The Elliott Argument (Official)



     :The Elliott Argument:

          A formal deductive argument, rooted in science, logic, evidence, mathematics and philosophy, that is taking the world by storm. In over 750 online debates it remains undefeated!! Atheism has been refuted.

The formal version used in debate:
P1: A position which leaves you with only two incorrect options cannot be correct.
P2: Atheism is a position which leaves you with only two incorrect options.
C:  Atheism cannot be correct


Insight: TEA has proven that atheists only have two options for the existence of the Universe, and that it's logically impossible to EVER present a third option. The reason for this, is that the argument presents two acronyms which have been so broadly defined, it leaves no room for a possible 3rd option.  Both of the atheist 'options' are then shown to be untenable, irrational, illogical, incorrect, and have no evidence. The first option is known as STE, which stands for [[Spacetime Eternal (without a TRUE beginning); not limited or confined to our known universe, but any other voids, dimensions, multiverses, etc.]], and the second being SCPN, which represents the thought that [[Something can come from Pure Nothingness, aka literal non-being]]. 

I have proven atheism an incorrect and untenable position without making any claims about GOD. This remains the beauty and elegance of TEA. It was carefully designed with this specific purpose in mind. The goal being to establish valid argumentation which logically shifts the burden of proof onto the non-believer while destroying their position. TEA is the blueprint for believers who wish to rationally dismantle atheists. Leaving them no room to counter with their typical cookie cutter responses.  Furthermore, once TEA is established and proven to be sound, one must also accept it's conclusion. Note: When a person chooses to deny or disbelieve that God exists or had any causal influence in creating the Universe, they unfortunately leave themselves with only two incorrect options.  You may hear someone assert that atheism makes NO claims about the origin of the Universe...In this case, simply remind them that atheism makes the claim that a God is not responsible for it. Enjoy this work and learn how to use it so you will never lose a debate to another atheist as long as you live. God Bless!

To refute this argument you would need to do one of the following:


1.) Prove the structure of TEA is unsound or invalid

 2.) Show STE to be irrational, illogical, and incorrect. (Also refute supportive evidence to the contrary view of STE).

3.) Show SCPN to be irrational, illogical, and incorrect (Also refute supportive evidence to the contrary view of SCPN).

4.) Prove TEA is a false dichotomy? Present a 3rd option for the origin of the Universe that does not fall under either of these two categories (STE or SCPN). Present or demonstrate this option by defining it and answering all questions concerning it. Including the 7 essential questions which can be seen further down in this blog.

*Before you continue*
If you think you can defeat this argument, please scroll down to the 'Common Rebuttals' section on the bottom of the page. If your rebuttal can be found there (and has already been addressed), please do NOT re-submit the same refutation. If however you still think you can defeat this argument, please accept my live real time public debate challenge, or submit your formal written refutation (which will be posted word for word in its entirety on our official website). Thank you and God Bless!! Good Luck. Also, if there is any scientific claim that is made in this blog, which is in error, please bring it to my attention so I can update it. 


== Historical Background ==
The Elliott Argument is a formal philosophical argument which was developed in early 2009.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with my work, I am a Christian theologian, philosopher, and apologist.  "The Elliott Argument'' (TEA) was founded on human logic, reason, philosophical understanding, research, observation, mathematical absolutes, and scientific evidence. The Elliott Argument has somewhat of an antagonistic conclusion and has been a fiery topic on the atheism vs. theism debating scene over the past few years. It has taken the internet by storm and has been the topic of numerous blogs, social media pages, You-tube accounts, videos, and formal online debates. It is said that the argument makes no claims about the 'existence or validity of God', but rather is designed to show that atheism is in fact a flawed position. Once TEA is established, then further arguments are presented which prove GOD does exist. This is known as the step process. [[William Lane Craig]], [[Alvin Plantinga]], [[Thomas Aquinas]], [[Al-Ghazali]], [[Socrates]], [[Plato]], [[Descartes]], and other well known [[Christian apologists]] are a few of my favorite philosophers.

So how does this work?  - According to The Elliott Argument, STE is incorrect for a number of reasons. The first based upon the impossibility of an [[infinite regress]] infinite number of past events. In other situations it (STE) can be shown to be a self contradiction and present logical absurdities. The claim is also made that there is absolutely no evidence that space-time is in fact eternal in the past (without a true beginning), rather all the evidence points to space-time having a finite beginning. If time exists infinitely in the past without true beginning, we can never arrive at our current position in time.

(B-Theory of time is self refuting - Proven further down in this blog)
(Eternal time loop is incorrect -
Proven further down in this blog)


The second acronym, SCPN is also invalid for numerous reasons. We recommend the following 10 points in refuting anyone who attempts to make a stand for SCPN.

A. We have no scientific grounds or evidence to believe that PN has ever existed or could ever be achieved, let alone reason to believe that it could produce anything.  Our everyday experience, as well as observational data, confirm that believing things pop into being uncaused is not a justifiable position.  Everyday you, me, and every other human being on the planet witness things coming into existence because of a cause.


B. PN has no creative powers,  because by definition literal non-being cannot have properties. If it had properties it would no longer be considered nothingness. This means that it has no power, creative or otherwise. Something with no creative powers cannot create, nor produce anything.


