The Prime Mover Debate: Second Rebuttal

If you are a frequent visitor to this blog, you may have noticed that I've been participating in a blog-debate with Richard Bushey of thereforegodexists.com.  The purpose of this post will be to present my second rebuttal to his position that a “Prime Mover” is necessary to explain why the universe exists.  To be current with the dialog that follows in this post you may wish to review the following links:

Bushey’s Introduction

My Introduction

Bushey’s First Rebuttal

My First Rebuttal

Bushey’s Second Rebuttal

 

My Second Rebuttal

During this debate, I’ve spent a considerable amount of time trying to explain my objections to Mr. Bushey’s argument, specifically on the subject of contradictory statements and the existence of infinity in nature. To begin with let’s discuss a key point of contention between us. My position is based on observations in quantum mechanics which prove that it is possible for two contradictory statements to be simultaneously true.  Based on this fact we can further conclude:

1. Logical contradictions exist in nature
2. Demonstrating a logical contradiction is not a reliable way to disprove natural phenomenon.
3. Classical logic is not the end-all to problem solving in nature, since, on a quantum level it doesn't apply

Bushey has disagreed in two separate replies, stating that to question the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) is self defeating and I’ll allow the reader to review his exact statements.  However to my great pleasure I would like to point out that I am not the first person to question the LNC.  It is at very least open to debate and the line of thinking is like this: The laws of nature are just descriptions of what we consistently observe in nature.   If scientists observe some new phenomenon, they don’t discredit it as a violation of law, they rewrite the law to fit what is observed.  The rules of Logic should be open to the same revision. 

There is a wonderful book called “The Law of Non-Contradiction”, in which my summary above is presented:

“….It is possible to revise logical principles or logical rules on the basis of extra-logical considerations-which include empirical considerations.”

Specifically, the authors outline an “Argument from Quantum Mechanics” which concludes:

“The main idea is that,…. classical logic simply provides the wrong results when applied to the quantum domain. The overall structure of the latter domain is not adequately represented by classical logic; but it is by quantum logic.”

The LNC is not as universally accepted as Bushey has presented it to be in his rebuttals.  These objections are fatal to his argument, not just to his conclusion that the past cannot be infinite, but also to the entire methodology by which Bushey has arrived at ALL of his conclusions, that is: Philosophically without empirical support.

Science

I have had the pleasure of reading Alexander Vilenkin’s book called “Many Worlds in One” from which Bushey offered a quote. Unfortunately for theists, on the very next page Vilenkin writes:

“…The theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist…. Religion is not immune to the paradoxes of creation.”

“…Scientists have been to rash to admit that the cosmic beginning cannot be described in purely scientific terms. True, it is hard to see how this can be done. But things that seem to be impossible often reflect only the limitation of our imagination.”

The very next chapter of his book is called “Creation of Universes from Nothing”, in which he explains in scientific terms exactly how the universe could have spontaneously come into being from a literal nothing.  Another interesting feature of the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem is that while suggesting a finite past, it also suggests eternal inflation of our universe into the future.  It also suggests the creation of an infinite amount of alternate universes in which everything that could possibly happen: does happen. According to Vilenkin, there is an alternate universe in which a Richard Bushey exists who is in total agreement with my argument.  

Unanswered Objections

I discussed in my previous rebuttal that Bushey’s claim that a mind with causal authority can exist without space, time or a body; places a burden of proof upon him.  This is also a fatal objection if unanswered.  

Conclusion

Indeed the past may very well be finite, though as I mentioned before, such a claim if true, will be proven by science.  So why not skip the logic and paradoxes and just go straight to science to support a finite past?  The answer is because the Kalam is totally dependent upon a philosophical conclusion, and its proponents must distance themselves from science because empirical evidence disagrees with the concept of timeless, spaceless, bodiless, universe-creating minds with causal authority.   Again, I haven’t argued at such length because I believe the past is infinite.  I argue because I disagree with the way in which Bushey makes his conclusions, and the same flawed methodology is employed to make additional conclusions which I absolutely DO NOT agree with, specifically the claim that a prime mover is necessary.