Problems with the Big Bang Theory

[JohnMartin]

Yet such physical laws did not exist in the initial volume.

Line 5, and it's only an unsupported assertion rather than a fallacy. Not good.

You have effectively concluded that all scientific theories are false simply because they are proposed by scientists. Congratulations. I suggest you create a modified version of this, perhaps something like:

Problem of a biased basis in those who support science.
Science advocates have usually studied science.
Science instruction does not include Thomism.
Thus scientists are biased.
Anything promoted by those who are biased is false.
Therefore all of science is false.

Placing this at the beginning of all your threads will render the rest of the thread unnecessary, and prevent anyone who hasn't previously encountered you from accidentally taking you seriously.

The thrust of the argument was the academy has ignored truths about reality attained in other sciences and promoted a theory that is contrary to the real. So, yes my argument can be applied to any science theory that is promoted which contradicts truths found in other sciences.

JM

[Roy]

The thrust of the argument was the academy has ignored truths about reality attained in other sciences and promoted a theory that is contrary to the real.

Oh, no it wasn't. You didn't say anything at all about whether the BB theory contradicted anything else. This is what you wrote:

"Because the BB theory is promoted by a biased institution, then the theory is itself biased and therefore not truly scientific.
Hence the BB theory is false."

So, yes my argument can be applied to any science theory that is promoted which contradicts truths found in other sciences.

An also to any science theory that does not contradict your religion. And to any science theory that is completely irrelevant to your religion.

Because Ohm's law is promoted by a biased institution, then the theory is itself biased and therefore not truly scientific.
Hence Ohm's law is false.

Because electromagnetic theory is promoted by a biased institution, then the theory is itself biased and therefore not truly scientific.
Hence electromagnetic is false.

Because blood circulation is promoted by a biased institution, then the theory is itself biased and therefore not truly scientific.
Hence blood circulaion is false.

Because Pythagoras's theorem is promoted by a biased institution, then the theory is itself biased and therefore not truly scientific.
Hence Pythagoras's theorem is false.

Because diameter=2pi*r is promoted by a biased institution, then the theory is itself biased and therefore not truly scientific.
Hence diameter=2pi*r is false.

Because 'the sky is blue' is promoted by a biased institution, then the theory is itself biased and therefore not truly scientific.
Hence 'the sky is blue' is false.

What colour is the sky in your universe, JM?

[JohnMartin]

Oh, no it wasn't. You didn't say anything at all about whether the BB theory contradicted anything else. This is what you wrote:

"Because the BB theory is promoted by a biased institution, then the theory is itself biased and therefore not truly scientific.
Hence the BB theory is false."

I also said the following, which then led into the above statement -

Hence the BB model is generally promoted without proper attention being given to the conclusion within philosophy and theology that are certain.
If these conclusions are taken seriously, the BB model would never have been promoted by the academy.

Hence my conclusion is joined to the premise that science should not promote any theories that contradict the truths of philosophy or theology.

An also to any science theory that does not contradict your religion. And to any science theory that is completely irrelevant to your religion.

Because you are an unbeliever, you will naturally think that Christianity is only my religion. Yet so, that is merely your opinion of an unbeliever.

The rest of your comments are based upon the same problem of ignoring my statement where I state science should not promote a theory contrary to philosophy and theology.

JM

[JohnMartin]

65) The Problem of the Contingent as the origin of the Universe assumed in the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model says the universe had its origin in a small volume of matter.
Yet according to metaphysics, what is composed is dependent.
And what is dependent is ultimately dependent upon the simple.
And what is simple is not dependent and then not contingent, but necessary.
The ultimate cause of the universe is then not the contingent matter as posited by the BB model,
but the necessary, prime being.
Hence for the BB model to posit the ultimate cause of the universe in a primary, volume of matter is a false principle.
Hence the BB model is false.

66) The Problem of False Imitation of the Creator as the origin of the Universe assumed in the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model says the universe had its origin in a small volume of matter.
The volume of matter is so small that the volume is in some manner an imitation of the true ultimate cause of the universe,
which is the prime, simple being, which does not have a body.
As that which imitates a thing that exists without a body,
by having power whilst existing as a very small body, is in fact a hypothetical body that imitates a spirit.
The BB model then posits a false, hypothetical body acting as a quasi spirit as the ultimate cause of the universe,
as a counterfeit, ultimate source of the universe, contrary to that of the prime being, which is a spirit.
The BB model tries to imitate the creator, and in doing so must posit an act only due to the true creator of the universe,
which is the creator of all the matter of the universe, from the divine power.
Which means the BB model substitutes the divine power of a spirit for the quasi divine power of a quasi spiritual volume of matter
as the ultimate cause of the universe.
As such, the BB model is false through a false imitation of the true creator of the universe.

