Tesla,
You are not--in any way, shape or form--presenting a scientific model as you proposed. Please learn what a scientific model is before proposing to state one.
You are obliged to propose a model that
makes predictions. You have to propose something scientists can
test. If you aren't doing that, you aren't doing science. Saying 'it's just as likely the universe came from something as nothing' gives a scientist nothing to test. Saying such a thing neither proposes nor refutes a scientific proposition.
What you have done here is attempt a philosophical argument, not a scientific model. This is of no professional use to scientists, but it might be of some casual interest as philosophy
if you showed any sign of knowing what you were doing. As it stands, you show no more acquaintance with what constitutes a valid philosophical argument than you do with what constitutes a valid scientific model. The word games you play here are the kind of bush-league silliness that gives philosophy a bad name among those who are ignorant of it.
Philosophy is not expected to prove itself empirically as science must. But valid philosophy
does accord with observable phenomena and explains it in a plausible (if not irrefutable) manner. What is essential is that any argument put forth
must hold together
logically. Just as in science, terms must be strictly defined and conclusions rationally drawn. Competent philosophers, like competent scientists, are ruthless logicians. Why? Because they know that if there's no discipline, there's no knowledge. Bad logic is out of court. It stands invalidated by reason.
Your scientific model fails because it is not a model. Your philosophical argument (whatever it is) fails because it has already equivocated on at least two crucial terms. Your terms are not staying put, which means your ideas aren't.
Space
You use this term two ways. You mean, on the one hand, the abstract concepts of breadth, height, and depth. On the other you mean 'outer space', that is, interplanetary space as it really exists with its radiation, light, particles and so on. So which is it going to be?
Real
This term is a disaster. As your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea of 'reality,' it would be encouraging indeed if you could give some indication that you hold a clear idea about it yourself. You do not do this. You consistently mix up the idea of 'real' with other things and ask your readers to do the same.
To begin, for example, by assuming that 'real' and 'material' are synonyms. You do not argue the premise; you assume it. But they are not. (Never mind that this is an odd assumption indeed for a theist to be making.) From that you want to argue that since reality is always matter (an equation you have not demonstrated), reality must also be always energy. Why? Because matter 'is' energy, you say--an equation that has problems of its own, as you have been shown.
It's just a mess. I'm sorry.
Thank you for your candor in admitting that the grand race stalled at the starting gate. But please: the next time you want to make a hash of science, be so kind as to use
science for your hash. Philosophy doesn't deserve this treatment. It's an innocent bystander.
________
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.
™ Version 4.2
