Mar 3, 2013

The Prime Mover Debate: Conclusion

Here is my conclusion to the Prime Mover debate that I have been enjoying with Richard Bushey of  A complete dialog of the debate will be posted soon. But if you wish to be current please review these links in order.

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. 

Feb 25, 2013

The Prime Mover Debate: 3 Questions

This is the continuation of my debate with Richard Bushey of  We are debating whether or not a "Prime Mover" is necessary and we are at the point in the debate where each of us gets the opportunity to pose 3 questions to our opponent.  Mr. Bushey's turn was first. His questions and my responses are below. If you wish to make yourself current with the progression of the debate, please scroll down to the previous post which contains links to our discussion so far.

Question 1:
If time and space had a cause, would you agree that it follows that the cause must transcend time and space?

Feb 15, 2013

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  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:


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.


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.  


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.