The Implied Designer of the Infinite Series Required to Account for the Contingency of Creatures Associated with Atheism.

Atheism may posit an infinite series of causes to account for the existence of contingent substances, motion, or change. If an infinite series is posited, that series is also subject to the problem of passive potency inferring an extrinsic, ordering agent which provides the act of order within the infinite series. For each member of the series is ordered. And that which is ordered presupposes an orderer. For example, glass in the shape of a jar has the form of jar placed into the glass through the efficient causation of the agent that orders the glass.

Similarly, an infinite series has each of its members ordered to be both a cause and an effect within the series. The members of the series are then ordered to be within the series, rather than not in the series. The ordering of each member points to an efficient agent that orders each member to be within the series and to act in its place within the series as a member of that series. In short, an infinite series of causes and effects infers an extrinsic ordering agent that orders each member of the series and the series as a whole. Such an ordering agent can only be properly accounted for through that orderer being properly unordered. Such an unordered orderer is God.

But the inferred existence of the unordered orderer of the infinite regress is ignored but is also required to account for the order within the infinite series. Such inference and ignoring the unordered orderer means the claim that an infinite series may account for the existence of a contingent substance is itself a claim with the unresolved problem of the inferred God existing extrinsic to the infinite series. Therefore, the infinite series concludes to the existence of God, apart from the infinite series. But the existence of the same God is denied by atheism. Therefore, the claim of an infinite series does not provide any reasoned argument for the existence of contingent substances without the existence of God. Therefore, atheism is false.

A Problem of the Denial of Absolutes in Special Relativity Theory.

In accord with the principle of identity, all motion is always one with itself thereby an absolute.
The universe is also one with itself and thereby an absolute.
Yet all motion also relative to the universe.
But what is an absolute relative to another absolute is itself a known absolute.
For example, a shoe is an absolute, and a foot is an absolute.
The shoe is an absolute relative to the foot as another absolute.
Also what is relative to another absolute, is itself an absolute.
The shoe is relative to the foot as an absolute, and thereby itself an absolute shoe.
Therefore, the shoe is itself an absolute as known from itself and as known relative to another absolute.
Likewise, a motion is an absolute from 1) itself and from 2) a relative to the absolute of the universe.
And therefore any motion is always absolute.

In special relativity theory, all motion is relative to a local observer.
Yet special relativity theory posits motion with velocity v is not one with itself as seen by another observer as modified by gamma in the transform equations.
Yet all motion is an absolute motion as shown above.
Therefore, because the SR equations remove the absolute from the nature of motion, SR theory is only a paper theory that is not realist.

The Problem of the Denial of the Prime Simplicity Required to Account for Existing Composed Substances within Atheism.

Substances that are composed of essence and being do actually exist with a composite universe.

The substances that do exist, yet may not exist, must be explained to provide a sufficient reason of be for the existing substances in accord with the principle of sufficient reason.

To provide sufficient reason of be for the existence of contingent substances, an ontologically prior substance that is not a composite, is required to account for the existence of said contingent substances.

Such an ontologically prior substance that is not composed is simple.

And that substance which is simple is act that is not composed.

And act that is not composed is act without limit.

And act without limit is pure act.

And pure act is being without limit.

But God is being, as the prime simplicity, as pure act.

Therefore, atheism must deny the prime simplicity as God to account for the existence of contingent substances.

Yet in denying the prime simplicity, atheism concludes to the absurdity of contingent substances existing without any efficient cause of the being of the contingent substances.

Atheism thereby concludes to the existence of the prime simplicity is not being, but is non-being which acts as being to cause composite substances.

The atheist's denial of the prime simplicity also affirms the denial of the prime simplicity (as nothing) which acts in the same manner as the prime simplicity.

The denial and affirmation of the same demonstrates atheism is false.

The Problem of the Quasi Necessity of a Contingent Infinite Regress Associated with Atheism.

Atheism may posit an infinite series of causes to account for the existence of contingent substances.

But such an infinite regress has the character of an infinite and therefore necessary thing.

For a thing that has infinite being is connatural only to God, who is being without limit.

Therefore, an infinite series is almost like God, which infers the infinite series is a quasi-necessary series.

Yet the same series is also the cause of a contingent creature.

The series is then quasi necessary according to the infinite being of the series, but contingent according to the effect of the creature caused by the series.

As the infinite series is quasi-necessary, but also contingent, the series is ontological convoluted.

But ontology is concerned with being, which is always simple.

For being is modally always one with itself.

Therefore, the infinite series is ontologically convoluted contrary to the nature of being.

Therefore, the infinite series is not a concrete series, but only a fiction.

Therefore atheism, which relies upon the infinite series is also a fiction.

An Argument for Atheism's Proposed Problem's with the Divine Attributes and Divine Simplicity as Evidence for the Divine Transcendence of the Christian God.

Catholic supernatural monotheism according to St Thomas Aquinas says God is the prime, simple act without limit.