67) The Problem of the Grand claim concerning the Contingent as the origin of the Universe assumed in the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model says the universe had its origin in a small volume of matter.
Such a claim infers the initial volume contained all the physical matter that exists in the universe.
The inference that all the matter of the universe is contained within the initial volume is a grand claim.
As a grand claim requires much evidence and much evidence is lacking,
then the BB model is inconsistent in its claims and the lack of evidence for such a claim.
Hence the BB model is false, according to a lack of evidence to support its grand claim.

68) The Problem of the Assumed Scientism in the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model assumes a form of scientism as a premise.
Scientism claims that the origin of the universe can only be explained via the experimental sciences.
Yet such a claim cannot be proven, nor shown to be the preferred method to explain the origin of the universe.
As such unproven claims form the premise of the BB model, then the model is weak and should be abandoned.

69) The Problem of the Denial of the Historical Method assumed as a basis of the Big Bang Model (BB).

If the historical method is employed to form a theory concerning the origin of the universe,
then history would bear out evidence that ancient civilizations thought the universe was created.
Such a method assumes that the divine was encountered by humanity within human history.
Yet the BB model assumes such an approach is either false, or not worthy of consideration.
Yet to prove that the historical method is false, is exceedingly difficult, for to disprove the historical method requires a universal denial of the value of human knowledge in history.
Such proof requires to show that all human knowledge of the origin and structure of the universe had prior to the scientific method was false.
Yet to do this would require an immense effort which would not end in certainty concerning the universal denial of such knowledge.
Hence because the BB model assumes a denial of the historical method, the model is itself weak, and should be abandoned.

70) The Problem of Seeking to Explain that which cannot be Explained as a basis of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model assumes the origin and structure of the universe can be explained via the inductive method.
Yet the inductive method nowhere concludes that all things physical can be explained by the inductive method,
and Christian revelation includes the truth that the universe is a natural mystery that can never be fully understood.
Hence the BB model is formed by those men who ignore the limited explanatory power of the inductive method,
and ignore the revealed truth that the universe cannot be fully understood.
Hence the BB model is weak in principle and should be abandoned.

71) The Problem of the Indefinable Properties of the Original Volume of Matter Assumed within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model says the universe had its origin in a small volume of matter.
Such a claim infers the initial volume contained all the physical matter that exists in the universe.
Yet such a claim assumes all the properties of matter in the universe were all either 1) contained within the initial volume of matter,
or 2) have emanated from the initial volume of matter.
Yet 1) and 2) are unknown to science and have never been observed.
Hence the properties of the initial volume of matter are unknowable.
Hence the original volume matter is really only another version of the agnostic origin of the universe,
whereby the universe emanated from an unknown, material cause,
rather than another agnostic origin of the universe in the unknowable prime being.

72) The Problem of the Misreading Evidence to Direct Men to a False End as Implied within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The beauty and goodness of the universe is meant to lead men to think of the author of such beauty.
Yet the BB model posits that the prime cause of such beauty and goodness is the prime volume of matter.
As such a prime cause is not its own cause of beauty and goodness,
for a prime material cause is not possible,
then the BB model directs men to a false ultimate author of the good and beautiful in the universe.
As such a misdirection, as implied within the BB model is false,
then the BB model is also false.


73) The Problem of the Non Sequitur Regarding Redshift within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model concludes that redshifted galaxies indicate space expansion, and such expansion indicates an ultimate origin in the prime volume of matter.
Yet redshifted galaxies only conclude to space expansion and the prime volume of matter if such expansion is uniformly assumed to be traced back in time to a prime material cause.
Yet such an assumption is only an assumption within the model, made at the exclusion of another cause, which is not material, but spiritual, as the prime cause of the universe and the observed redshift.
As redshift and space expansion cannot arrive at a prime volume of matter without excluding another cause of said observed effects, the prime volume of matter is only a conclusion arrived at through the logical error of the non sequitur.
Hence the BB theory is false.