C. PN cannot be Discriminatory. We know this because by definition PN has no laws, properties, or binding
constructs. If it did then it wouldn't be PN. So because PN cannot be discriminatory, If something can come from PN, then everything would have popped into being from PN in every proposed Universe (as well as in our Universe). In other words, because PN cannot have properties of restraint, it also cannot have limiting boundaries. This means that if something could come from PN, then everything would be able to come from PN in all possible Universes. For example PN could not create one universe with certain properties, laws, and material and also create other Universes with entirely different sets of properties, laws, boundaries, material, etc. PN has no restraining properties so 1.) if it creates more than one thing, all the things it does create have to be identical...it couldn't create one universe that followed laws abc, and another universe that follows laws xyz 2.) it has to create everything that ever existed and everything that has the potential to exist. PN cannot be partial or discriminatory to only creating Universes. If it can create Universes, nothing would have stopped it from creating a Universe destroyer (some law that destroys the universe as soon as it begins to exist). Moreover, everything that ever existed (or is yet to come into existence) would have existed right when the Universe came into being. It wouldn't have just been energy and space at the beginning (when this PN first created our universe), it would have been energy, space, the empire state building, root beer, Present Obama, and horses. In other words the assumption that SCPN could be true, is inherently false.

D. Math beats science every time!! Things that appear to be logical are not always true, and science is ever evolving. However, you cannot disprove or undermine certain mathematical absolutes!! They are constant and unchanging. For example, 0+0=0 Every time!! This is probabably the biggest hit against any SCPN hypothesis. One that no one can refute. Once in awhile you may hear an atheist try to say that may be true (0+0=0 every time), however, -1+1=0. This is where their logic is a miss. The problem is, the equation (-1+1=0) is not a valid representation of a PN Hypothesis. In a PN hypothesis you don't get a -1 or a +1 to add into the mix, you only get zeros...And 0+0 never can produce a positive. Nothing plus more nothing equal nothing. Nothing begets more nothingness.

E. There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support the claim that something can in fact come from PN. Science is done using observation and experimentation, neither of which can be applied to PN. If there is any scientific evidence for PN I would love to see it. We do however have scientific evidence to the contrary. We see that things which begin to exist always have a cause. Also virtual particles do not come from PN, rather they come from the Quantum vacuum, which is a sea of fluctuating energy endowed with laws and structure. This is not PN.


F. If something could come from PN, It would break the law of Causality. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality)

G. If something could come from PN, It would break the law of Uniformity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism)

H. If PN could create universes, theres nothing that would stop it from being able to create every kind of universe. Inc
luding a Universe where there are no properties, and no properties stopping more things from from popping into being from PN all the time. For example a Universe where a can of root beer pops into being right now on your desk. And because there would be nothing stopping it (PN) from creating that kind of universe, our universe would have to be like that too (but our universe has properties), since PN couldn't create two differing universes. 

See point C.

I. If something could come from PN it would undermine many philosophical truths and present numerous contradictions. Such as a mindless cause existing eternally (without true beginning) without its effect. This is impossible. Only a free agent can account for the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause. If the cause of the universe were an impersonal, mechanically operating cause, then the cause could never exist without its effect. For if the sufficient condition of the effect is given, then the effect must be given as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless, but for its effect to begin in time, is for the cause to be a PERSONAL agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time, without any antecedent determining conditions.

J. No serious or respectable intellect/scientist/mathematician or philosopher accepts SCPN. Not a single on
e!! And there is good reason for this. If anyone can show me a single person who does in fact support a SCPN hypothesis I would love to see it. PS. Dont bring up Lawrence Krauss because he doesnt discuss PN. He talks about the quantum vacuum and physicists version of 'nothingness'' which is a totally different concept than SCPN.

** There is no possible scenario, scientific evidence, or philosophical understanding which could arise in the future that would prove SCPN to be correct. Pure nothingness cannot be tested for (because you can't find it, it has no propeties, you wouldnt know if you found it because it wouldnt look like anything, etc), and even if we did find something which ‘appears’ to pop into being uncaused from PN, we cannot be sure that it has. Moreover, we would still be stuck with all inherent problems of accepting Pure Nothingness hypothesis that were covered in this post. These can NEVER change. For that reason SCPN is forever doomed and cannot be proven valid.
 

[[How do we know that STE and SCPN will always be invalid, and how do we know that a new third option will not be presented in the future]]?


1. It’s impossible that a 3rd option for atheists EVER be presented. This means that even in a hundred thousand years, atheists only two options will still be STE and SCPN. Remember, if you claim a false dichotomy you will have to prove it, otherwise you are just making baseless assertions without support or evidence. The way the two acronyms (STE and SCPN) have been defined, has made it so every possible scenario that could arise will be covered!! (Scroll down to see the section on False Dichotomy)

2. There is no possible scenario, scientific evidence, or philosophical understanding which could arise in the future that would prove STE a logical concept. Infinite regress will always remain an issue. This can NEVER change.
 

3. There is no possible scenario, scientific evidence, or philosophical understanding which could arise in the future that would prove SCPN to be correct. Pure nothingness cannot be tested for, and even if we did find something which ‘appears’ to pop into being uncaused from PN, we cannot be sure that it has. Moreover, we would still be stuck with all inherent problems of accepting Pure Nothingness hypothesis. These can NEVER change.
If the atheist still disagrees, they would have to answer the 7 fundamental questions about how his proposed third option was responsible for our Universes' existence. If they fail to do so then they have asserted they have a third option, but because they did not define it, they could not prove it so.

Then we begin our line of questioning with these 7 fundamentals....


