Recently, our resident physicist denied that I had proved in my 5736
how the finite model of a universe within the framework of atheistic materialism is a self-refuting, self-defeating, self-stultifying belief system. So, then I challenged him in my 5844 to emulate how I structured the "Diane is-isn't my mother" within the framework of the LNC itself. But of course, he never did, and this is understandable. After all who wants to commit intellectual harakiri by refuting his own denial?
But this is what I'll do in this post. I will demonstrate again
how the above model in a worldview of atheistic materialism is patently absurd.
Again, the LNC:
A thing cannot be (exist as) A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense (i.e. in the same respect or in the same relationship).
a) universe = a thing
b) cannot be in a state of existence necessary to cause/create itself = A
c) cannot also be in a state of non-existence = non-A
d) for A thru C to be true, the universe would have had to exist and not exist at once and in the same respect, since something cannot be caused by nothing
e) therefore, this finite model of a universe within the structure of atheistic materialism is self-defeating, i.e. self-contradictory.
And so it will forever be until such time as someone provides
direct evidence contrary to what has been stated above. Hypotheses or theories don't count. Probabilities don't count. Inferences don't count. Someone must provide irrefutable proof by direct evidence and observation.
And this is an eminently reasonable bar to set since the LNC operates on what
we do know about reality, including our thought processes and what constitutes rational, reasonable, coherent communication.
We
know that rabbits can be pulled out of empty hats by magic tricks of illusion. And we also
know that rabbits cannot be pulled out of empty hats by any of the known physical laws of the universe.
We
know that things in this macroscopic realm do not pop into existence without a cause. And we also
know that things can appear to have vanished in thin air, again by magic tricks of illusion.
I go by things that we know, rather than by probabilistic theories. I go by what I know is actually real in this macroscopic world through direct empirical observation, study and experience, not by what may be merely possible. And for this I offer no apology.
And once more to remind everyone: If anyone thinks he is going to refute what I have laid out above, they
must use this very law of logic to deny its validity. And this, too, is obviously self-defeating. To use the Law to invalidate itself implies in the first place that the law if valid to be used! Of course, this is what Hcap did. He kept insisting that that Casimir Effect violated the LNC, and in so doing it was impossible for him to not use the LNC to invalidate itself.
This is a great example of wanting it both ways all at once and simultaneously.
Everyone, have a pleasant evening and a great weekend.