74) The Problem of Regarding Redshift as a universal indicator of space expansion within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model concludes that redshift is an effect of universal space expansion.
Yet some galaxies are observed to be blue shifted.
Hence according to the Copernican Principle, observers in other points of the universe will also see blue shifted galaxies.
As blues shifted galaxies will always be observed, then universal space expansion as indicated by redshifted galaxies, is no longer universal.
For blue shifted galaxies would indicate a space contraction.
Hence universal space expansion can only be considered within the BB model if blue shifted galaxies also indicate

75) The Problem of the Centric and Acentrism Contradiction within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB theory is a-centric, which means the BB theory concludes, or assumes there is no center to the universe.
Yet the BB theory posits a beginning to the universe.
As the beginning of the universe was caused by a small volume f matter,
and such a volume of matter had dimensions and mass,
then the initial volume of matter had a center.
As the BB model posits the universe then emanated from the initial volume,
the emanated volume must also be limited and have mass.
Yet such a volume of mass infers a center of the universe.
Hence the a-centrism assumed in the model is contradicted by the origin and process of emanation which both infer the universe has a center.
Hence the BB model contains a contradiction concerning its principle of a-centrism and its claims of emanation which infer centrism.

76) The Problem of the Unprovable Acentrism within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

A-centism is a principle within the BB model.
Yet a-centrism assumes the universe is either 1) infinite, or 2) finite and therefore has no center.
Yet an infinite universe is not provable from observation.
And a finite universe tends towards a center to the universe, contrary to the principle of a-centrism.
Hence any claims of a-centrism within the BB model is itself problematic.


77) The Problem of the Eclectic Nature of the theories within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model rests upon several other theories which purport to account for that which is observed.
Yet such theories, like General Relativity, do not fit well with other competing theories within physics.
And such theories, may not fit well with theories within the same BB model.
As physics is governed by a group of competing theories, whereby there is no unifying theory, then any claim of a model that requires that several other theories fit to explain the origin and structure of the universe is itself a theory that is eclectic.
The BB theory rests upon several other theories which are most likely either 1) eclectic with each other,
and 2) eclectic relative to other theories currently not incorporated within the BB model, but which are accepted by the physics academy.
Then as an eclectic theory is never real, for the real is one and not a collection of competing realities,
then because the BB is highly likely to be eclectic, then the theory is not realist.
As such it is weak and may be abandoned.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Unlike you, Johnnycake, I don't go masquerading around as a scientist; I'm a layman, and I make no bones about it. Thus I leave the more scientifically qualified folks in the audience to tackle your arguments on that playing field.

That being said, this layman is going to continue mocking your asinine, conspiracy theorist BS in his own fashion, as he sees fit.

Again, not much content here at all.

JM

[JohnMartin]

78) The Problem of Affirmation and Negation within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model assumes that the Copernican Principle (CP) can be affirmed within the model.
Yet the model is based upon the inductive method which itself is an observational based method.
Such a method denies any arbitrary assertion of principle as a normative guide to interpret the observed data.
The CP of itself is merely an affirmed principle made without data, apart from the inductive method.
Yet the CP is no more certain than a principle which affirms a special or, a number of special places within the universe.
Hence the CP is an arbitrary principle applied to the data.
And because the inductive method denies the use an arbitrary principle to interpret the data.
And the CP is an arbitrary principle,
then the BB model contains a problem of affirmation of principle, contrary to its denial within the inductive method.
Hence the BB model is inconsistent and should be abandoned.

79) The Problem of Biased Principle within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The CP says there is no special place within the universe.
Yet such a principle is not proven by the data, nor proven from deductive reasoning.
Hence the CP is a biased principle used to interpret the data.
Hence, because the BB model is based upon a biased principle, the model is false.

80) The Problem of Subjective Judgment Implied within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The data is interpreted without certitude as to the truth of the interpretation of the data.
For the interpretation cannot be proven.
Hence the interpretation is merely a subjective guess as to the truth of what is observed.
Yet a subjective judgment is not an objective means to judge physical reality.
Hence the BB model is merely a subjective model.
As it is subjective, it can easily be abandoned.

81) The Problem of Principle Contrary to Method within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The CP is contrary to the inductive method (IM).
For the IM requires that the observer be agnostic about what is being observed.
Once the data is received and collated, then various hypothesis can be used to describe how the data can be explained.
Yet the BB model assumes the CP is the preferred principle to explain the data.
But because the CP is only one principle, contrary to other principles, the CP may easily be abandoned in favour of a contrary principle.
As the inductive method does not require the CP, then the dogmatic assertion of the CP within a model is contrary to the IM.
As the use of the CP is contrary to the IM the BB model may be easily abandoned.