God’s essence cannot be other than His existence. In any being whose essence is distinct from its existence, what it is must be distinct from that whereby it is. For in virtue of a thing’s existence we say that it is, and in virtue of its essence we say what it is. This is why a definition that signifies an essence manifests what a thing is. In God, however, there is no distinction between what He is and that whereby He is, since there is no composition in Him, as has been shown. Therefore God’s essence is nothing else than His existence. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/nature_grace.vi.iii.iv.html 

God as simple means God is not composed of any parts and everything in God is God. The divine simplicity follows upon the proofs for the existence of God and the deduced truth of the union of essence and being in God. The divine simplicity is also a truth of the Catholic faith as stated in the Council of Toledo in 693 -

296 Let the designation of this “holy will”-although through a comparative similitude of the Trinity, where it is called memory, intelligence, and will-refer to the person of the Holy Spirit [Augustine’s psychological analogy]; according to this, however, what applies to itself, is predicated substantially. For the will is the Father, the will is the Son, the will is the Holy Spirit; just as God is the Father, God is the Son, God is the Holy Spirit and many other similar things, which according to substance those who live as protectors of the Catholic faith do not for any reason hesitate to say. And just as it is Catholic to say: God from God, light from light, life from life, so it is a proved assertion of true faith to say the will from the will; just as wisdom from wisdom, essence from essence, and as God the Father begot God the Son, so the Will, the Father, begot the Son, the Will. Thus, although according to essence the Father is will, the Son is will and the Holy Spirit is will, we must not however believe that there is unity according to a relative sense, since one is the Father who refers to the Son, another the Son, who refers to the Father, another the Holy Spirit who, because He proceeds from the Father and the Son, refers to the Father and the Son; not the same but one in one way, one in another, because to whom there is one being in the nature of deity, to these there is a special property in the distinction of persons.”

And as discussed by St Thomas Aquinas, https://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP003.html

Following upon the divine simplicity, God is known to be all perfection simply. The perfect union of all perfection in God is itself a mystery that cannot be understood by reason alone. For by human reason, the simplicity of the union of divine perfections such as mercy and justice, power and knowledge each contain problems that either cannot or may not be fully resolved by human reason alone. Yet those perfections do exist in God as God's divine essence.

Therefore, because God is proven to exist in natural theology, the existence of ongoing problems related to the perfections within God associated with the divine simplicity only conclude to God is both intelligible, and incomprehensible. God is intelligible, for there is nothing absurd in the divinity. God is incomprehensible, for there are mysteries contained within the divine nature that cannot be fully comprehended by human reason.

Some atheists approach the Christian divinity and attempt to show the divinity contains unresolvable problems according to the reconciliation of divine attributes. Yet by atheists exposing the problems with God, the atheist has assumed that the divinity is comprehensible, when in fact the divinity is incomprehensible. The assumption that God is comprehensible reduces the transcendent nature of God down to a creature. For that which is transcendent is incomprehensible to human reason, and what is natural is possibly comprehensible, or actually comprehensible to human reason. 

For the atheist to correctly expose the problems with the Christian divinity, the transcendence of God must be shown as false. Only then can the atheist propose arguments for the non-existence of the Christian God, based upon unresolvable problems associated with the divine attributes. For if the Christian God is transcendent, any unresolvable problems associated with the divine attributes have a partial solution through an appeal to the divine transcendence. The existence of the divine transcendence implies there must be much reality in God that is beyond the insight of human reason.

Therefore the real reason why there are unresolvable problems concerning the simple union of the divine attributes is not that the problems are unresolvable, but the problems are caused by rational creatures who cannot understand the fullness of God. The atheist's problems with reconciling the divine simplicity with the divine attributes are strong evidence for the existence of all the divine attributes within the simple God, who is also transcendent. For a transcendent God must have a transcendent reality which cannot be understood by human reason alone.

Therefore, only the transcendent God contains within itself the divine nature as a principle of perfection beyond human understanding. The atheists who propose the non-existence of the Christian God through the problems posed concerning the divine attributes are in fact proposing strong evidence for the incomprehensibility and transcendence of the Christian God.

Conclusion - The real problems posed by atheist's and Christian theists concerning the union of divine attributes with the divine simplicity provide strong evidence for the divine transcendence of the Christian God.

The Problem of the Presumption of Many Creatures that Naturally Cause the Existence of only One Creature Consequent to Atheism.

Atheism may posit an infinite series of causes to account for the existence of contingent substances. To posit such a series infers many causes produce only one effect. Such a presumption is not of itself in error but is a presumption that must be examined. For frequently only one, or maybe a few causes are required to produce only one effect. For the nature of one cause is to produce only one effect. So when more than one cause is present, it is natural to posit more than one effect is present.

One may object and give examples of a series of causes that produce the one effect. For example, many causes are required to produce the effect of the bottle of milk. But the many causes themselves also have many distinct effects other than the bottle of milk. Such as the cow eats the grass and grows, the machine milks the cow and so on. Yet the regress of causes, which contains an infinite number of causes, is posited by atheism to only produce one effect. But such a series cannot exist from the nature of multiple causes that always produce more than one effect.

For where there are many causes, those causes are usually of diverse species of creatures and diverse species of causation. Such diversity of causation infers a diversity of effects produced by the causes. Yet the infinite regress of causes must posit that all the causes within the series are the same to produce the one creature which has a nature diverse from other creatures. For example, a series of causes produces a tree stump. Another series of causes produces a metal beam. The stump and the beam are diverse, which infers the two series of causes must have both identical causes within each specific series to produce the one effect.

