Some Experimental Evidence to Invalidate Relativity and Support Geocentrism

Trouton and Rankine used a wheatstone bridge to test the fitzgerald and Lorentz contraction in 1905. The test noted the length contraction is not noticeable in a co-moving frame, but can be measured in the objects rest frame. As the bridge is rotated, then length of the resistance coils should have contracted as required by fitzgerald and Lorentz. Such contraction would show up as a change in resistance. The change in resistance should have been ΔR ~ 2Rv[sup]2[/sup]/ c [sup]2[/sup], where R is resistance. Yet there was no resistance change measured. Therefore the Trouton Rankine experiment invalidates length contraction and therefore relativity.

Apparently vacuum interferometers obtain null results fro aether drift, but gas interferometers consistently detect small speeds of 10km/s. To explain this, a theory is required to incorporate refraction effects to be successful.

Dayton-Miller (1921) – Assumed the earth was moving through space and transferred the interferometer to Mt Wilson and found when temperature effects were removed, a sine wave pattern emerged due to an aether wind acting to produce a fringe shift for 10km/s wind. The small positive effect varied with each rotation of the interferometer during the day (this assumes the earth is moving, which it isn’t because it is the aether wind moving past the stationary earth), and on a yearly basis. The Lorentz contraction was not compatible with the seasonal change in the wind speed, thereby invalidating Lorentz contraction.

The geocentric understanding is the firmament ends at the earths surface and the aether forms a vortex around the earth, causing the seasonal and yearly change in the fringe shift. The work of Maurice Allais proved Shankland’s work against Dayton-Miller to be false and demonstrated a periodic displacement of the fringe shift did exist.

The periodic effects of the aether flow point towards an axis of the aether flow near Draco (near the North Pole – just like the CMB shows us). The aether flow depended upon time of day, season and height above sea level. Some articles are – The ether Drift experiment and the determination of the absolute motion of the earth. Reviews of Modern Physics, vol 5 (2), July 1933.

Mill, Dayton. The ether Drift experiment at Mt Wilson Solar observatory, Physical Review, 19:407-408, 1922.

Allais, Maurice, Des regularities tres significatives dams les observations interferometriques de Dayton C. Miller (1925-1926) CR Academy of Sceicne, Paris, t. 327, Serie II b, 1999.

Allais, Maurice, L’origine des regularities constate dans les observations interferometriques de Dayton C. Miller (1925-1926): variations de temperature ou nisotropie de espace, CR Academy of science, Paris t 1, Serie IV, 2000.

Allais, Maurice, “The experiments of Dayton C Miller (1925-1926) And the theory of Relativity 21^st Century Science and Technology, spring 1998.

Some online information here - http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media12-1.htm

Another interesting website on Maurice Allais concerning the anisotropy of space, which may well overturn the assumption of isotropic space. - http://www.allais.info/allaisdox.htm

According to the analysis of Allais, the MM did not have a null result (as required by SR). He also found light speed varied with direction, implying an underlying universal rest frame. The earth’s cosmic translation velocity had a computational error in direction. Fringe variations have a sidereal period, with fringe extrema coinciding with the equinoxes. The data analysed by Allais has a high confidence level and statistical significance.

Hector Munera also performed another version of the Dayton Miller experiment, using helium gas, with k[sup]2[/sup]=0.00007, to test the dependence upon the refractive index. With a corrective factor of 118, V[sub]ae[/sub] = 368 km/s, which is in the ball park of the MM and DM experiments when corrected from refractive reduction.

Munera, Hector A, An Absolute Space Interpretation of the Non-Null results of the Michelson Morley and Similar experiments” in Apeiron, vol 4, Nr 2-3 Apr-July 1997. - http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_608.pdf

Munera, Hector - Michelson Morley experiments revisited: systematic errors Consistency Among difference Experiments and Compatibility with Absolute Space, Apeiron, vol 5, Nr 1-2 January-April 1998 - http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Munera1998.pdf

Joos also found there was a small fringe shift when corrected from helium refraction is 433km/s. Apparently the results showed a yearly cycle for the aether around the north pole.

