Paul Hollister:
Paul Hollister wrote:
Although the Big Bang Theory is mathematically sound, the a priori existence
of a nearly infinite supermassive density from which the big bang arose is
an unsupported assumption that doesn’t make physical sense. Where did the
supermassive density come from? The nearly infinite supermassive density of
the original theory is in effect an uncaused cause.
[clip]
You said it right. They are wrong.
What can be identified and demonstrated is that, the universe is a
plurality of existents that continues to exist. That is irrefutable, and
all the scientific identifications, proofs, and demonstrations ever done
have been based upon and verify that fact.
The things in the universe can be identified - they are there and that can
be proved and found to be the basis of all knowledge. The universe is
there. We can know the properties and the facts of the things in universe.
There exists a plurality of things, e.g., there are numerous existents and
objects in the universe. There are more than one. There is a multitude of
them the ancients have said.
The things that are the universe, taken together to mean everything,
continue to exist. From minute to minute everything is still there -
existing and continuing. Things don't pop into existence or disappear for
no reason. The universe is eternal in its continuity. Eternal means
continuous. The BB-creationists want to deny that - and they can never
prove their claims of a supposed non-eternal and discontinuous universe.
The BB-creationists place the paradox that you describe in the forefront of
our minds in order to deny the validity of human sense perception and
reason as the means of identifying the facts of the universe. They want to
deny reason, and vision, for example, that are man's basic tools of
identification.
They want to fuse all things together into a single metaphysical unit. That
is a type of singular Platonic religionist ideal. Contrary to that idea
some would say that the universe not only exists but that the very same
universe is God. Not that God was a prior cause that existed in a state of
nothingness, rather, that view says that one should use reason and valid
sense perception to identify the many facts that are God. That it is proper
to use reason in identifying the numerous separate facts of the universe.
They don't want to identify that the universe, meaning everything that
makes up the universe, does exist continually. That means that most of the
laws of physics, e.g., conservation, location, facts or properties could
not be said to exist. They mean that there was a start to the existence of
everything following northing, and that there would be no physical cause
and effect principle that was or that can be operative in all of actual
existence.
The universe is, however, existing, plural, continuous, and eternal; and
the facts of the universe are knowable.
Anyone who says the contrary has the burden of proof.
Ralph Hertle
|