82) The Problem of False Certitude of principle within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model assumes the truth value of the CP.
The CP is used to arrive at a certitude about the universe as an expanding body.
Yet the principle is never proven within or outside the model.
Hence the certitude that the universe is expanding in all directions is a false certitude.
Hence the falsity of certitude within the BB models means the model should be abandoned.

83) The Problem of the Unprincipled Origin of the Universe within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model says the universe had its origin in a small volume of matter.
Yet such a volume of matter has no origin.
Hence the origin of the universe has no prior, ontological principle.
Hence the BB model rests upon an unprincipled origin of the universe.
Yet the existence of such an initial mass is a metaphysical claim that is not supported by science or reason.
For a volume of matter is a composite thing, which in turn is dependent upon that which is simple.
Hence because the BB model rests upon the absurdity of an unprincipled origin, the model is false.

84) The Problem of the Implications associated with the Observed Contrary Galaxy Motions Within the Big Bang Model (BB).

Galaxies are observed to be of difference shapes, sizes and configurations all over the universe.
The wide variety of Galaxies within the universe is evidence for diversity of material principle in the formation of the universe.
Yet the BB model posits only one material principle as the ultimate cause of all the galaxies.
Hence the observed variety in galaxies is strong evidence -

A) against either 1) one principle of formation of the galaxies,
or 2) emanation of the universe from one material principle, as required by the BB model.
For effects are like the cause, and where there is one ultimate material cause, there is only one ultimate material effect.

B) and strong evidence for multiple, contrary material causes of the galaxies, contrary to the BB model.
For many contrary material principles would produce many contrary material effects, as observed in the galaxy data.

Hence the galaxy data is strong evidence against the BB models assertion that the material universe began from an initial volume of matter.

85) The Problem of Undue Bias of Principle within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The CP within the BB model is biased.
The CP does not permit any special place within the universe.
As such, because the CP excludes any special place in the universe,
there is an undue bias against models that either permit or promote a special place within the universe.
As the BB model is based upon an undue biased principle, the model is not realist and therefore should be abandoned.

86) The Problem of the Sterile Origin of the Universe within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model proposes the universe began from a volume of mass.
From that volume of mass, life later emerged.
As life later emerged, the initial volume must have been sterile.
Yet what is sterile excludes life.
And what excludes life, does not promote life.
Yet somehow life is said to emerge from a sterile volume.
Hence the BB model is problematic concerning the origin of life.

87) The Problem of Abuse of Specialization Implied within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model is promoted by specialists, which proposes the universe began from a volume of mass.
As nobody has ever observed that such is possible, the model is promoted as a modern form of gnostic knowledge of the elites.
Yet such knowledge is not real, for not even those who promote the theory have certitude regarding the conclusions of the model.
Hence the BB model is really another form of Gnosticism within the academy, made apart from the inductive method, common sense, and certitude.

88) The Problem of the Abuse of Common Sense within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model proposes the universe began from a volume of mass.
Such is against common sense experience.
As common sense experience is a normative guide to life, then the BB model should be abandoned.

89) The Problem of the Unknowable motion within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model concludes that all parts of the universe are in motion relative to other parts.
Yet such a conclusion can never be proven.
For observation is only current and not universal in nature.
Hence the perpetually moving universe is merely a science academy fantasy made apart from the data, or reason.
Hence the BB mode is a fiction.

90) The Problem of the Incredulity of Space-time bending contrary to the credulity of the Stationary Earth implied within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model is based upon the theory of general relativity, which claims that space-time can bend.
Yet such a claim is made contrary to the supposed incredulity of a moving earth.
Yet the bending of space-time is merely a maths theory, which is itself highly problematic and therefore incredulous.
For space and time have never been proven to exist together as a fabric, and no physics evidence exists that space-time can bend.
Hence the BB model assumes the stationary earth is incredulous, and does so without any evidence,
yet the bending of space time itself, is assumed to be credulous, even though it is most incredulous.
Hence, the BB theory is very problematic in what is assumes to be incredulous and credulous.

JM

[Yttrium]

Such a method denies any arbitrary assertion of principle as a normative guide to interpret the observed data.

What?

[JohnMartin]

Such a method denies any arbitrary assertion of principle as a normative guide to interpret the observed data.

What?

