The Prime Mover Debate: First Rebuttal

This is a continuation of the "prime mover" debate I am participating in with Richard Bushey of ThereforeGodExists.com  If you wish to be current on our dialog so far, please read the following links.

His introduction

My introduction

His first rebuttal

My first rebuttal 

In my response to Mr. Bushey’s debate introduction and argument for the existence of a “prime mover” I raised a several objections. To my objections, Mr. Bushey’s has kindly responded in his rebuttal. Yet, despite his response, my objections remain unsatisfied. 

To Be and Not To Be

My first objection was in regard to the paradoxes offered as proof that the infinite cannot exist in reality.  Bushey insists that the mathematical notion of infinity, when applied to real-life thought experiments, will produce logical absurdities and therefore prove the non-existence of infinity.  My response was that a mathematic paradox which produces logical absurdity does not prove non-existence.  I offered a well known example of quantum mechanics, a thought experiment called Schrodinger’s Cat, in which it can be simultaneously true that a cat exist in a living and dead state.  Bushey correctly identified the effect which produces the Schrodinger Cat thought experiment as quantum superposition.  Unfortunately, that was the end of his correctness on the subject.  His interpretation of quantum superposition was that it implies contradictory states 

“… are possible, but not actual. Schrödinger’s Cat is not both alive and dead, but both are possible.”  

This is false and I can only encourage Mr. Bushey to read further on the subject. Quantum mechanics proves that an object can exist in contradictory states simultaneously until observed. I understand that this is a very counter-intuitive idea. Regardless of that, quantum superposition is a real phenomenon in which objects can exist in "actual" states that can be simultaneously contradictory .  Quantum superposition is a factual, experimentally verified description of subatomic activity. Now, the superposition of Schrödinger's Cat is an extrapolation of that concept; where the question is asked "what if the state of a macroscopic object (a cat) depended solely on a particle in a state of superposition?" Theoretically it follows that the object would also be in a state of superposition.  This has been verified to be true in recent experiments.  Not with anything as complex as a cat, but still with macroscopic objects. There is no way around it. If a particle can be both decaying, and not decaying, then contradictory statements can be true and paradoxes do not disprove the infinite.  

Furthermore, just because some things can exist in contradictory states, does not mean that all contradictory statements are true. It only proves some can be true, and that's all that's required to defeat Bushey's argument. 

Why science?

In my intro, I referenced widely accepted scientific descriptions of reality which are based on models of infinity. The point of bringing science into the debate was NOT to make a counter-claim that the past is infinite.  I was trying to show that there is some consensus amongst scientist and cosmologist that the concept of infinity is coherent and is very likely a real description of space.  Bushey's only response to the scientific side of this debate was that it is unappealing to take this route, because one can find varying answers.  He states:  

"That is why I typically do not appeal to science anymore to make my case, because it can be far from demonstrated one way or the other and we can find scientists with many varying opinions." 

Which implies:  I don't like to get into a science discussion because i want a definitive conclusion and science doesn't offer us one. It’s okay that there is not enough evidence available for cosmologists to reach a consensus about the origin of our universe.  We should take note when those who have the most current understanding and best knowledge about the subject are ambivalent.  Yet somehow, without an equivalent understanding of cosmology, Mr. Bushey is convinced that he has succeeded where cosmologists have failed by making a definitive conclusion using a philosophical deduction.

Perhaps my opponent believes that because I argue against him, I must believe the past is infinite.  That is not true: I accept that the past might very well be finite. If that turns out to be so, it will be likely proven to be so through a naturalistic explanation using scientific methodology. Also, if the past is ever proven to be finite, scientifically or otherwise, Bushey's arguments will still not be sufficient prove that there is a personal transient being or "primary mover" "before" the initial state of finitude. This brings me to my next unsatisfied objection....

What is timeless? What is spaceless?

Like a fish living “in” water and imagining what it means to be “out” of water, theists imagine a pre-universe state of timeless-ness and spaceless –ness.  It just doesn’t work though.  Everything about thoughts are linear, everything about the minds that support these thoughts require space, matter and the forward flow of time (not to mention a body). There is no point of reference to imagine timeless-ness or existence without space. Yet, somehow Bushey’s argument bypasses that notion and presupposes that timeless-ness and spaceless-ness is possible before he draws the conclusion which is contingent upon it being true. That is circular reasoning.  This hypothetical state of existence is not supported by empirical evidence, experience, reality, science, imagination, logic or honesty.   It exists solely because the human mind can play the opposites game:   I say with and you say without. I can say time and you can say without time. Space, spaceless…etc.

Further Objections

By describing timeless and spaceless personal objects which are capable of free will, I presume that Mr. Bushey means a conscious thing, being or mind.  Regardless, he is making at least 1 or 3 of these additional positive claims in his argument which I feel; evoke an enormous burden of proof. Namely:

1. A thing can exist outside of space and time.

2. A mind can exist without a body.

3. A mind can exist without space and time.

In Response to Bushey’s Conclusion

 If the cause of the universe is explained by natural means, then there is no reason to “add” god into the equation. It would be completely redundant. See Occam’s Razor