Joos Georg, Die Janaer Wiederholung des Michelsonversuchs, Annalem der Physik S 5 vol 7 No 4 1930. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/andp.v399:4/issuetoc

Joos Georg, Theoretical Physics (1934), third edtion, London, Blackie, 1958. - http://books.google.com/books/about/Theoretical_physics.html?id=vIw5m2XuvpIC

Joos Georg, and Dayton Miller, Letters to the Editor, Phyical Review, vol 45, p114, 15 Jan 1934.

http://ether.wikiext.org/wiki/George_Joos,_Dayton_C._Miller._Letters_to_the_editor._Physical_review,_1934

All of these experiments show relativity theory is invalid and infer a geocentric universe.

JM

Proof that There is Only One Universe.

A universe is composed of creatures

Creatures are things that exist

Creatures are things composed of essence, be and limit

Creatures are then beings that are described according to the manner in which an essence exists in the real

An essence exists in the real as described by the categories of substance and accidents.

Therefore, creatures fall into the categories of being of substance and the accidents, which are - action, passion, habit, relation, quantity, when, where, posture

Therefore a universe is composed of creatures contained within the categories of being

A group of creatures as described by the categories, is therefore a description according to being of a universe.

As one universe is contained within the categories of being account for all creatures then any subsequent universe is contained within the categories of being

Also, if there is more than one universe, the universe is separate from the other(s) according to the categories such as substance and the accidentals of relation, where, when and so on.

But for one universe to be separated from another through the categories, means the cause of separation of the universes also falls under the categories

For a separation occurs as cause, which is either a substance or an accident

But to fall under the categories, is to be a part of a universe or the universe.

Therefore if there is hypothetically, more than one universe, then the real universe is separate from the hypothetical universe through a cause

This cause is a creature, which falls under the categories of being

Therefore if there is hypothetically more than one universe, then it is separate according to the categories of being

But to be separate according to the categories of being, means to fall under the categories of being.

But to fall under the categories of being is a creature and as a group, a universe

Therefore if there is a possible universe separate from the real universe, then it is separated by part of the universe

But what is separated by part of the universe, is only part of the universe and not another universe

But what is part of the universe, means it is part of a whole

When the whole falls under the categories of being, then what is part of a whole, infers the whole is one (as it does with a universe).

Therefore any separation of the universe into further hypothetical universes means there is only one real universe as described by the categories of being

