Problems with the Big Bang Theory

[JohnMartin]

It's working too, although you're doing most of the heavy lifting yourself.



Cosmic yoyo is just as good a description of you as Moonbat.

Atheism concludes to a null set regarding being.

Being is the fundamental perfection of a thing.
Hence a creature that has being, has being as caused by another.
The ultimate cause of the being of creatures is God, who is being.
Atheism rejects the existence of God, who is both being and the universal cause of being.
Hence atheism has no means to account for the existence of any creature whatsoever.
Hence for the atheist, anything that exists cannot be accounted for.
Therefore atheism has no explanatory value whatsoever, and the existence of anything is only understood as a mindless superstition.

Therefore because atheism has no explanatory value regarding the existence of anything,
Then atheism is intellectually irresponsible and morally immature.

JM

[JimL]

Our universe is the only universe that exists.

Our universe is finite and its the only universe that exists.

And you know this how?

[JimL]

Atheism concludes to a null set regarding being.

Being is the fundamental perfection of a thing.

Define your terms John, if you can?

[JohnMartin]

And you know this how?

Proof that there is only one universe.

If there is more than one universe, then our universe is divided from other universes.
If our universe is divided from other universes via matter, then matter is part of our universe, and consequently the other universes are also joined to our universe through matter belonging to our universe.
What is joined to a body through the body is the body.
The other universes are joined to ours as a body to a body, through matter belonging to the physical universe.
Hence other universes are united to our universe.
But other universes united to our universe is not distinct from our universe.
Hence there is only one universe, which is our universe.

Alternatively other universes are separate from our universe through division from our universe, done without matter.
Yet what is physical, but divided without matter is not divided physically.
And what is physical, but not divided physically is physically one.
Hence universes divided from ours without the medium of matter are not divided from ours.
Hence there is only one universe, which is our universe.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Define your terms John, if you can?

Being is the actualisation of all acts.

Perfection is the fullness of being.

Fundamental is that which upon all others are based.

JM

[Yttrium]

Proof that there is only one universe.

If there is more than one universe, then our universe is divided from other universes.
If our universe is divided from other universes via matter, then matter is part of our universe, and consequently the other universes are also joined to our universe through matter belonging to our universe.
What is joined to a body through the body is the body.
The other universes are joined to ours as a body to a body, through matter belonging to the physical universe.
Hence other universes are united to our universe.
But other universes united to our universe is not distinct from our universe.
Hence there is only one universe, which is our universe.

Alternatively other universes are separate from our universe through division from our universe, done without matter.
Yet what is physical, but divided without matter is not divided physically.
And what is physical, but not divided physically is physically one.
Hence universes divided from ours without the medium of matter are not divided from ours.
Hence there is only one universe, which is our universe.

JM

So... they need matter to separate them, but matter separating them means they're not separated. Riiiiight.

I think your assumption that matter is required as a separator is unwarranted.

[Duragizer]

I'm surprised JohnMartin doesn't believe in parallel universes. His existence is proof of them!

[JohnMartin]

So... they need matter to separate them, but matter separating them means they're not separated. Riiiiight.

I think your assumption that matter is required as a separator is unwarranted.

I've argued for both matter and nothing as separators of the universe. Both conclude to one universe.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

I'm surprised JohnMartin doesn't believe in parallel universes. His existence is proof of them!

There have to be parallel universes with other John Martins in them. Because it's impossible one person could be so clueless.

[JimL]

Proof that there is only one universe.

If there is more than one universe, then our universe is divided from other universes.
If our universe is divided from other universes via matter, then matter is part of our universe, and consequently the other universes are also joined to our universe through matter belonging to our universe.
What is joined to a body through the body is the body.
The other universes are joined to ours as a body to a body, through matter belonging to the physical universe.
Hence other universes are united to our universe.
But other universes united to our universe is not distinct from our universe.
Hence there is only one universe, which is our universe.

Alternatively other universes are separate from our universe through division from our universe, done without matter.
Yet what is physical, but divided without matter is not divided physically.
And what is physical, but not divided physically is physically one.
Hence universes divided from ours without the medium of matter are not divided from ours.
Hence there is only one universe, which is our universe.