Series 1 has the same causes within the series to produce the stump. Series 2 has the same causes within the series to produce the beam. The same causes are required to ensure only one effect is produced from the series. For if there is a diversity of causes within the one series there is a diversity of effects expected from the one series. Such a diversity of effects would then not account for the existence of a creature such as a stump, for the stump plus other effects of the series would exist. But the two series must also have causes diverse from the other series to produce the two diverse effects of stump and beam. For if the causes within both series are the same, then the same effect is expected, say the stump in both cases.

So the causes in each series must be very specific and all the same to produce the one effect of the one creature by the one series. Such a grouping of a large number of causes to act together to cause only one effect become more improbable the more causes are involved. For the more causes involved, the more diversity of effects are expected. As an infinite series of identical causes is most improbable, then an infinite series does not account for the existence of any creature. Therefore, atheism’s appeal to an infinite series is false and therefore atheism is false.

The Atheist's Quandary of a Simple Negative Answer to All that is the Universe, Contrary to the Universe of Large Mysteries.

A mystery is a secret revealed but never fully understood.
As a secret, the mystery presupposes being as the act to be of the thing containing the mystery.

The universe is a mystery that contains many interrelated physical and spiritual mysteries.

Behind the mystery is an ultimate reality that accounts for all the mysteries of the universe, which is itself either being or non-being.

If being, then theism is true, for theism proposes that God is being as the actualiser of all creatures.

God is then the principal cause and ultimate mystery that causes all other mysteries within the universe.

If non-being, then atheism is true.

If non-being, then a negation of being is the principal cause of all physical and spiritual mysteries in the universe.

The atheist's negation is then the equivalent to the principal being of theism.

But the negation is itself a negative answer to the question concerning the ultimate cause and principle of all mysteries of the universe.

The negation is itself a quandary, for the answer in the negative does not provide any explanatory value for all of the mysteries and union of mysteries within the universe.

Yet the negative answer is made in the face of a multitude of perplexing problems and theists are supposed to accept such an answer as satisfactory, or tolerated as a possible answer when in fact the answer provides no solution and causes a multitude of problems.

Some of the problems caused by the negative answer are -

1) Non-being is not a mystery, but only the negation of being. The non-mystery does not account for a mystery, let alone a multitude of mysteries. For only a cause with the power proportionate to the mystery can be the real cause of the mystery. As the mysteries within the universe are immense, the negation of being provides no cause to account for the mysteries.

2) Non-being is not an answer to account for any cause at all. For non-being is only a negation and a cause is not ever a negation but that which has being. The negative answer does not provide an adequate response to the question of the ultimate cause of the universe.

3) Non-being is non-ontological, and yet ontology forms the basis as the act to be of all things physical and substantial. Non-being is never the basis for any body, and therefore offers no explanatory value for the existence of any body, let alone any physical mystery.

As these, and many other problems and questions arise from the atheist's answer that non-being is the principal and ultimate cause of all the mysteries within the universe, the atheist has a quandary over the simple negative answer contrary to the universe of large mysteries. The answer is so simple, yet the unresolved quandary is very great.

The Problem of the Creature Acting as the Equivalent of God as One Possible Outcome of Atheism.

According to monotheism, God is an infinite being, who alone can create something from nothing.
For the act of creation of something from nothing is an infinite act, to bring the negation of being into being.
God as being is then the universal cause of all being.
For only being can cause being.
Therefore a creature's being is caused by God.
But atheism denies the existence of God as the infinite being and the universal cause of being.
Being is the actualisation of all acts.
The creature's being must be accounted for by the atheist as through a number of false options -

1) Nothing causes the being of the creature. But nothing is a negation of being and a negation is not a cause. For a cause always involves the act to be, and not the act not to be as found in nothing.

2) Another creature causes the being of the creature. But another creature is itself a nature that has being and is not of itself being. As any creature presupposes the being of the creature, being is ontologically prior to any creature. Therefore a creature cannot cause the being of another creature, for the creature, cannot be the cause of that being, which is ontologically prior to any creature.

3) The creature causes the being of itself. Yet for the creature to cause its own being requires the creature to cause that which is presupposed in the creature. If that which is both caused, but presupposed, is both cause and effect of the same. Such an arrangement of causes and effects is circular and thereby impossible.

The most impossible cause of being is non-being.
For a cause involves being and never a negation of being.
The next most impossible cause of being is a creature, or the creature itself.
For a creature at least has being, which can then act as a cause.
Yet the creature cannot cause being as explained above.
Therefore a creature acting as a cause of being is impossible, but less so in the respect that the creature may be a cause and nothing cannot be a cause.
Under the aspect of cause, the creature may be said to be a less impossible cause of the being of a creature than nothing.

If the atheist chooses to account for the being of a creature as caused by a creature, the atheist has chosen a false cause that he assumes is a true cause.
If so, the atheist has chosen a creature to act in the place of God, who is itself being.
When the creature does not exist, the being of the creature does not exist.