1.) Where does your option exist before it creates our Universe?
2.) What are its properties/what is it made of?
3.) Give me a step by step process of how this option created our physical universe, starting with step 1 being "our universe did not exist".
4.) Is your option eternal in the past or did it begin to exist at some point?
5.) Does your option have thinking capabilities/some kind of mind?
6.) Why didn't your option create the universe sooner?
7.) What change happened inside of it, or to it, to make it create, if it didn't have a personal mind to withhold the intention?
 
 
  


TEA :Extended version:
P1: Both STE and SCPN are incorrect
P2: If you deny a UC option had any causal influence in the origin of the Universe, then your only two options are STE and SCPN.
P3: Atheists deny a UC option had any causal influence in the origin of the Universe.
P4: Atheism has only two incorrect options
P5:A position which only leaves you with two incorrect options cannot be correct
C: Atheism cannot be correct
TEA :Flip to prove God Exists:

P1: If God does not exist, then STE or SCPN are true.
 
P2: STE and SCPN are not true.
 C: God exists.

Affirmative Conclusion Fallacy? 

The TEA Flip is constructed the same way WLC (one of the greatest philosophers of our time constructed the Moral Argument)...Im fairly sure he knows what basic fallacies like AC. More importantly Dr. Craig has defended his argument over 500 times in live debate and not a single person has ever tried to claim the argument was a fallacy due to affirmative conclusion. You know why? Because its not. And this argument (THE TEA FLIP) has the EXACT same structure.

Affirming the Consequence Fallacy? 

Not even close. Affirming the consequence fallacy reads as such...(If P, then Q. Q. Therefore P). This is not the same as the TEA Flip which reads (If NOT P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore P.)

Denying the Antecedent Fallacy? 

Nope!! Denying the Antecedent reads as such...(If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore Not Q.)...This is not the same as the TEA Flip which reads (If NOT P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore P.) 


== Content Definitions ==
[[SCPN]] - Acronym used in ''The Elliott Argument'' which stands for "Something can come from PURE Nothingness." Pure nothingness being defined as literal non-being. (http://youtu.be/L0Sbogp0Lj4)

[[STE]] - Acronym used in ''The Elliott Argument'' which stands for [[Spacetime Eternal (without a TRUE beginning); not limited or confined to our known universe, but any other voids, dimensions, multiverses, etc.]]. It is claimed by the author that this definition is designed to be used in the ''broadest sense''.  Meaning not just space-time in our universe, but also any other proposed universes, voids, dimensions, etc. Many people think that STE simply refers to 'our universe' being eternal (without true beginning)... It does not!!
(http://youtu.be/kaNBSqxaA8Y)STE LAW for A THEORY of time: If time exists infinitely in the past without true beginning, we can never arrive at our current position in time. (B Theory of time, Eternal time loop, and Eternal block Universe theory are all self refuting!! See common rebuttals section)

[[Eternal]] - Eternal is defined as existing forever without beginning or end. However, as it pertains to The Elliott Argument and the acronym STE, the word ''Eternal'' is ONLY in reference to ''spacetime without beginning''. It makes no claims or reference to ''spacetime ending'' or the future state of spacetime.  Many people often get this confused.

[[Atheist]] - A person who denies or disbelieves a God of any kind exists. A person who believes a God does not exist. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-definition-that-will-not-die#ixzz2yDZTPQGB
[[Uncreated Creator/UC Option]] - Spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal mind which in some way influenced or had a part in the existence of the universe. When we say personal we mean a mind that is not a mechanical impersonal cause. It must have some type of rationality, self-consciousness, volition, or ability to alter intention. This is considered by ''The Elliott Argument'' to simply be an option which atheists deny or disbelieve in. It is claimed by the author that the argument itself makes no positive claims about the ''existence or validity'' of this option. Once TEA is established then the reader can draw any conclusions, or make any assumptions they want about a UC option.
*It's important to point out that with any formal argumentation, all terms must be well defined or the argument holds no chance of being valid. For "The Elliott Argument" this includes the UC option. Even though "The Elliott Argument" makes no claims about the existence or validity of this option, it still must be defined, and defined in very particular way to allow the entire argument to remain sound. For example, the author could not define the "Uncreated Creator option" as a red Buick sitting in a Wall-mart parking lot, because atheists by definition do not deny or disbelieve in such an entity. Therefore the argument would completely fall apart if it were defined as such. The fact here is that "Mr. Elliott" is able to define this UC option however he chooses since he is making no claims about its validity or its existence in the argument. So long of course as it still fits with the premises of the argument itself. However, what "Mr. Elliott" could not do is make up his own definitions for fundamental terms in the argument such as "space" or "time". Why, because he is actually making claims about these things validity and existence in the argument. For example he couldn't say something with a widely accepted definition like water is illogical to drink, and then change the definition of water to mean poison. Why, because he would be making claims about the validity of water, and then changing the known definition to meet his arguments needs. Again, with the UC option however, Mr. Elliott is NOT making any claims about its existence or validity. It's only presented as an OPTION which atheists deny or disbelieve in. Nothing more. So in fact he can define this UC option however he chooses, so long as it is still true that atheists (by definition) deny or disbelieve in it. Once TEA is proven, then the reader can draw any conclusions, or make any assumptions they want about a UC option.

