To Refute the Transcendental Cosmological Model

To Refute the Transcendental Cosmological Model

       To refute the Transcendental Cosmological model which states that some causative agency is required for Space-Time to come into existence, opponents must provide a superior model. This Transcendental Cosmological Model is both within the bounds of epistemological inquiry as well as within the boundaries of Ontological reasoning. Until a more plausible model is presented, this model stands. I have demonstrated how a Supernatural causative antecedent to Space-Time clearly and sufficiently stays within the purview of the known and empirically tested parameters and constraints of quantum physics. Additionally, such a causative agency would need to be eternal and beyond Space-Time in order to create Space-Time.d  
       The alternative hypothesis, ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing, nothing comes) has no scientific nor epistemological ration grounds to be considered as a sufficient Cosmological Model. Other models, such as the proposition that Space Time has always been in existence, or the Big Bounce hypothesis which states that Space-Time has been forever expanding and contracting (bouncing) upon the pivot point of a Singularity have yet to be demonstrated as sufficient or superior models and as such, do not provide a superior explanation of the existence of Space-Time.
       In the same way, science has embraced gravity as the most plausible throaty for bodies falling towards a mass. Until a better model is offered, the Theory of Gravity stands, even though, Gravity is massless, nonmaterial, and has no physical characteristics that can been observed.
We do not need a physical observation or picture of events to make intelligent, reasonable theories. When you see a smoking gun, it is reasonable to assume the gun. The Universe is a smoking gun of sorts, and the gun is causal agency. Describing the attributes and characteristic if such a causal agency is next.
      Additionally, there are no pictures of The Plasma Stage of the Universe, but it is taught in textbooks as a fact. Why? Naturalistic Scientists have made conjectures and drawn inferences about The Plasm Stage of an expanding Universe emanating from a Big Bang Singularity. The Big Bang is taught as fact because it has been the best working hypothesis, to date. Until a superior Cosmological Model arises, it stands. Having a photograph, or picture of something to validate reality is patent nonsense and is not related to the way science works at all. Science makes informed inferences based on upon data.

       I contend that the Transcendental Cosmological Model, which includes a causal antecedent to Space-Time, is the most plausible of all scientific models, through inference and reasonable Ontological induction, depending upon deduction of a Transcendental hypothesis before looking for evidence of this model. It is a superior model to the Big Bang Model. The Big Bang Model is incomplete, since it has been manipulated into the overt and transparent omission of a Supernatural cause, merely to satisfy the ardently Atheistic whims of certain scientists operating beneath a Methodological Naturalism Confirmation bias.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Morally Myopic Atheist Letter to an Atheist:        “Your language use, limited and severely crippled understanding of science and philosophy, and degree of comprehension simply do not reflect intelligence at all. Methodological Naturalism is your only credential, I am sorry to inform you. I think you know this already an have become good at self-deception. Using the gatekeepers of peer review, in the monolithic field of Atheistic Materialism to prop your confused body up in neither impressive, compellingly persuasive, effective, nor advisable. What you have accomplished, however, is in effect to reveal to everyone listening to your inane speculations about reality that you live in The Dark Ages of Prejudice and Presupposition about reality. The very notion that Metaphysical plausibility is not a part of your lexicon of cognates is indicative of someone who has rarely, if ever, explored anything other than the narrow and myopic boundaries of his si...
Read more
The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality        “Finally, on the theistic hypothesis, God holds all persons morally accountable for their actions. Evil and wrong will be punished; righteousness will be vindicated. Good ultimately triumphs over evil, and we shall finally see that we do live in a moral universe after all. Despite the inequities of this life, in the end, the scales of God's justice will be balanced.        Thus, the moral choices we make in this life are infused with an eternal significance. We can with consistency make moral choices which run contrary to our self-interest and even undertake acts of extreme self-sacrifice, knowing that such decisions are not empty and ultimately meaningless gestures. Rather our moral lives have a paramount significance. So, I think it is evident that theism provides a sound foundation for morality.        Cont...
Read more
The Death of Atheistic Materialism        In the domain of Natural Science, events have natural causes which can be determined according to Natural Laws. However, Natural Science, due to overt Methodological Naturalism Confirmation Biases, which prevent it from entertaining any Supernatural explanations for natural effects, is ill-equipped to handle the problem of Supernatural causality. And that’s why Natural Science can say nothing about the Supernatural. It simply cannot test for something that it assumes is not there.        Natural Science is crippled under the burden of its own Methodological Naturalism prejudices. (Methodological Naturalism is a strategy for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider Supernatural causes, from intrinsic assumptions and biases about the world and in their approach to science, even as a remote possibility.)        Anything that Natura...
Read more