When the creature does exist, the being of the creature does exist.
The transition from can be to does be of the creatures being is then analogous to the act of God creating.
For God creates as being from non-being through the infinite power of God.
If creatures cause their own being, the creature analogously has an infinite power to cause itself before it exists, to then exist.
The creature as the cause of a creature's being is then the author of being, analogous to the theist's God as the universal cause of being.
Therefore, if atheism is true, atheism may conclude to the creature acting in the equivalent manner of God as the cause of being of creatures.

Discussion - the atheist's choice to make the creature the author of its own being is absurd. Yet if assumed to be true, as the atheist may assume, the creature takes on the necessity of an infinite power analogous to God as the author of creation. Atheism then must deny the existence of God, but then posit the creature acting as a quasi-god, which is to posit the existence of a false god in the place of the true god.

The Impossibility of any Regress of Creatures to Account for the existence of Creatures with Atheism.

Atheism may posit an infinite series of causes to account for the existence of contingent substances, motion, or change. Yet such a series presumes that a series of creatures can be posited to account for the existence of another creature. For such a series to exist, one creature must compenetrate another creature and also cause the being of that creature that is compenetrated. Yet the nature of bodies dictates that bodies may mix to form compounds or mixtures, but bodies never act to compenetrate. For compenetration requires the total mutual interfusion of bodies, which is an act beyond physics and chemistry. For example, if water and salt could compenetrate, the chemistry of the product body would not be H2O+NaCl, but would be the impossible union as H2ONaCl, where H2O and NaCl are not mixed but mutually interfused.

Nor do bodies act to cause the existence of another body, for bodies never cause being, as being is ontologically prior to a body. For a body only ever has being received as through an efficient cause. Being is then the fundamental perfection of a body which cannot be an effect of another body, but only an effect of an efficient cause which is itself being. For only being causes the being of another.

Therefore, the assumption that a body can cause the being of another body is false. 

Consequently, the regress of creatures to cause the being of a creature is not possible. Then atheism’s appeal to a regress of creatures to cause the being of a creature is false. Atheism is then false.

An Argument for the Moderate Detachment of the Scientist from any Theory in Empirical Science.

Empirical science contains the inductive method which includes the steps of 1) observation, 2) hypothesis, 3) testing the hypothesis through experiment, 4) development of a theory from a successful hypothesis, 5) further experiment testing of the theory with regard to predicted results and prospective invalidations of the theory. 6) Acceptance of the theory by the academy. The inductive method includes the use of the external senses of taste, touch, smell, hearing, and sight to make observations. The human reason is then used to develop a hypothesis, make predictions, develop experiments and develop the scientific theory. The combined use of the human senses and the human intellect is an authentically realist approach to men coming to understand nature through science.

Yet when the scientist comes to understand nature through the empirical sciences, he only does so as through analogy. For the observations are always made in the singular, as objects of the human sense powers. The observations are then used with reason, which is always in the abstract and never in the concrete. For reason requires the use of the intellect which always makes logical acts of apprehension, judgement and reason in the universal. Each act of reason in the universal presumes the laws of reason are in accord with the laws of nature.

But the union of reason within the scientific theory and nature is only a union of analogy. For scientific theory is always idealised which presumes the theory is only in some manner an imitation of nature, rather than an exact theoretical copy of nature. As the scientific theory is always abstract, and idealised, the theory is in some manner not natural, but at least in part, an artificial construct of the scientist mind, based upon observations and the known laws of science and logic. By the scientific theory only attaining an idealised and abstract knowledge of nature, the scientist never attains to a comprehensive knowledge of nature, but only an extrinsic and analogous knowledge of the causes within nature that exist, but are beyond direct sense observation.

For example, a scientist may posit a theory of the atom, which is composed of a nucleus and surrounded by electrons. Yet the scientist only has an abstract and idealised understanding of the atom, which is never directly observed. The atomic theory may have many predictions that are experimentally verified, but because the theory is always in the abstract, the theory can never claim to observe the causes within the model which the theory proposes to exist. A scientific theory may be well developed to the point that the theory is well accepted by the academy, so much so that the scientist always thinks of nature in accord with his theory containing abstract and idealised concepts.

But even so, the scientist never directly knows the intrinsic nature of the body he is observing. He only ever knows observations through the senses and the theory through the intellect. As direct human knowledge of the intrinsic nature of bodies is not available to man, the scientist may always be detached from every scientific theory and easily embrace several theories which seek to have some explanatory value with regard to the actions of natural bodies. Moreover, the scientist may also approach science knowing that all scientific theory is open to being invalidated at any time by an observation not yet made which is not accounted for within any theory.

Based upon the limitations of the inductive method, a scientist is prudent to have a moderate detachment from any theory in the empirical sciences. Each theory does offer idealised explanatory value and does permit nature to be opened up to human knowledge. But no theory is a copy of nature, but only an analogy of nature. As analogies always involve differences between the primary analogate (observed nature) and the secondary analogate (scientific theory), the diversity between nature and theory permits the scientist to have a moderate detachment from any particular theory.

The Problem of Atheism's Perpetual Application of the Principle of Something from Nothing.