78) The Problem of Affirmation and Negation within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model assumes that the Copernican Principle (CP) can be affirmed within the model.
Yet the model is based upon the inductive method which itself is an observational based method.
Such a method denies any arbitrary assertion of principle as a normative guide to interpret the observed data.
The CP of itself is merely an affirmed principle made without data, apart from the inductive method.
Yet the CP is no more certain than a principle which affirms a special or, a number of special places within the universe.
Hence the CP is an arbitrary principle applied to the data.
And because the inductive method denies the use an arbitrary principle to interpret the data.
And the CP is an arbitrary principle,
then the BB model contains a problem of affirmation of principle, contrary to its denial within the inductive method.
Hence the BB model is inconsistent and should be abandoned.

The inductive method does not permit the use of an arbitrary principle to interpret the data obtained through observation. For example, one could use -

1) the Copernican principle to interpret the galaxy data and thereby exclude the possibility of any center, or a special place in the universe.

2) a pro centrist principle to interpret the data, and thereby force the data to always produce a center in the universe.

3) a poly-special place principle that assumes the universe has several unique places in the universe.

But none of the above 3 options can be used without placing an arbitrary bias in interpreting the galaxy data. Such an arbitrary use of principle is adverse to the objective intent of the inductive method. Yet such is what occurs with the use of the CP in the BB model. A more objective approach would be to use multiple principles and see how each principle influences the interpretive outcome. For example, if the centrist principle is used, then the problems of dark energy and dark matter are removed.

The advantage with the geocentric model is the centrist principle has been revealed by God, which enables a better understanding of the galaxy and other cosmological data. The secular world should always remain agnostic about which principle to use, for men simply do not have enough information to know if the universe is limited, or unlimited, centrist, poly special, or non special. The secular world can only take a guess and then proceed to interpret. All alone the interpretation may well be in error.

91) The Problem of the failed Expanding Space hypothesis and the periodicity redshifted Galaxy data within the Big Bang Model BB.

The BB model posits that space expands between the galaxies and thereby causes the frequency shifts.
Yet such a hypothesis is sadly lacking any A) experimental evidence for 1) space expansion, 2) the expanding space influencing light to change its frequency,
and B) has some conceptual problems regarding the nature of space expansion.
So the expanding space hypothesis is invalid.
But the galaxy light data shows a periodicity, whereby galaxies all over the sky show a predicable variability periodicity of light redshift for each galaxy.
This means if light periodicity is from the galaxy, then a multitude of stars in each galaxy cause a singular redshift for each galaxy.
Such a phenomena seems almost impossible to explain from a big bang explosion and an unknown process of emanation.
The phenomena of galaxy redshift periodicity along with the failed space expansion hypothesis makes the BB theory very problematic.

JM

[Duragizer]

Again, not much content here at all.

JM

You sum up this thread pretty well.

[Yttrium]

78) The Problem of Affirmation and Negation within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model assumes that the Copernican Principle (CP) can be affirmed within the model.
Yet the model is based upon the inductive method which itself is an observational based method.
Such a method denies any arbitrary assertion of principle as a normative guide to interpret the observed data.
The CP of itself is merely an affirmed principle made without data, apart from the inductive method.
Yet the CP is no more certain than a principle which affirms a special or, a number of special places within the universe.
Hence the CP is an arbitrary principle applied to the data.
And because the inductive method denies the use an arbitrary principle to interpret the data.
And the CP is an arbitrary principle,
then the BB model contains a problem of affirmation of principle, contrary to its denial within the inductive method.
Hence the BB model is inconsistent and should be abandoned.

The inductive method does not permit the use of an arbitrary principle to interpret the data obtained through observation. For example, one could use -

1) the Copernican principle to interpret the galaxy data and thereby exclude the possibility of any center, or a special place in the universe.

2) a pro centrist principle to interpret the data, and thereby force the data to always produce a center in the universe.

3) a poly-special place principle that assumes the universe has several unique places in the universe.

But none of the above 3 options can be used without placing an arbitrary bias in interpreting the galaxy data. Such an arbitrary use of principle is adverse to the objective intent of the inductive method. Yet such is what occurs with the use of the CP in the BB model. A more objective approach would be to use multiple principles and see how each principle influences the interpretive outcome. For example, if the centrist principle is used, then the problems of dark energy and dark matter are removed.

The advantage with the geocentric model is the centrist principle has been revealed by God, which enables a better understanding of the galaxy and other cosmological data. The secular world should always remain agnostic about which principle to use, for men simply do not have enough information to know if the universe is limited, or unlimited, centrist, poly special, or non special. The secular world can only take a guess and then proceed to interpret. All alone the interpretation may well be in error.