Therefore there can only be one real universe

Questions on Space-time Expansion, Relativity and the Standard Model

1. If a part of the space-time continuum x1,y1,z1,t1 to x2,y2,z2,t2 expands, that means it has a change in distance over time, therefore an expanding x1,y1,z1,t1 to x2,y2,z2,t2 has a velocity and possibly an acceleration as well. As such, how is the velocity of expansion calculated?
2. Stated in another way, if v=d/t and the continuum at time t is x1,y1,z1,t1 to x2,y2,z2,t2. If this continuum is expanding relative to the earth reference frame, then at time t', the continuum becomes x1',y1',z1',t1' and x2',y2',z2',t2'. So how is the velocity of the expansion calculated?
3. If space-time expansion is merely the change from a part of space assigned x1,y1,z1,t1 to x2,y2,z2,t2 which expands to x1',y1',z1',t1' and x2',y2',z2',t2', what is the property of the expanding space-time continuum that causes the light to red shift? after all an expansion of space-time has not been observed locally and therefore there is no experimental evidence for the event, so if modern theory expects expanding space-time to cause red shift, why is the theoretical and experimental reasons behind the theory?
4. If space-time expansion is merely the change from a part of space assigned x1,y1,z1,t1 to x2,y2,z2,t2 which expands to x1',y1',z1',t1' and x2',y2',z2',t2', why doesn't light travelling through the continuum merely take a longer time to travel because the distance is longer? Why does the light red shift, rather than merely having a time delay?
5. If space-time expansion is merely the change from a part of space assigned x1,y1,z1,t1 to x2,y2,z2,t2 which expands to x1',y1',z1',t1' and x2',y2',z2',t2', and if that expansion is faster than light, why then doesn't light from the galaxies become trapped and we should then see only a black spot. In fact if light from galaxies was trapped, we should see far less galaxies than we currently do that have the bigger redshifts. How is this possible in the model?
6. If space-time expansion is merely the change from a part of space assigned x1,y1,z1,t1 to x2,y2,z2,t2 which expands to x1',y1',z1',t1' and x2',y2',z2',t2', what time is used to determine the rate of expansion? Is it t1, t2, t1', t2' or another and how can we know with certitude?
7. If space-time expansion is merely the change from a part of space assigned x1,y1,z1,t1 to x2,y2,z2,t2 which expands to x1',y1',z1',t1' and x2',y2',z2',t2', and there is no experimental evidence for the expansion of space-time, why then must we take the theory seriously when it is merely based upon the thought experiments of relativity and not experimental evidence?
8. If space-time expansion is merely the change from a part of space assigned x1,y1,z1,t1 to x2,y2,z2,t2 which expands to x1',y1',z1',t1' and x2',y2',z2',t2', what is the bench mark time used to determine the rate of expansion?
9. If space-time expansion is merely the change from a part of space assigned x1,y1,z1,t1 to x2,y2,z2,t2 which expands to x1',y1',z1',t1' and x2',y2',z2',t2', and the nature of dark matter and dark energy are unknown, why then should we take space-time expansion seriously when redshift is assigned to expansion and not to any properties of dark matter and dark energy?
10. If space-time expansion is occurring throughout space, why don't the sun and the planets move away from us in all directions every year? If there is no local expansion, does that mean the earth is at the center of the expanding universe or something else?
11. If red shift is really an expanding space time phenomena, why did Halton Arp publish observations in "Seeing Red", such as X-Ray observations, Seyfert Galaxy, intrinsic redshifts and so on, that seem to contradict the theory and what are the explanations for those observations that contradict the theory?
12. If relativity is correct and forms the basis of the standard model, why then did Einstein construct relativity and thereby remove the need for an aether, yet the standard model requires dark matter and dark energy, which is only another form of the old ether?
13. If relativity is correct and the Lorentz contraction is required to account for the way in which bodies travel through space, doesn’t that mean that all bodies have already contracted when we see them, so calculating a Lorentz contraction means the body as seen should be bigger than what it really is? If so, how is this incorporated into calculations of say the suns mass or a galaxy mass?
14. If the Lorentz contraction is correct and a body contract when it travels at velocity, what is the force acting within the body, or outside the body that causes the body to contract at the same rate, no matter what the properties of the body are?
15. If Lorentz contraction is correct and all bodies contract due to motion, why does the force acting on or in the body match what is required to deform a body according to its natural properties such as rigidity?
16. When all bodies stop moving, they are said to have a proper length. What is the force acting within the body to stretch the body back to its proper length and why is it independent of the bodies properties?
17. Relativity says the mass of a body changes with velocity, yet mass is only a property of a body in a gravity field and a gravity field is not a velocity field?
18. The wheatstone bridge experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheatstone_bridge show bodies do not contract when they move, so why would anyone want to take Lorentz contraction as a real phenomena?
19. Einstein invented the notion of the space time continuum by assigning the variable t to coordinates x,y,z. According to relativity, what is a continuum and what is time? As Einstein didn’t define what a continuum is, how are modern scientist to know what is and is not a continuum?
20. If we don’t know what a relativist continuum is, how do we know that the space time continuum is logically possible and even exists, let alone expands and causes redshift?
21. If light always travels at c in vacuo, why then do signals from satellites that moves relative to the earth have calculations that include the sagnac effect? The sagnac effect says light moves at c +-v, which is not what relativity says?
22. If the sun, moon and earth are traveling through space at 600km/s, why is there no aberration of moon light observed?
23. If the planets are moving though space at 600km/s, why doesn’t light from the planets aberrate?
24. If the sun, moon and earth are traveling through space at 600km/s, then after 2s the earth has moved 1200km through space. Yet the lunar laser ranging experiment says a return laser beam only spreads 20km, but is received by the station on earth. Yet the retro reflector mirrors are designed to send laser beams in the exact same direction from which the laser entered the mirror? Surely if the earth moves through space with the moon at 600km/s, then the return laser should miss by about 1180km. Please explain how the lunar laser ranging experiment works in the universe that has our galaxy moving through space at 600km/s.