Being is the actualisation of all acts.
God is being and the universal cause of being.
God is then the prime actualiser of all acts to be of creatures.
Atheism denies the existence of God and thereby denies the existence of the prime being, which is the universal cause of being.
Or in other words, atheism denies the universal actualiser of all acts to be of creatures.
Creatures which have being, have the act to be.
Yet consequent to atheism's denial of God as the prime actualiser of a creature's being, the cause of a creature's being is either -

1) The creature itself causes the creature's own being - But the creature cannot cause the creature's own being. For the creature would already have the act to be, to then cause it's own being. For a creature to cause its own being is a series of circular causes which assumes being in the creature which is then caused by the creature. As a circular series of causes is not possible, a creature cannot cause it's own being.

2) The creature has its own being caused by nothing, as from non-being - yet nothing cannot be a cause of anything. For non-being is a negation of an act, and a negation of an act is not a cause. For a cause is an act that presupposes the act to be of the cause, which in turns acts to produce the act to be in the effect. A negation of being is never a cause, but only ever a negation of a cause.

If the atheist proposes to account for the existence of creatures as being from nothing, the ongoing existence of creatures is an ongoing act of something from nothing. For the act to be is never accounted for, as from the creature, but must be accounted for, as from another cause. The act to be of the creature is an ongoing act, which has an ongoing cause to produce the effect of the act to be within the creature. The atheist is then forced to account for the ongoing existence of creatures from one moment to the next as caused by nothing.

Consequent to the creatures caused by nothing, science as a measure of creatures must also acknowledge the principle of something from nothing. For science is based upon ontology (the science of being) which according to atheism is accounted for as from nothing. Science theory must then acknowledge everything that exists is as from nothing. Therefore causes are nothing, and therefore all scientific theory should include the notion that at any time and at any place, something may be caused by nothing. Of course, once the principle of something from nothing as required by atheism, is embraced by science, all scientific theory is reduced to a mindless, irrational superstition.

Conclusion - Atheism requires the principle of something from nothing to account for the act to be of creatures. If atheists embrace the principle of something from nothing, they should also embrace the same principle in all the sciences. But to embrace the principle of something from nothing in the sciences infers the sciences are reduced to an irrational superstition. Atheism then has a tendency towards reducing all scientiffic knowledge down to a mindless superstition.

The Christian God Survives the Atheist's Experience.

An atheist makes an argument for a grave deficiency in the Christian deity in the video below. 

"Lost" Atheist Experience #294 with Martin Wagner and Ashley Perrien

From time 7:28, the atheist states –

Omniscience - he [God] cannot surprise himself. He cannot do something he would not know about.

Omnipotence – he [God] would do something that even he would not predict.

If there is something God cannot do or know then God is not omnipotent or omniscient.

Response – The atheist’s argument is responded to below, showing the falsity of the premise and followed by a brief discussion.

Definitions –

Knowledge (K) is the power (P) to know, and the act to know (K is P).

All Powerful (AP)

All Knowledge (AK)

Some knowledge (SK)

Some power (SP)

All things – (AT)

The theist says in God there is both all knowledge and all power, stated as –

AK and AP – T

To prove the above logical statement from the above definitions –

AK

AT

AK and AT – all knowledge to know all things.

AP

AT

AP and AT – All power to do all things.

AK and AP. – T – all knowledge and all power.

The above proof is valid and sound because knowledge and power entail each other.

The atheist contends at least two statements are true that contradict the theistic divinity -

~AK and AP – T – not all knowledge and all power.

AK and ~AP – T – all knowledge and not all power.

Theist to show the above atheist’s statements are both false, based upon the truth of –

AK and AP. - T

To show –

~AK and AP – F

AK and ~AP – F

Proof using the truth values of conjunction truth tables.

AK and AP. – T

AK – T

AT – T

If ~AK and AP

~AK – F

AP – T

Then ~AK and AP - F

If AK and ~AP

AK – T

~AP – F

AK and ~AP – F

Because theism is true, then atheism is false.

Discussion – the atheist’s contention that all-powerful in God infers a power in God beyond knowledge in God, which is false. Because of the false premise, the atheist is able to infer a contradiction in the Christian God which does not in fact, exist. Because the premise is unsound the problem of the apparent contradiction in God is removed. There is no problem of all-powerful and not all knowing, or not all-powerful and all-knowing in God.

The atheist’s contention must be false for the notion of power as can do all acts, necessarily includes the notion of all knowledge as can do all acts of knowledge. It necessarily follows that if the deity is all powerful, then the deity is all knowing. There is no power in God not known by God. Alternatively, all-knowing does not infer a limited power in God. For all-knowing does not restrict any act of power, but presumes an unlimited power to know all things. All power and all knowing infer each other through entailment.

In God, there is both all knowledge and all power.

The Problem of the Arbitrary Values of v and c in Special Relativity Theory.