[[Infinite/Infinity]] - Freedictionary.com defines ''infinite'' as 1.) Having no boundaries or limits and 2.) Immeasurably great or large; boundless. Wikipedia defines ''infinity'' as "without any limit." [[David Hilbert]], considered by some to be the greatest mathematician of the twentieth century, stated in“[http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/HowManyAngels/Philosophy/
Philosophy.html On the Infinite]”, in Philosophy of Mathematics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall, 1964, pp. 139, 141:) “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.” Mathematicians realize that an actual ''infinite number of things'' leads to self-contradictions. ''Mr. Elliott'' points out this apparent dilema when he says, "if there was an infinite number of subsequent causes and events in the past eternity, we can never arrive at our present moment. We would have had to traverse an infinite number of events to get to today and you cannot traverse an infinite number of events. If there is an ''infinite amount of time'' in the past eternity we can never arrive at our current position in time."

[[Infinite Regress|'''Infinite Regress''']] - According to Wikipedia, an ''infinite regress'' in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, and the truth of proposition Pn-1 requires the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity.
To suggest that there have been an infinite regress of past events/moments, is to suggest that we would have had to come to an end of an infinite series. An infinite series however is by definition is a series with no end. This is logically incoherent.

Other well known and highly respected philosophers such as [[Al-Ghazali]] write, "it is impossible that the universe be beginningless. If the universe never ''began to exist'', then the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But this is impossible, because an actual infinite number of events cannot exist." [The Incoherence of the Philosophers].


Also [[William Lane Craig]] tells us that, "If you can't have an actual infinite number of things, then you can't have an actual infinite number of past events. That means that the number of past events must be finite." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrFwGvWlJnc).


'Space and time would have to had started somewhere or we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Another key scientific discovery to point out here is the The [http://creationwiki.org/Borde-Guth-Vilenkin_singularity_theorem Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem].The BVG Theorem states that, "Any universe which is on average expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past, but must have a finite beginning and space time [[boundary]]. Even if the universe is just a part of a wider [[multiverse]], then that multiverse itself must have had an absolute beginning."[[Vilenkin]] then goes on to say, "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men, and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the [[proof]] now in place, cosmologists can no long hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe." (http://youtu.be/4KgpHx8JZR8)


[[Time|''Time'']] - Time according to ''Wikipedia'', is a dimension in which [[events]] can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of ''events'' and the intervals between them. Also one must remember that space and time are woven together as one. If there is space there is time, and if there is time there is space. This is known as the space-time continuum. Also it is important for one to remember that conscious observers need not be present for the concept of ''time'' to still be in play. For example if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to witness it does that mean that time stopped? Clearly not. There was a ''before'' (tree standing), and an ''after'' (tree down) which proves [[events]] were occurring and time was still passing. Also there had to be some form of space for the tree to have the potential to exist and fall.


[[True Beginning]] - This is defined as a single ultimate beginning or [[true beginning]]. A true beginning would be different than many successive beginnings of the same thing.


For example: Imagine a pencil exists. If that pencil was on some kind of eternal cycle or loop where it begins to exists, then ceases to exist, begins to exist, then ceases to exist infinitely into the past, then we can say that it has demonstrated different beginnings, but it never had a single True Beginning or ultimate beginning which kick started the process. If however, there was a first pencil which began to exist, and it kick started the eternal cycle, then it could be said that pencils had a True Beginning. The same can be said for space-time in accordance to STE.


Imagine if you will our universe (spacetime) exists, then dies. Then our universe (spacetime) starts over again, then dies. Now imagine this cycle is eternal in the past without a true beginning.  This would fall under the acronym STE, as spacetime would not possess a single true beginning, and there was never a point at which one could say "further beyond this point there was no spacetime." Spacetime would have existed eternally into the past without an initial spacetime to kick start the process. A demonstration of this is for a person to imagine the Universe where they exist. If that eternal spacetime cycle which produced their Universe has no True Beginning, then the persons existence never becomes actualized.


If you're at the Drs. office and there is an infinite amount of people in front of you, do you ever get a chance to see the Dr.?? No!! Because there is no first person or no beginning to the line. Even if you cut forward in the line a zillion people, there is still and infinite amount ahead of you. So your time to see the Dr. never becomes actualized.  In this hypothetical situation, each person in the line is represented by a new universe (spacetime), part of the eternal cycle, which began to exist (see the Dr. for themselves).  The problem is you cannot get to the front of a line that has no true beginning, the same way you cannot traverse an infinite amount of past events. To suggest that there have been an infinite regress of past events is to suggest that we would have had to come to an end of an infinite series. An infinite series however is by definition is a series with no end. This is logically incoherent. 


In other words if there is no True Beginning to the cycle, then no point in the cycle ever becomes actualized.


Remember STE is defined as [[Space Time Eternal in the past without a TRUE beginning; not limited or confined to our known universe, but any other voids, dimensions, multiverses, etc.]]

(For more information see the section on Multi-Universe/String theory, and Infinite Regress)


[[Pure-Nothingness]] - The concept of literal non-being. No space, time, energy, matter, laws, constants, structure, life, supernatural beings, minds, etc. The concept of pure literal nothingness. In mathematics this concept can be represented as [[zero]]. Philosopher [[William Lane Craig]] is noted as saying such things as, "from nothing, nothing comes. It is as certain as anything in philosophy and that no rational person sincerely doubts it." [http://www.reasonablefaith.org/causal-premiss-of-the-kalam-argument Reasonable Faith Website-Causal-premiss of the KCA]. ''Craig'' is also quoted as saying, "It is impossible that nothing exists, and that there is no possible world in which nothing exists." (http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/What_is_Nothing_.mp3)





Pure nothingness is an illogical concept which we can never achieved. It is noted in [http://marxistphilosophy.org/nothing2.htm (Excerpts from F. V. Konstantinov, ed., Philosophical Encyclopedia, Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia Publishers, 1963, vol. 4, pp. 78-9)] that "nothingness is pure non-being and an impossible abstract emptiness." The claim is that nothing comes from nothing!! From Pure nothingness, Pure nothing comes.


