dare I go into the reasons?  If I don't I will
> 
>  Or, I could be saying that since we DO NOT KNOW of any way NOTHING
>  could have become SOMETHING through NATURAL PROCESSES, it is at least
>  AS REASONABLE to conclude that "supernatural processes were the
>  cause of origin" as it is to conclude that "we will someday discover
>  the natural cause of origin"!!

   Even after you amended your origional statement, Dan, it is still
hopelessly wrong.  'at least AS REASONABLE', indeed!  When history is
full of examples of unexplained phenomena which were later shown to have
natural causes: weather, seasons, eclipses, rainbows, the sun's source of
power, etc.  At one time each of these phenomena were unexplainable
according to the current understanding of physical law; naturalistic
explanations were later found for each of them.  Got as many good examples
of unxplained phenomena which were later shown to have supernatural
causes?  If not, why are you certain that it is 'at least as reasonable'
to postulate a supernatural explanation as to postulate a naturalistic one?
    Silly pseudo-quote: "Nobody used to understand why 
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
    "My SO is red hot.
     Your SO aint doodely squat."