Arguments Against Atheism and for Theism.

1 God is the first mover
2 God does not exist
3 Movement exists
4 But there is no first mover
5 Therefore there is no second mover and so on
6 Therefore there is no movement
3 contradicts 6
Therefore atheism ends in contradiction.

We can also substitute movement for causation, perfection and order and arrive at the same conclusion that a denial of the existence of God ends in contradiction. Therefore atheism always ends in contradiction. Therefore atheism is false.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A contingent being is a being that comes into existence and goes out of existence
Such a being is therefore dependent for its beginning of existence on another being
Also, because such a being goes out of existence, that being must be able to lose its being.
But to lose its being means its being is not the same as its essence
For an essence is the what-ness of a thing and the ‘be’ is the existence of a thing
And to lose the existence of a thing means the things nature is not of itself ‘be’, but another.
This another is not ‘be’, but must be an essence united to ‘be’ when the thing exists
Therefore, a contingent being has a real distinction between essence and ‘be’
But to have a real distinction between essence and be, yet the essence is united to the ‘be’ when the thing exists in the real means two contrarily diverse causes exist as united
But what is diverse, of itself cannot be united, except that the diverse are united by another cause
Therefore a contingent being, which has a real diversity of essence and ‘be’, must be efficiently caused by another cause to bring about the unity of essence and be in a thing.
This efficient cause must itself have and essence and a ‘be’
If this other cause also has a real distinction between essence and ‘be’, then it too is also kept in existence by another and so on
As this series cannot bring any unity to essence and ‘be’ in any thing, for each contingent being lacks a unifying cause to keep the thing in existence
Then the cause that keeps a contingent being in existence is a cause that is not contingent
But a thing existing that is not contingent is a thing existing that is necessary
But a necessary thing existing must from its essence be identical to its existence
Therefore the necessary being has an identity of essence and ‘be’
This means the necessary being must exist
Therefore the necessary being exists.

A corollary argument follows -

If a thing exists then its existence is either from itself or from another
If the things existence is from self, then it is not dependent upon another, then it is the necessary being
If a thing exists and is dependent on another for existence, then it is from itself indifferent to existence
But what is indifferent to existence is a contingent being.
Therefore for a thing to exist, it is then either contingent or necessary
If it is contingent, then it is ultimately dependent upon the necessary
If a thing is necessary then it must exist
Therefore if a thing exists, therefore the necessary being exists
A thing does exist, therefore the necessary being exists
Also therefore from the nature of a necessary being having an identity of essence and be, if a contingent being does or does not exist, the necessary being must exist.
Therefore the necessary being exists.

Another argument

The principle of identity says A is A is true
A necessary thing is a thing which must exist
Thing is thing (A is A)
The necessary is must exist (B is B)
A necessary (B) thing (A) is a thing (A) which must exist (B)
A is A is true
B is B is true
Therefore BA is BA true
Which is the same as the principle of identity, which is true
Therefore the necessary being must exist is true, from the principle of identity.

Another similar argument

The principle of identity says A is A is true
A thing that is necessary, is a thing which must exist
Thing is thing (A is A)
The necessary is must exist (B is B)
A thing (A) that is necessary, (B) is a thing (A) which must exist (B)
A is A is true
B is B is true
Therefore AB is AB true
Which is the same as the principle of identity, which is true
Therefore the necessary being must exist is true, from the principle of identity.