(Latin: ex nihilo nihil fit) is a philosophical expression of a thesis first argued by [[Parmenides]]. It is associated with [[ancient Greek]] cosmology, such as presented not just in the opus of [[Homer]] and [[Hesiod]], but also in virtually every philosophical system.

The Roman poet and philosopher [[Lucretius]] expressed this principle in his first book of [[De Rerum Natura]] (eng. title [[On the Nature of Things]])
"Principium cuius hinc nobis exordia sumet, nullam rem e nihilo gigni divinitus umquam."[1]

English translation:
"But only nature's aspect and her law, which, teaching us, hath this exordium: Nothing from nothing ever yet was born."[2]

Similarly, many other noted philosophers such as [[William Lane Craig]], [[John Philoponus]], [[Al-Kindi]], [[Saadia Gaon]], [[Al-Ghazali]], and [[St. Bonaventure]] stand behind the claim that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."


This is directly in line with [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz|Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's]] [[principle of sufficient reason]]. Leibniz argues (Russell, Bertrand, A History of Western Philosophy. New York, Simon and Schuster, 1945, p. 568, and Cassirer, Ernst Kant’s Life and thought. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981,pp. 73) that "everything in the world is contingent that it may or may not have existed. Something will not exist unless there is a reason for its existence.  This rests on his premise that the actual world is the best possible world, as such we can account for everything in it as being there for a specific reason. But the universe as a whole, requires a further reason for existence, and that reason for Leibniz is God.



[[Thomas Aquinas]] put it like this is "Common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself''. In other words, some previous object had to create it." [http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/cosmological_aquinas.htm The Second Way- Causation of Existence]. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an ''Uncaused First Cause'' (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. He asked his opponents to follow the argument this way:

1. There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2. Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3. There cannot be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4. Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called God.

Important Note: God was not "created," nor did He ''create'' himself, nor did he ''begin'' to exist at some point in the past. God is eternal in the past, but is spaceless and timeless prior to creating the universe. At which point time is given the starting point which is required to allow us to arrive at our current moment in time.



And finally [[William Lane Craig]] makes a mockery of anyone believing something can come from pure nothingness when he says, "Believing that something can come from nothing is literally worse than believing in magic. I mean think about it, when the magician pulls the rabbit out of the hat at least you have the magician. Nobody sincerely believes something can pop into being uncaused out of nothing." And he goes on to ask, "if something could come from nothing, then it's inexplicable why everything or anything doesn't come from nothing. For example why don't bicycles, or root beer just pop into being uncaused out of nothing? There can't be anything about nothingness that favors universes, because nothingness has no properties. So what makes nothingness so discriminatory, that only universes are allowed to pop into being from nothingness? Nothingness cannot be constrained by anything because there is nothing to be constrained." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrFwGvWlJnc (time frame 25:54-30:05)...Also its important to note that Pure Nothingness does exist as an abstract concept and idea. Its an abstract concept or idea that can never actually be achieved, but rather only exists in our minds, not reality.

 
How do we PROVE atheists only have these TWO options? 
TEA has two acronyms that are so broadly defined, its logically IMPOSSIBLE for an atheist to ever present a third option. If they can, I will personally send them a cash reward in the mail for $500!! No one has even been able to do it and no one ever will. Guaranteed!! 

First of all let me just say this...You technically don't need to prove it so. That's the axiomatic logical rule of the excluded third. You prove by logic, you don't prove logic. Logic is axiomatic, it's the proper way of reasoning about things.  Logic is a given, anyone who denies it and who doesn't think logically, is an irrational person. Logic is not open to debate, it is that by which debates are done.

Secondly I can demonstrate the claim that there are ONLY TWO options by providing correct definitions to my opponent, and then referring them to human logic and the law of non-contradiction. For example: If I were to say there is either a God or there's not a God, there would be no evidence which I could provide to make a person accept that these in fact are were the two choices. So how would I prove to a rational person that these in fact are the only two options that exist?? I would simply have to appeal to human logic and the law of non contradiction, then challenge them to prove that some other option could logically exist. They cannot!!

The same is true with the acronyms STE an SCPN. I give the correct definitions to my opponent, appeal to human logic and the law of non-contradiction, and then challenge them to prove that some other option could logically exist. They cannot!! This is how we PROVE that NO other option exists. Think of it like this....If 'something' exists, then 'something' is eternal in the past without beginning, or 'something' came from pure nothingness. For someone denying God's work (atheists), something could not both EXIST and also not be the product of either STE or SCPN. That would be a logical contradiction. That being said, the atheist must remember that asserting a false dichotomy is not the same as proving one. If the atheist claims there are more options than the two presented then he has the burden of proof to prove it!! So to defeat P2, you would have to prove it invalid."
*And finally, to realize that these are the only two options, you need to look no further than the 
Law of Existence which states: If something exists, 'something' has to be eternal in the past without true beginning, or something had to have come from Pure Nothingness. This law is a Universal absolute and logical constant. It is a statement of logical necessity and cannot be undermined. The only way to prove this statement invalid would be to somehow show it is illogical. Good luck ;)

Does TEA present a False Dichotomy??