Special Relativity (SR) theory posits all motion is relative motion.
Light photons move, therefore light is relative motion with a relative velocity.
Motion relative to an observer is only known relative to the observer.
Light motion of velocity c, is only known to the observer.
The observer's motion relative to light is the relative velocity v.
The observer's motion and light motion are only known relative to each other.
What is only known relative to another is not known from itself.
The observer's velocity is only known relative to light at c and is not known from itself.
Light velocity is only known relative to the observer is not known from itself.
As v and c are unknown in themselves, any relative velocity between the two velocities can be accounted for through any addition and subtraction of relative velocities.
Any such values of v and c are then never known in themselves but can be any value assigned to match the relative velocities of v and c.
Therefore the velocities of v and c are not knowable in themselves.
Therefore the assignment of numerical values to v and c are arbitrary.
Therefore the equations of SR that contain v or c are arbitrary equations.
What is arbitrary is not descriptive of the real.
For the real is natural, absolute and thereby knowable in itself, and not unknowable as related only to another as required of SR theory.
Therefore, due to the arbitrary values of v and c in the transform equations, SR theory is not realistic, and thereby false.

Discussion - SR postulates light is always at c in a vacuum, but the postulate must be linked back to the notion of relative reference frames. As c is the same value for all reference frames in a vacuum, c must be referred back to only reference frames which move at v relative to c. The assumption of relative motion entails v and c are also relative and thereby unknowable in themselves. The assignment of any numerical value to v or c must be arbitrary.

The SR transform equations that involve the use of c and v have an infinite number of solutions for any problems, for any number can be assigned to v and then have a corresponding value of c assigned to light to ensure the relative values of c and v as known through the observed c+-v. The infinite number of possible outcomes to the transform equations infers SR theory is impractical and unrealistic.

The Problem of Relatives and Absolutes Assumed within Special Relativity Equations.

Special Relativity (SR) theory posits the universal speed of light at c.
The postulate of light at c everywhere is a postulate of absolute motion.
1) Then c is an absolute velocity.

SR theory posits the observer moves at v as a relative motion, relative to the thing being observed.
2) Then v is a relative velocity.

The transform equation requires the use of both c and v together in the same equation.
But c is an absolute velocity and v is only a relative velocity.
But if c is absolute, v is relative to c as an absolute velocity.
For an act relative to a known absolute is itself an act known in relation to an absolute value.
3) Then v is an absolute velocity.

2) contradicts 3)

Or, if v is only a relative velocity, then c is relative to v as a relative velocity.
But v is a relative velocity and c is an absolute velocity.
For an act known in relation to a relative act takes on the value of that from which it is known as relative.
4) Then c is a relative velocity.

1) contradicts 4)

Therefore there are two contradictions within SR theory in relation to the notions of velocity as both relative and absolute.
Therefore SR theory is false.

The Problem of Relative and Absolute Motion within Special Relativity.

According to Special Relativity (SR) theory, all motion is relative to the local observer.
Therefore all motion is relative motion.
As the local observer is identical to itself, the local motion is an absolute motion relative to itself.
As there are many possible observers within the universe, there are many local motions that are absolute motions of each possible observer.
Therefore all motion is absolute motion, relative to the local observer.

As every motion is locally absolute, every motion is locally moving relative to the universe.
The local absolute motion is then known as an absolute motion relative to the universe.
Therefore all motion is absolute motion, relative to the universe.

As all motion is absolute, relative to both the local observer and the universe, all motion is absolute.
But SR theory says all motion is only relative to the observer.
Therefore, SR theory has a false postulate concerning the motion of things that are only ever relative to local observers, without reference to any absolute motion.

The Problem of Third Universal Observer Implied within Special Relativity.

Special Relativity assumes light is at c, and observers see motion in accord with the transforms that require a knowledge of the observer's velocity relative to that which is observed.
The value of light at c, and the relative velocities of the observer to that of the thing being observed at v are both absolute values known to the third observer who knows all.
The third observer is like the divine mind who knows all absolute values and places those velocity and distance values into the equations to derive the transformed velocity and distance values of the Special Relativity equations.
As such values are never known in the real, for no observer knows the absolute value of light at c, or the relative observer velocity at v, the transforms and the associated SR equations are only ever paper fictions.
As the SR theory assumes a universal third observer within the theory that does not exist in the real, SR theory is only ever a paper fiction.

The Problem of the Implied Guess Work Required within Special Relativity.

SR reduces all motion down to the observer.
And the observer is moving relative to the observed object.
Yet the observer exists within the universe.
Hence the observer must be moving at many different velocities relative to many different objects.
So because the observer's motion is unknown relative to all moving objects, then the observer's motion within the universe is unknowable.
As the observer's motion is unknowable, then consequently, the observed motions as related back to the observer are then unknowable.
Yet SR proposes that such motions as observed by the observer are knowable.
Hence the implied unknowability of motion within SR theory makes the theory unworkable.

The Problem of Special Pleading within Special Relativity.

Two bodies approach each other.
Body 1 moves east at 0.75 c, and body 2 moves west at 0.75 c.
Logic dictates that an observer in body 1 will see body 2 move past body 1 at 1.5c.
Yet SR says no observer will ever see any motion greater than c in a non-accelerated reference frame.
Evidently, the SR limit of velocity to a maximum of c is invalidated by the simple thought experiment.
To avoid this problem, the true velocities of body 1 and body 2 must be removed from the discussion, and reduced to the velocities as dictated by SR theory.
But to remove the true velocities is to special plead velocities of each body, down to what is dictated by a theory, made apart from logic and experience.
In effect, SR must remove the earth and all common experience of motion around the earth to transform its adherents into an imaginary world of mathematics, whereby bodies, time and velocities do what the postulates and maths dictate they must do.
Hence SR theory is a case of special pleading, made apart from common sense experience.