A proof that it is not possible to demonstrate the non existence of an uncaused cause.

A demonstration is an argument proposed with propositions to arrive at a conclusion that is certain.
Propositions are statements that entail a truth value
If the truth value is certain, then knowledge of that truth is certain
To be certain of a truth means the truth is known without fear of error
But to be without fear of error means the truth is either directly observed, and then it is a fact, or it is derived from certain principles of reason.
If a conclusion is made in the negative concerning the existence of a cause ‘X’, then all events associated with that cause must be accounted for without that cause ‘X’.
If a cause ‘X’ is proposed to be a cause in all events, then the non existence of cause ‘X’ can only be demonstrated by a knowledge that is certain concerning all causes in any event.
As causes are either uncaused or caused, then when investigating causes in an event, knowledge of causation in an event entails both uncaused and caused causes.
If the cause is caused, then it is caused by another and so on
If the series of cause is circular, then each member lacks the same cause and no cause is possible
If the series is without end, then each member lacks the same cause and no cause is possible
Therefore every event requires that an uncaused cause existing to cause other, secondary causes to exist.
Therefore as every event requires an uncaused cause, it is not possible to comprehensively account for an event and arrive at a negative conclusion concerning the existence of an uncaused cause.
As the uncaused cause is not directly observed, then it is not a fact and as such it cannot be used in a sound demonstration to demonstrate its non existence.
As the uncaused cause is required to account for events, then a demonstration cannot be sound that contains a proposition that denies the existence of an uncaused cause.
Therefore a universal negative conclusion concerning the existence of an uncaused cause is not possible to demonstrate.
Therefore it is not possible to demonstrate the non existence of an uncaused cause
Therefore atheism is false.

The same can be said of the unmoved mover, unordered orderer, unperfected perfector and necessary being. As such atheism is false.

Some Arguments Against Agnosticism

Practical atheism means mans life is indifferent to the existence of god as the natural end of his moral action.

Agnosticism concludes that god may or may not exist and there is not enough evidence to know either way concerning god’s existence

Agnosticism is therefore indifferent to the existence of god

Agnosticism is therefore practical atheism.

But atheism is both false and absurd as shown above

But agnosticism is a form of atheism

Therefore agnosticism is both false and absurd

Agnosticism concludes that the existence of god cannot be known

But the human intellect is ordered to know the nature of bodies and therefore being

God is a being

Therefore man can know that god exists.

Therefore agnosticism contradicts the nature of mans ability to know natures and being.

Agnosticism concludes that the existence of god may or may not be known

If the existence of god may be known, then man can know a being that is not a body, but is a spirit.

A spirit is more unlike a body than like a body

As man knows natures through bodies, then man knows a spirit by analogy from a body.

As god is a spirit, then god is known through analogy.

As analogy is commonly used by man as a valid form of knowledge, then agnosticism is false.

However, if the existence of god may not be known, then man cannot know a being that is not a body, but is a spirit.

But man can know by analogy, for man commonly knows things that are real, by comparison to other things that are real.

Therefore the claim that man may not know the existence of god is false.

Therefore agnosticism is false.

Agnosticism concludes that it is not possible to know that god exists.

Yet man knows of the existence of god as the first cause, mover, perfector, necessary being and orderer.

Therefore man does know of the existence of god

Therefore agnosticism is false.

Agnosticism concludes that it is not possible to know the nature of god.

Yet natural theology concludes that the nature of god is divine, whereby He is the subsistent being, which exists simply, containing all perfections either formally in the divine nature, or virtually, according to power.

As the divine nature is known through reason, then agnosticism is false.

Agnosticism concludes that the nature of the supernatural cannot be known in God.

Yet the existence of the supernatural is demonstrated from reason as follows.

Every being is common to other beings in so far as it has actions in common to other beings

Every being is distinct from other beings in so far as it has something proper to it alone and not to other beings.

The supreme being has perfections that are both common to all other creatures, yet the supreme being is unlike all other beings which are not supreme.