Of course not, but it's still a common objection from atheists to try and make the claim that there are in fact ''more options'' than the two presented. However, the author says that because of the way the two acronyms are defined, that it's logically impossible to ever present a third option for the existence of our physical universe. "There will never be a third option for atheists."

Asserting a false dichotomy is not the same as proving one.  It's utterly amazing to me that anyone who actually understands the broad definitions (of STE and SCPN) presented in the argument would ever attempt to present a new third option. It's almost the thing same as standing on top of the highest mountain and yelling to the world that you don't have any concept of logic.(http://youtu.be/dwLppHyVyQ4
For obvious reason this fact is hard for atheists to accept, but it is important to remember that both options are defined in their broadest sense. More clearly they were specifically designed to cover any and all possible options. For people who still cannot grasp this fact, we fall back to the 7 fundamental questions to help show our opponent which acronym their proposed option falls under.  
The 7 Fundamental Questions
1.) Where does your option exist before it creates our Universe?
2.) What are its properties/what is it made of?
3.) Give me a step by step process of how this option created our physical universe, starting with step 1 being "our universe did not exist".
4.) Is your option eternal in the past or did it begin to exist at some point?
5.) Does your option have thinking capabilities/some kind of mind?
6.) Why didn't your option create the universe sooner?
7.) What change happened inside of it, or to it, to make it create, if it didn't have a personal mind to withhold the intention?
These are the initial questions that begin to break the atheists option down. A series of further (follow up) questions will be presented once these 7 initial ones have been resolved. Remember if an atheist makes the claim that he has a new third option for the existence of the universe, he has to be willing to answer any and all questions about it, define it, and break it down to its foundation. Otherwise he has not presented a third option at all, but rather just asserted he had one.


[[How can you disprove a Non-Belief]]

1.) Three Choice Logic proves that if someone is presented with 3 choices (two incorrect and one unknown), and that person freely choose to eliminate the “unknown” option (essentially leaving them self with only two flawed choices), that person can be shown to be illogical and irrational. Here’s a hypothetical scenario to help you understand this logic…
Assume for this argument that Bob must drink one of the following three things in my refrigerator. He also can only drink from my refrigerator. Inside my refrigerator I only have Gasoline, Bleach, and some unknown liquid. 


P1 - Both Gasoline and Bleach are irrational and illogical choices for consumption

P2- If you deny the unknown option, then your only two choices for consumption are Gasoline and Bleach.

P3 - Bob denies the unknown option

T- Bob is irrational and illogical



2.) Turn the non-belief into a belief. For example, atheists claim that atheism is a non-belief in God(s)....Ok, thats fine....If atheism is the non-belief in God(s), then Atheism therefore is also the "BELIEF" that a God does not exist. This can be proven fairly quickly with basic logic. Anything that a person claims they DO NOT believe in, must also turn around say they BELIEVE that thing does not exist. For example: If I were to claim that I do not believe the Tooth Fairy exists, the statement I BELIEVE the Tooth Fairy DOES NOT exist would also apply.


[[Saying IDK or Neither]] - 


When the atheist realizes that both of his options are irrational, illogical, incorrect, and have no evidence, often times they will try to back out of the equation by saying they don't know which acronym they fall under Mr. Elliott is noted as saying, choosing neither or saying ''I don't know'' is just fine. However, if the atheist says they are neither, or claims that they don't know which one they are, then they must admit that atheists only have two options for the existence of the universe, or present a third option. It's logically impossible for a new option to ever present itself given the way the two acronyms have been so broadly defined. (http://youtu.be/8ffcO4sLZvA) 

THREE FUN FACTS

1. It’s impossible that a 3rd option for atheists EVER be presented. In ten million years, atheists only two options will still be STE and SCPN. If you claim a false dichotomy you have to prove it otherwise you are just making baseless assertions. The way the two acronyms (STE and SCPN) have been defined, has made it so every possible scenario that could arise will be covered!!


2. There is no possible scenario, scientific evidence, or philosophical understanding which could arise in the future that would prove STE a logical concept. Infinite regress will always remain an issue. This can NEVER change.
3. There is no possible scenario, scientific evidence, or philosophical understanding which could arise in the future that would prove SCPN to be correct. Pure nothingness cannot be tested for, and even if we did find something which ‘appears’ to pop into being uncaused from PN, we cannot be sure that it has. Moreover, we would still be stuck with all inherent problems of accepting Pure Nothingness hypothesis. These can NEVER change.

 If the atheist still disagrees, they would have to answer the 7 fundamental questions about how his proposed third option was responsible for our Universes' existence. If they fail to do so, then they have asserted they have a third option, but because they did not define it, they did not prove it.

More:
If you think the words 'I DONT KNOW' could be responsible for the existence of our Universe?? Prove it!! If you refuse, then you have not shown how the words IDK are a third option, only suggested it.  Therefore you have not proven TEA a false dichotomy nor have you made any valid rebuttal.

The truth is, atheists have only two options for the origin of the Universe and saying 'I DONT KNOW' does not present some magical new third option.  One must also remember that we are talking about options for the origin of the Universe, not options that you can respond to questions with!! Unless you can explain, demonstrate, or prove how the words 'IDK' could have been responsible for our Universes existence, then you have failed to show how it's a new third option. Also If you cannot explain, demonstrate, or prove how saying the words 'I DONT KNOW' could have been responsible for our Universes existence, then you have failed to prove it'
s a new third option. It's true that the atheist can say IDK which one of these options they are (STE or SCPN), but they are still left with just these two choices. 