JM

Matter and energy are two sides of the same coin and universes, like our own, would all be born of the same infinite energy. So, can universes be divided and yet be only parts of one and the same Cosmos? I believe so. Now, neither one of us knows what the reality is for certain, nobody does, but because we don't know, alternatives are possible, and you shouldn't be so certain about your philosophical assertions. Besides that, you also have a huge problem with convincing anyone that something, in this case a material universe, can be created from out of nothing.

[JohnMartin]

Matter and energy are two sides of the same coin and universes, like our own, would all be born of the same infinite energy. So, can universes be divided and yet be only parts of one and the same Cosmos? I believe so.

Well then you may like to make an argument about what you believe. But to do that you would have to use reason and philosophy, just as I have done above.

Now, neither one of us knows what the reality is for certain, nobody does, but because we don't know, alternatives are possible, and you shouldn't be so certain about your philosophical assertions. Besides that, you also have a huge problem with convincing anyone that something, in this case a material universe, can be created from out of nothing.

Your skepticism is your own. We can be certain about philosophical assertions when those assertions have been rigorously defended over many centuries. Such is what we have with the Thomistic school of thought.

The universe was created from nothing, as has been revealed by God. St Thomas Aquinas discusses this doctrine of creation in his work entitled Contra Gentiles - On Creation

JM

[JimL]

Being is the actualisation of all acts.

That sounds like philosophical mumbo jumbo John. Thats like saying that "Being" is the creator of all things. Okay, but that doesn't tell us what "being" itself is.

Perfection is the fullness of being.

Okay, but again this tells us nothing. Its just word games.

Fundamental is that which upon all others are ba

Okay, so you define "being" as actualisation, perfection, fullness, and its fundemental, it is that which upon all others are based. So for what reason do you think it god? I didn't see mind or intention in that definition.

[JohnMartin]

24) The Problem of the expansion of space and the composition of the Galaxies.

The composition of the galaxies is known by observing light from the galaxies.
Yet light from galaxies is said to be redshifted by the expansion of space.
But if the expansion of space is wrong, then the redshift may well be a false indicator of the composition of the galaxies.
As the mechanism of redshift is unknown, or the expansion of space is false, then the composition of the galaxies may also be unknown.
The SM proposes a mechanism which is false, and the expansion of space which is beyond the experimental method.
Therefore our current knowledge of the universe, including the composition of galaxies may also be false.
As the SM is false it should be abandoned to promote a better understanding of the universe.

JM

25) The Problem of Dark Energy and the Vector Sum.

The Standard Model claims that space is expanding in all directions between all the galaxies.
The claim is made in conformity with the Copernican Principle, which states there is no preferred placed within the universe.
Hence when redhsift indicates recession velocity as observed from earth, then such recession velocity must also be observed from all other locations within the universe.
Yet if such recession velocities are real, then there must be a mechanism within the universe whereby the vector sum of all the forces that cause space to expand must conform to Hubble's Law.
Yet for Hubble's law to conform in all directions then the vector sum of forces must also conform to Hubble's law in all directions.
Yet such is very unlikely for 1) the net force must vary in every inertial frame to produce the results expected by Hubble's law, whereby the space expansion is always acting then the forces must always be acting.
And 2) Yet such forces must also be via diverse directions all the time, as the locations of all the galaxies change over time.
Hence the likelihood that the net force acting between all the Galaxies to comply with Hubble's law is very improbable, then the SM theory is also very improbable.
As the SM is very improbable, the SM should be abandoned in favour of a more probable theory of the universe.

JM

[JohnMartin]

That sounds like philosophical mumbo jumbo John. Thats like saying that "Being" is the creator of all things. Okay, but that doesn't tell us what "being" itself is.

You seem to be unfamiliar with Thomistic terminology. Maybe this booklist will help you by Peter Kreeft.

JM

[Cerebrum123]

Which of course makes no sense, because you already admitted you didn't understand a fundamental concept such as potency.

JM

That's not how it works. I said I figured you didn't understand the concepts of Thomas Aquinas, with regards to things like potency, potentiality, etc. because of your other posts on topics that I do comprehend. Thomistic metaphysics is way more complicated than stuff about heliocentrism, and you can't even get the basics of heliocentrism right. Which is why I don't expect you to have things figured out about the more complicated subject of Thomistic metaphysics.