The Problem of the maximum velocity of c within Special Relativity.

Two bodies approach each other.
Body 1 moves east at 0.75 c, and body 2 moves west at 0.75 c.
Logic dictates that an observer in body 1 will see body 2 move past body 1 at 1.5c.
Yet SR says no observer will ever see any motion greater than c in a non-accelerated reference frame.
Evidently, the SR limit of velocity to a maximum of c is invalidated by the simple thought experiment.
The observer in object 1 would see the true relative velocity of object 2, yet SR would calculate the relative object's velocity to be less than c.
The SR velocity of less than c indicates SR theory is false.

The Problem of the loss of Absolute Length within Special Relativity.

SR removes the ether and replaces the notion of absolute length with a measured length by the observer.
But length measured by the observer, varies with the observers motion.
Hence two observers viewing two identical objects, will see each object as smaller than each object's absolute length.
Yet both observer's know that each object is identical in length.
Therefore the observed length is always shorter than the real length.
Therefore according to SR, all observations of lengths are fictional, contrary to the principle of identity, L=L,
Hence according to SR, observation is always at variance from a fundamental principle of being.
Therefore SR theory infers all observations of lengths external to the observer are all fictional lengths.

The Problem of Universal Quasi Idealism within Special Relativity.

Idealism is the theory that historically followed upon with Descartes understanding of knowledge, whereby the knower creates the object known. For example, in knowing the tree, the knower creates the tree. Idealism is false, for the knower does not create the tree, but receives the form of the tree, from the tree as the object of knowledge. Also Descarte's version of knowledge whereby the knower only knows an idea of the tree and not the tree, is also false. For the tree is known objectively, through the idea, as the formal concept, whereby the tree is presented as an object of knowledge. Descarte's theory of knowledge as a quasi-idealist theory, whereby the tree as known, is reduced down to the act of the observer, is false.

So too analogously, special relativity reduces the motion of light to an absolute for any circumstance. The earth-centered universe of the ancients is transformed into the light centered universe of relativity theory. In reducing the universe from earth-centered, to light centered, relativity reduces the universe to an observer-centered universe, whereby the entire universe of the individual conforms to the individual's motion. One can introduce, or remove the aether at will, as postulated by SR and GR respectively. One can postulate length change and time dilation at will to conform to the observer who sees light.

The light is seen by the observer at c, when not in an accelerating reference frame, but at any velocity, when in an accelerating reference frame. In effect, all physics in the universe is dictated mathematically by the ubiquitous observer. In reducing all the maths of physical reality down to that of the observer, it is the observer who (almost) creates the object observed, whereby the object known is subject to the mathematical manipulation of the observer. In doing so, the knower modifies the object of knowledge from the real, down to what is dictated by relativity theory. Such a manipulation of the object of knowledge is a form of quasi-idealism.

As quasi-idealism is false, therefore because relativity is quasi-idealist, then so too Special relativity is false.

A Problem with General Relativity and Gravitational Lensing.

Gravitational lensing is said to be the bending of light caused by a gravity field.

A gravitational lens refers to a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant source and an observer, that is capable of bending the light from the source, as it travels towards the observer. This effect is known as gravitational lensing and the amount of bending is one of the predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.[1][2] (Classical physics also predicts bending of light, but only half that of general relativity's.[3])

For a light path to bend, light must have a force placed on the photon. 

Now if the photon has no mass, then either -

1) no force can be applied to bend the photon's flight path. For, F=ma, which means F= 0a = 0.

or

2) F=ma does not apply in relativity and the gravity field acts on the massless photon apart from F=ma. Yet such a mechanism is unknown to man. 

Hence, if a photon has no mass, the relativity claim that gravitational lensing occurs due to the bending of the space time continuum (S-T), infers the S-T bending acts on a photon in a superstitious or magical manner, apart from all known physics. Hence if a photon does not have mass, relativity is a physics theory that requires magic to account for bent photon flight paths.

But, if the photon has mass, then 

1) the S-T can bend the photons light path according to F=ma.

but then,

2) the photon cannot travel at c, for the mass of a particle at c is infinite according to the longitudinal mass = m/(1-v²/c²)³ = m/0. Likewise the energy of a photon would be infinite according to E = mc² / sqrt(1-v²/c²) = mc² /0.

The Agnostic and Null Truth Value of Empirical Science Consequent to an Atheistic, Materialist Worldview.

Preliminary Definitions -

Intelligible - that which is understandable through the act of abstraction. The body of timber is intelligible when the timber is known through the act of abstraction to be timber.

Comprehensible - that which is known through its causes. A thing is fully comprehensible when all the causes of the thing are fully known. A thing is partially comprehensible when part of all the causes of the thing is fully known.

An Argument for the Agnostic and Null Value of Empirical Science-Based Knowledge when Atheistic Materialism is Assumed.