Examples:

1.) If you ask a child which one of his parents is taller, and he says IDK, he simply doesn't know which is taller, but he hasn't presented a NEW option. It's still either his mother is taller, his father is taller, or they're the same height. Simply saying 'IDK' does nothing except show that you in fact don't know something. It doesn't present a new option. 
2.) Imagine I showed you that there are only two drinks in my refrigerator. You then argue that there are more options than the two I have presented. I say prove it. You say that a third option is 'I DONT KNOW'.  Besides being completely illogical and obviously irrational and absurd, the words 'I DONT KNOW' in no way offer a third option, nor do they prove that a third option in fact exists.

If you have 2 choices, saying IDK does not create a third choice. If you have 5 choices, saying IDK does not create a 6th choice. If you have 100 options, saying IDK does not create another one. The words IDK have no creative powers and cannot produce new options.

Furthermore, words (such as I don't know) and numbers (like the number 3) are abstract objects that cannot create or produce anything material or physical. So logically they CANNOT PRODUCE NEW OPTIONS for the existence of our Universe.




== The Golden Question ==
'
'The Golden Question'' is basically a way to use TEA in common conversation with atheists without having to present the formal argument. It's a question with a series of steps which are designed to lead to resolution and one proving their honesty. Mr. Elliott makes all atheists (who attempt to join his creationist website COL) answer the Golden Question before they are allowed to comment, post, or have any dialog on his page. He claims that he hates dishonesty, and that the Golden Question (GQ) forces atheists to either prove their honesty, or be immediately banned from his page. ''Mr. Elliott'' frequently boasts about having banned over 35,000 atheists since the inception of his page. He regularly points out that each one of these bans are victories, and further proof that he cannot be defeated. His logic is thus that, if atheists would rather rule violate than address his questions, then they must either not be able to answer it or are too inept to try. 
The Golden Question goes like this...
Step 1. - Are you a Type A atheist, Type B atheist, Both, or Neither?
(Type A:: ''SCPN'' type atheist / Someone who believes "Something can come from PURE nothingness."
(Type B:: ''STE'' type atheist / Someone who believes "space-time is eternal")
If the atheist wants to answer the question by replying with ''I don't know'' or ''Neither," then they must admit that atheists in fact have two options for the existence of the universe, OR be able to present a third option.
''Steps 2, 3 and 4'' begin once the atheist had made it past step 1. These follow up steps are frequently about logic, rational, and evidence. The Final Step to the process comes when ''Mr. Elliott'' forces the atheist to summarize all their admissions on his page wall, and admit that ''The Elliott Argument'' stands.


== ANSWERS TO Common Rebuttals and Objections ==



[[These are assumptions, NOT OPTIONS for atheists]] - STE and SCPN are the only options atheists have for the existence of the Universe. While it is true that both are untenable, illogical, and irrational, that doesn't mean they are not still options. Many things in life that are wrong, are still options, and just because they are flawed, doesn't mean they are no longer a choice. For example you could go drink bleach right now. It's not a good choice, yet still a choice. You could yell fire in a crowded movie theater. Not a good choice, yet still a choice. Or during a test where they ask you what is 2+2, you could write down 5 as your answer. 5 is not a good choice, yet still a choice.
So while it is an absolute certainly that STE and SCPN are flawed, they remain the only choices atheists have....and remember, a position which leaves you with only two incorrect choices cannot be correct.
[[Multi-Universe Theory/[[String Theory]] - It's a fact that every proposed option will in fact fall under one of my two provided categories (either STE or SCPN).  Opponents of this argument frequently bring up Multi-Universe or String Theory as proposed new third options. This remains a complete error in logic. If these theories were simply eternal cycles/process (of universe creating universe, creating universe, without beginning) it would fall under STESince in each of the previous universes there would in fact be ''some form of space'', and there would certainly be events occurring.  The very act of  'universe creating universe' is in itself an event, and all the universes ''would be causally connected'' if responsible for creating one another. (http://youtu.be/tOGFWYHHMqc) There is also another type of Multi-Universe theory where some mechanism randomly spits out an infinite number of universes all with different properties. The question then becomes, is that 'mechanism' eternal in the past or did it begin to exist at some point? If it's eternal in the past then that falls under STE because the act of creating universes eternally would be an event (thus there would be time) and also the mechanism would require the potentiality for itself to exist (thus there would be some from of space for it to exist in while its spitting out these universes.) If the claimant says the mechanism itself came about on its own from pure nothingness by nothing, then that falls under SCPN.  So again we see here that no matter what the atheist goes with, they are proven irrational and illogical. Not to mention there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for other universes actually existing. Gravitational  Waves have proven that our Universe had a period of rapid inflation but that is not necessarily evidence that other Universes must exist.  Inflation alone does not guarantee a multiverse. It all depends on the properties of the initial field responsible for inflation, about which we can only speculate. There may be other inflating universes, or there may not.

Important to keep in mind:


(i) Theology has no reason to deny that God may have created a wider reality than just our universe.

(ii) Inflationary models may be future-eternal (they will go on forever), but they cannot be past eternal (the multiverse itself had a beginning). Attempts to make the multiverse past-eternal (like Sean Carroll’s model) fail for a variety of reasons.
(iii) Multiverse scenarios face the troublesome Boltzmann brain problem. A finely-tuned universe like ours is incomprehensibly improbable on naturalism. The more you multiply worlds within the multiverse in order to make it likely that observers will appear somewhere in the multiverse of worlds, the more probable it becomes that we should be Boltzmann brains, isolated brains which have fluctuated into existence out of the quantum vacuum. For observable worlds like that are vastly more plenteous than worlds which are fine-tuned for embodied conscious agents. So if we were just random members of a multiverse of worlds, we ought to have observations like that. But we don’t; which disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis.