As the supreme being is unlike all other beings, the supreme being must have a perfection that is unlike all other beings

As all other beings are natural, then the supreme being has natural perfections in common with other creatures and supernatural perfections that are proper to it alone

As the supreme being exist, therefore the supernatural order of being exists

But agnosticism concludes that we cannot know that the supernatural order exists

Therefore supernatural monotheism is true and agnosticism is false

Agnosticism concludes that the nature of the supernatural cannot be known

Yet God is supernatural and has chosen to intervene in history through supernatural actions such as prophecy, healing and other miracles.

As these miracles are true, then the action of God in history is also true

Those miracles have been accompanied with a divine teaching that has informed man through public revelation concerning the nature of the supernatural life in God.

This supernatural life in God is the life of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

As God has told man of the nature of the supernatural life, then agnosticism is false.

JM

Some Arguments Against Atheism.

The subsistent being is that being which has being from self and not from another 

The subsistent being is god
Atheism means god does not exist
Therefore atheism concludes the subsistent being does not exist
If the subsistent being does not exist, then all beings do not have being from self
Therefore according to atheism, all beings have being, dependent upon another being for existence.
But to have all beings dependent upon another can only occur in two ways –

1. Beings are dependent upon each other for existence according to a mutual causation. For example A is dependent for existence on B and B is dependent for existence on A. But for A and B to dependent upon each other for existence, means both A and B have causes regarding existence which are lacking in both A and B. As the lack, must be the same on both A and B, is it is a lack in regard to existence, then A and B cannot be mutually dependent upon each other for existence.
2. Beings are dependent upon another for existence according to a series. For example, A is dependent upon B and B is dependent upon C and so on. But all members are dependent upon another member as each member has the same deficiency regarding a cause of existence. Therefore as all members have the same lack, then no member of the series can exist.