I credit this expounding prose with illuminating development of perspective.

[JohnMartin]

I credit this expounding prose with illuminating development of perspective.

In the spirit of further illumination. Lets us propose that the failures of the BB model provide some impetus to explore other physical mechanisms to explain the galaxy light periodicity. If we assume a principle of earth centrism to interpret the data, then redshifted light may correspond to aether flow in one direction, and blue shifted light indicating aether flow in another direction. The aether flow would interact with the light emitted from each galaxy and be seen from earth according to the measured periodicities. This model eliminates the need for positing the expansion of space, dark energy and dark matter as required in the BB model. Nevertheless the new approach is also not without its own problems, such as -

1) The interaction of aether flow throughout the universe and its effect on light. Local aether flow may interact locally with light, but as light travels through space, other aether flow would also interact with light, changing the light periodicity.

2) The nature of the aether is largely unknown. Although some who are interested in aether physics claim that some properties of the aether have been detected via experiment, such as the variable speed of light in the Sagnac effect.

3) The source of the aether flow is not known, but some have speculated there is a sink in the universe as dictated by the local blue shifted galaxy light, or the shape of the CMB which tends to show a local sink within the universe.

Another approach would be to assume the galaxy light periodicity is caused by something either 1) intrinsic to each galaxy, and/or 2) intrinsic to the large scale structure of the universe, whereby the galaxy location is indicated by the galaxy periodicity, which in turn is determined by the structure of the universe.

There are other possibilities as well. Each will have its own specific benefits and problems to resolve. Even so, an earth centered model has the benefit of the entire universe as a created effect of the creator. In this way, such a model avoids the many pitfalls of the non creation, emanation based, BB model. The creationist model does not have to deal with a materialist mechanism to form the galaxies, along with all the other observed physical phenomena. The creationist model assumes that all that is observed was either created as a complete substance, or is derived from complete substances made in the creation event. This solution to the problem of the origin of the universe allows the scientist to concentrate on causes acting now, in things that are observed to exist now. Such a method overcomes the endless speculation about what may or may not have occurred in the past history of the universe, as required/implied in the materialist based BB model.

JM

[Roy]

88) The Problem of the Abuse of Common Sense within of the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model proposes the universe began from a volume of mass.
Such is against common sense experience.
As common sense experience is a normative guide to life, then the BB model should be abandoned.

JM, an incompetent ignoramus, claims to have refuted most of modern science and mathematics.
Such is against common sense experience.
As common sense experience is a normative guide to life, then JM's refutations should be abandoned.

[JohnMartin]

JM, an incompetent ignoramus, claims to have refuted most of modern science and mathematics.
Such is against common sense experience.
As common sense experience is a normative guide to life, then JM's refutations should be abandoned.

Roy as an incompetent atheist cannot bring himself to believe the prime being is God, or pure act is God. But in a blink of an eye he jumps on board the lunacy of the BB model and believes all the matter in the universe came from a very small volume of matter. He has no idea whatsoever that the initial volume actually existed and no idea whatsoever concerning how all the mass in the universe came from that initial volume. It is only belief based upon a false theory of Galaxy redshift. Now that is one eclectic world view. But that's Roy. One minute the hyper-skeptic with regard to theism, and the next, the hyper-believer in whatever comes down the secular, mainstream pipe of science ideas. No amount of evidence will convince him of a creator, and no amount of evidence is required to believe in the self creating universe. Yet the former is most reasonable, and the later is most irrational.

JM

[Sparko]

Roy as an incompetent atheist cannot bring himself to believe the prime being is God, or pure act is God. But in a blink of an eye he jumps on board the lunacy of the BB model and believes all the matter in the universe came from a very small volume of matter. He has no idea whatsoever that the initial volume actually existed and no idea whatsoever concerning how all the mass in the universe came from that initial volume. It is only belief based upon a false theory of Galaxy redshift. Now that is one eclectic world view. But that's Roy. One minute the hyper-skeptic with regard to theism, and the next, the hyper-believer in whatever comes down the secular, mainstream pipe of science ideas. No amount of evidence will convince him of a creator, and no amount of evidence is required to believe in the self creating universe. Yet the former is most reasonable, and the later is most irrational.

JM

er, wasn't a Catholic priest the one who came up with the Big Bang Theory?

[TheLurch]

er, wasn't a Catholic priest the one who came up with the Big Bang Theory?

Obviously, it was an irrational Catholic priest.