Empirical Science endeavours to attain knowledge of the universe through the inductive method. But by applying a method to attain knowledge, the method does not demonstrate, but only assumes the universe is in some manner both intelligible and comprehensible. Yet if the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe are only assumed, the inductive method rests upon the unknown truth value that may or may not be attained through the inductive method. For if the inductive method does not prove that the universe is both intelligible and comprehensible, the knowledge attained through the method is of unknown veracity within the method itself. To have veracity of knowledge concerning the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe, the inductive method must depend upon the truth of the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe through deductive reasoning.

Yet the inductive method as used by atheistic scientists assumes a materialist worldview, which excludes the existence of non-bodily substances. But the exclusion of non-bodily substances infers man is only material and can only do material-based actions. Knowledge is then according to materialism, only a material act, likened to the sense knowledge of animals. But if human knowledge is sense knowledge, then knowledge is only in the singular and concrete and never in the universal. For the universal is in the abstract and thereby an immaterial act.

The lack of ability of man to do an immaterial act according to the materialist worldview excludes the existence of deductive reasoning. For deductive reasoning is made from principles to conclusions known in the abstract. Therefore, if deductive reasoning is excluded by the materialist worldview, no deductive based argument can be made to ascertain the truth value of the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe assumed in the inductive method. The inductive method must proceed, based upon the presumed truth of the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe which is never known to be true.

The lack of proof assumed in the inductive method infers the materialist worldview causes science to only ever attain knowledge of the universe that may be both unintelligible and incomprehensible. The atheistic scientist who assumes knowledge of the universe is attained through the inductive method when in fact the lack of certitude of truth attained within the inductive method infers the empirical sciences must always be agnostic about scientific knowledge. If a scientist never thinks the universe is both intelligible and comprehensible, and the inductive method is impotent to provide any proof for the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe, then any, or all knowledge of the universe attained through science may only be a superstition. For example, a scientist may conclude that a model has been constructed to predict the motion of the planets, but the model may in fact only be a superstition that is always unrelated to anything in the universe. For the universe may be both unintelligible and incomprehensible, when the scientist has only assumed the universe to be otherwise.

In fact, if atheistic materialism is assumed, human knowledge is always a material act which excludes the act of abstraction. If abstract thought is excluded by materialism, science knowledge becomes a series of sense acts like that of a dog barking or a bird chirping. The laws of science known through the inductive method are then the equivalent to a meaningless howl of a dog or a whinny of a horse. The material, singular sense acts of animals never enunciate universal laws because sense acts are never universal, but always singular. If atheistic materialism is presumed, science knowledge is consequently destroyed and the universe is necessarily both unintelligible and incomprehensible. For if man is only a material thing, man is only a well-developed animal with sense knowledge. And sense knowledge is not the intellective knowledge required for the universe to be intelligible.

Comment - The problem of the assumed intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe is only removed if the atheistic materialist worldview is removed and replaced by a realist worldview that permits the existence and actions of spirits in the universe. Only then can one arrive at a realist anthropology which includes the existence and act of a spiritual intellect in man, to then used deductive reasoning to make an argument for the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe. Once proven that the universe is both intelligible and in part, comprehensible, the truth value of the inductive method can then be assessed.

Empirical science is in reality only ever based upon a monotheistic worldview which includes the notion of man as a composite of body and soul, which is consistent with Christianity and divine revelation. The denial of Christianity and divine revelation concludes to the agnostic nature of the inductive method that opens the empirical sciences to the criticism that all knowledge attained through the inductive method may well only be of the equivalent value of superstition. The veracity of the empirical sciences is dependent upon the veracity of the worldview presumed prior to the acceptance of the value of the knowledge attained within the empirical sciences.

The Problem of Scientism and the Intelligibiity of the Universe.

Scientism says knowledge of the universe is always subject to and validated by the inductive method.
Therefore all knowledge of the universe is measured only by the knowledge attained through science.
But science is only concerned with the nature of bodies.
Therefore the act of knowledge itself is subject to science.
What is subject to science is a body.
Consequently, the act of knowledge itself is a body.
A body is material.
Then according to scientism, the act of knowledge itself is material.

But, knowledge of a body is the ability of a body to be intelligible.
And the intelligible is in the abstract.
For the abstract is that which is in the universal and raised above matter.
What is in the universal and raised above matter is then immaterial.
For the material is always in the singular and individual.
But the abstract is had without the singular and individual.
Abstract knowledge of bodies is then an immaterial act.

But if scientism is true, knowledge is material.
Therefore if scientism is true and knowledge is material, knowledge is not knowledge.
Therefore no knowledge is had through scientism.
Therefore scientism is false.
Or knowledge in the abstract is had through scientism and scientism is false.
Either way, scientism is false.

Discussion - Science presumes the true anthropology derived in philosophical psychology, where it is shown that man has an intellect to know the natures of bodies in the abstract. The intellective act of knowing in the abstract is the act of the intellect raising forms above matter. Such an act of abstraction can only be performed by a power within man that is non-bodily and spiritual.

Intellective knowledge is an act beyond the restraints of the false worldview of scientism that requires intellective knowledge to be a material act of an organ such as the brain. Scientism assumes a false anthropology and is therefore inhuman.