My Conclusion
Mr. Bushey claims that
“The infinite doesn't exist in nature” and he opts to verify this statement by using
thought experiments. I have responded
that nature is absurd and therefore a logical contradiction cannot disprove
nature. I've supported this by showing
how classical logic has no weight in the quantum realm. One need only Google the famous double slit
experiment, quantum
superposition or quantum
tunneling to find that classical
logic is not universal.
Bushey feels that I did not address his objection to my
claim that contradictory statements can sometimes be simultaneously true. I find
this frustrating since I did address this objection, twice. He simply doesn't acknowledge any of my responses;
he doesn't admit that there is such a thing as quantum logic and that it is
incompatible with classic logic. Instead he simply plows onward re-stating ad
nauseam that the claim “two contradictory statements can be simultaneously true”
is self defeating. He marvels endlessly at the nonsensical
outcome of applying classical logical rules to the absurdity of quantum facts. Bushey is essentially claiming that quantum
mechanics cannot be true since its principles are self defeating. I hope he reconsiders.
My 3 questions were
designed to illustrate the inconsistency in Mr. Bushey’s logic. The 1st question was meant
to show that supernatural hypothesis’ are irrational since a supernatural event
is essentially defined when something is explainable. Please note that transcendent
and supernatural
are synonymous. Bushey contends that his
argument deductively arrives at the
conclusion of a transcendent cause. My
claim is that unless he has deductively eliminated
all possible natural explanations, then his logic is flawed. He writes:
“I think there
are many conceivable instances wherein it would be irrational to cast doubt
upon the supernatural as an explanation, even when there are possible natural
explanations”
……Like comets crashing into the moon spelling
out "Jesus is lord"!? Note that Bushey couldn't provide an actual instance to
illustrate this point.
The 2nd
question was meant to illustrate one simple truth: no one prefers a priori deductions
over scientific conclusions. Deductive
reasoning alone cannot produce technology, it has cured no diseases and we
should be skeptical of its claims to know the origins of the universe. The 3rd question Implies that
a claim about the cause of the universe ought
to make a prediction about that cause which could be empirically verified or
falsified. One cannot apply this concept
to itself because the statement “a good theory ought to be empirically provable” doesn't make any specific claims about nature. Bushey’s
objection that this is self defeating arises from a sort of equivocation
fallacy. I find it odd that he thinks a good theory shouldn't require empirical verification to succeed.
I don’t find it odd that he could not propose an experiment to verify
the necessity of a prime mover.
Bushey's argument failed to prove that infinity doesn't exist in nature,
failed to prove how a mind can exist without a body, time or space, failed to eliminate
all natural explanations in order to prove the necessity of a transcendent
explanation and failed to show how a prime mover could be empirically verifiable
through experimentation. Therefore, the argument for a prime mover
fails.