Atheism requires a conclusion that all things that exist, do so without the subsistent being existing. Evidently, this conclusion is manifestly false and therefore atheism is also false.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Theism concludes to god is the greatest being that exists.
Atheism is the negative of theism.
Atheism says the greatest being does not exist.
However, if there are some beings in the universe with more being than other things, then reality is hierarchical.
A thing has more being in it than another, if that being can do more than another being.
As some beings can do more than other things, then reality is hierarchical.
But for reality to be hierarchical, then a thing is greater than all other things.
Therefore there is a thing that is the greatest being.
The thing that is the greatest being can only be the thing that has more being than other beings.
As the highest being of a creature is the person united to a nature (yet really diverse from the nature), then the greatest being must be a being with personality, that is the same as its nature.
As the cause of a personhood is spirit, then the greatest being must be a spirit, that is the same as the person.
Therefore the greatest being is not the universe, but must be a being that is distinct from the universe, as a personal spirit.
Therefore atheism is false.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Atheism concludes to god does not exist as true.
Truth is the conformity of the intellect to the real.
When the intellect has the truth, then it is correctly ordered towards the real.
Atheism says the intellect is conformed to the real when the intellect believes atheism is true.
Atheism is the negative of theism.
Therefore atheism concludes to the intellect being correctly ordered to the real when it denies the existence of god.
Yet theism concludes that God is the necessary being.
The necessary being is that being which must exist.
Therefore atheism concludes that the necessary being does not exist.
And atheism concludes the being which must exist, does not exist
But this is a contradiction.
To hold to a contradiction is to have a disordered mind
To have a disordered mind is to believe something that is false.
Therefore atheism requires a disordered mind
Therefore atheism is false.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Atheism concludes to god does not exist as true.
Theism concludes to God as the uncaused cause.
The uncaused cause is the first cause.
To deny the existence of the first cause is to deny the existence of the second, third and following causes.
To deny the first cause therefore requires a denial of all secondary causation.
Yet secondary causes exist
Therefore the first cause must also exist.
But atheism denies the existence of the first cause.
Therefore atheism is false.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Atheism concludes to god does not exist as true.
Theism concludes to God as the being which is goodness itself.
To be goodness itself means there is nothing in that being lacking, for a lack is not good.
Atheism denies the existence of the being which is goodness itself.
Therefore atheism concludes to the existence of only beings that participate in goodness.
Yet to participate in goodness, means to only have some of the good.
But to have only some of the good, infers the good itself.
The good itself is a being
For being as appetised is the good
Therefore the good itself must exist.
Yet atheism denies the existence of the good itself.
Therefore atheism is false.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Atheism concludes to god does not exist.
Theism concludes to God as greatest being.
Pantheism is a form of theism
Pantheism concludes to god is the universe.
Therefore Pantheism concludes to the universe, as god, is the greatest being.
Atheism concludes to the universe, as god, is the greatest being, does not exist.
Atheism concludes to the universe does not exist.
But as the universe does exist, then atheism is false.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Atheism concludes to the non existence of god.
Theists conclude to the existence of god, who exists independently of the universe.
Theists conclude that God is the ultimate cause of the universe.
Atheism denies the existence of the ultimate cause of the universe in a god that exists independently of the universe.
Atheism concludes to the existence of the universe.
Atheism concludes to the existence of the universe, only through causes that exist within the universe.
But to conclude to only causes within the universe, means the universe is collectively the greatest being.
But the greatest being is god.
Therefore atheism concludes that pantheism is true.
But pantheism is theism and atheism denies all theism
Therefore atheism both affirms and denies theism.
Atheism also denies and affirms the existence of the greatest cause.
Therefore atheism is contradictory and therefore false.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theism concludes to god as the greatest being.
For a greatest being to exist, requires reality to be hierarchical, for a hierarchy has the greater and the less within its system.
But atheism denies the existence of the greatest being.
Therefore atheism denies the existence of a hierarchy in reality.
But to deny the hierarchy in reality, means all things in reality are the same thing, for only then do all things have the same being.
But for all things to be the same thing is monism.
Monism concludes to all things in the universe are a manifestation of the same thing.
As all things in monism are really on thing, then the one thing is therefore the greatest thing.
But the greatest thing is god.
Therefore atheism concludes to the existence of god.
Therefore atheism is contradictory and therefore false.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Atheism concludes to the non existence of god.
But the non existence of god is a non being
A non being is not something, but is nothing.
Theism concludes to the greatest being as the ultimate reason for the cause of existence.
Atheism therefore concludes to nothing as the ultimate reason for the cause of existence.
But nothing is not a cause.
Therefore atheism concludes to a non cause as the ultimate cause of existence.
Therefore atheism is absurd.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ordination is to have order
Order is to have arrangement for an end
Passive ordination is to have parts arranged for an end
No arrangement of parts towards and ordered whole can be enacted from the parts alone, for each part lacks the order of the whole and the whole does not exist within the parts alone.
Furthermore, no amount of parts knows end as an end.
Therefore no number of parts can be arranged by parts alone for an end, for this would mean that the parts act for an end, without knowing and end and therefore acting for not an end.
This would mean that parts acting to order, without knowledge of an end merely act from chance.
But chance is an act without an intended end.
Therefore if an act is for an end, it does so from another act, which has an end as known.
Therefore chance presupposes an end as known for chance to occur.
Therefore parts cannot act for an end without knowledge of an end as end.
But to have knowledge of end as end, means there exists an intellect which knows natures.
To know natures, means the intellect then orders the parts towards an end.
Therefore, to have parts ordered for an end infers the parts are ordered for an end by another.
To order for an end is to order actively
But to order actively is to have active ordination
Active ordination is to order another
Theism concludes to god as the unordered orderer
Theism therefore concludes to a being that does not have any passive ordination
Theism concludes to a being that has only active ordination
Atheism concludes to the non existence of god.
Atheism denies the existence of a being with only active ordination
Atheism concludes that all beings have passive ordination
But if all beings have passive ordination, then all beings are ordered by another
If all beings are ordered by another, then the defect of a required order is not found in any particular being.
But if the reason for ordination is not found in any particular being, then no being has order.
Yet beings do have order.
Therefore atheism is false.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Atheism concludes to the non existence of god.
As atheism is logically false as shown above, then atheism only exists in the minds of those who have made a false judgment.
As a false judgment is made on a proposition that is false, but thought to be true.
Therefore atheism is based upon a secret knowledge of reality.
A secret knowledge of reality is Gnosticism
Therefore atheism is Gnostic
But a secret knowledge of reality is not an adequate account of reality, for reality is the same for all.
As reality is the same for all, then such truth must be made manifest from the nature of reality itself.
As atheism is Gnostic, therefore it must deny the truth value of nature itself.
Yet atheism derives its negative conclusion of the non existence of god from nature.
Therefore atheism is self contradictory regarding the truth value of nature.
As truth is a quality in the mind, then atheism is a psychological system.
As such psychology concerning the value of false judgments is required for atheism to be true.
Therefore atheism is false psychologically.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

If an atheist believes there are causes in the universe then these causes are either all the same and therefore all causes have the same being in them, or causes are different and therefore causes have different being in them.
If all causes have the same being in them, then all causes must produce the same effect.
As all causes do not produce the same effect then causes have different being in them.
As such, some causes have more being in them than others.
As one is greater than another due to a greater being, then some causes are greater than other causes.
As some causes are greater than others, then one or some causes are the greatest cause(s).
If there is only one greatest cause, then that cause is God and monotheism is true.
If there are several greatest causes, then those causes are god and polytheism is true.
But for several equally greatest causes to exist means each cause has the same being, limited in some respect.
To be limited in some respect, means being is received in potency.
But to be received in potency, means being and potency are really distinct.
But what is really distinct and yet found united in a real cause, means the cause exists through the efficient causation of another being that has being without potency.
There efficient cause of limited causes is then a cause, which is pure act.
As pure act can only be one, then monotheism is true and polytheism is false.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If atheists believe there are no causes in the universe, then there are no effects.
But an effect means a thing is dependent upon another, which is its cause
Therefore is there are no causes and no effects, yet things exist, then occassionalism is true.
But occasionalism says actions happen merely due to a divine concurrence to cause an event with circumstance.
But if occassionalism is true, then theism is true and atheism is false.
Nevertheless occassionalism is false, for causes and effects are observed and documented in the empirical sciences.
Therefore, for an atheist to deny causes and effect, means atheism must deny the value of the senses and empirical science.
Therefore, for atheism to be true, sense knowledge and science must be false.
But many atheists are scientists and believe in the value of science.
Therefore atheism is self contradictory and therefore false.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If atheism concludes there is no supreme being
Then there are no inferior beings
Therefore all beings are the same.
But for all beings to be the same means that –
1 - all things are really the same thing and then monism is true and atheism is false
Monism says all things are really the manifestation of one being
But if all things are a manifestation of the one being, then that being is the greatest being
Therefore as the greatest being is god, then monism is true and atheism is false.
Yet all things are not a manifestation of one being, for the one being must have multiple causes to produce multiple effects.
But multiple cause in the ultimate being means the ultimate being is both the ultimate and therefore uncaused and not effect, but then again have multiple causes and effect, meaning it is not the ultimate being.
Therefore monism is self contradictory and therefore false.
Therefore atheism is false.

2 – all things are really different, but appear to be the same, then phenomenalism is true
If things appear to be the same, then all things would have the same accidentals such as colour, shape and weight.
But all things do no have the same accidentals, therefore all things are not the same and therefore phenomenalism is false.
As phenomenalism is false, then atheism is also false.

3 – all things really do not exist and are therefore equally non existent and idealism is false
But if nothing exists, then the universe does not exist.
But as the universe does exist, then something exists and therefore idealism is true.
Furthermore, even if it objected that we only think a thing exists, then the thought, the intellect and the man doing the thinking are real, therefore something exists and idealism is false.
As idealism is false, then atheism is false.

JM