[[I'm an Atheist but I don't have to 'pick' either option]] - When you (select the atheistic position/stance) deny the existence of God, you are left with only two options for the existence of the Universe. You don't have to 'PICK' either option if you don't want to, and you can always say "I don't know" which one I am (which is fair), but if you are not going to 'PICK' then you must 'ADMIT'. The atheist must 'ADMIT' that there are only two options for the existence of the universe 


OR 


present a third (which again is logically impossible given the way the two acronyms have been defined.) The Atheist may claim that because they don't have to 'pick' either one of options, then there is no direct connection between STE/SCPN and atheism.  Thus making the entire argument unsound. The problem here is that even though you don't have to 'pick' either option, your original position (atheism) has left you with only two flawed options. So there is a link between atheism and the two acronyms even if the atheist refuses to pick one. A common demonstration that the author likes to use goes like this. "Lets say hypothetically that you will ONLY drink things from MY refrigerator and nowhere else. The only things I have in my refrigerator are Gasoline and Bleach. (Both of which are bad for you and would make you an irrational illogical idiot to try and consume unless you had a mental illness.)...Lets then also assume that you knew ahead of time that these were the only two items available in my refrigerator, yet you still chose my refrigerator as your preference, even though it left you with these two horrible choices. You wouldn't necessarily need to 'pick' one of the items and start drinking it to be an irrational and illogical idiot, you would be an irrational illogical idiot just for choosing my refrigerator in the first place. Knowing that it left you with these two unfit drinks which you cannot consume.
Here's a tip when debating one of your atheist friends:

Tell them to admit that atheists only have two options for the existence of the Universe, or ask them to present a 3rd option which could someday become available!! 


[[Big Bang|Big Bang Theory]]


Before we begin, I think everyone needs to know that to a certain extent we are supporters of the Big Bang theory. We feel that at the current time this theory gives us the best look into how God created our physical Universe. There is tons of evidence that the Universe had a finite beginning, is expanding, and had a rapid inflation period (Gravitational Waves).

THAT BEING SAID...EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE MADE AWARE, THAT WITHOUT GOD THE CREATOR, THE BIG BANG MODEL IS A COMPLETE FAILURE. WITH GOD BEHIND IT HOWEVER, IT CAN BE SHOWN TO BE NEARLY INFALLIBLE.  AS FURTHER EVIDENCE BECOMES AVAILABLE FOR THE BIG BANG,  IT REVEALS TO US MORE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW GOD KICKED OFF THIS MIRACULOUS EVENT!!


Now let us begin...From Wikipedia.com. "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe.[1] According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and infinitely dense state which expanded rapidly." Proponents of the [[Big Bang Theory]] may claim they are perfectly justified in holding to their position. The author of The Elliott Argument is known to immediately bring up the ''singularity'' in this model to show that as a whole it remains invalid.

The ''singularity'' in the Big Bang Model is widely defined as a super condensed, extremely hot/volatile, pin point of matter and energy, with infinite density and infinite space-time curvature. Physicist Paul Shestople from Berkley writes, "It is hard to imagine the very beginning of the Universe. Physical laws as we know them did not exist due to the presence of incredibly ''large amounts of energy''', in the form of photons. Some of the photons became quarks, and then the quarks formed neutrons and protons. Eventually huge numbers of Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium nuclei formed. You can read more about that here:: [http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html).

At big-bang-theory.com they say, "A singularity is an infinitely dense, infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, zone." Proponents of this theory will claim that all space and time which currently exist were simply products of this singularity's expansion. Many will claim that there in fact was no space or time prior to this event. Part of this (the time part) is well documented in  what is know as the [[Hartle-Hawking state]].[[James Hartle]] and [[Stephen Hawking]] claim that, "the universe is infinitely finite: that there was no time before the Big Bang because time did not exist before the formation of [[spacetime]] associated with the Big Bang and subsequent expansion of the universe in space and time. Hartle and Hawking suggest that if we could travel backward in time toward the beginning of the universe, we would note that quite near to what might have otherwise been the beginning, time gives way to space such that at first there is only space and no time. Beginnings are entities that have to do with time; because time did not exist before the Big Bang, the concept of a beginning of the universe is meaningless."


However, ''Mr. Elliott'' asks two fundamental questions here which unsettle this line of logic.


1.) IN REGARDS TO SPACE EXISTING PRIOR TO THE EXPANSION OF THE SINGULARITY::


        How can a singularity (or super condensed energy, matter, and moving particles) exist without having the ''initial potential to exist'' (space)?? He goes on to say, "Clearly it couldn't. Without some form of space, the potential for the singularity itself to exist would not be present. This proves that space ''did exist'' prior to the expansion of the singularity." If you missed it, in the above paragraph Stephen Hawking also agrees with the fact there was space prior to the expansion. He says, "We would note that quite near to what might have otherwise been the beginning, time gives way to space such that at first there is only space and no time."


        So then the issue becomes, was there also time prior to this expansion?? This is where Mr. Elliott readily disagrees with Hawking, and says fundamentally yes, there was time!! "The concept of time was certainly in play, and physicists such as Hawking and others can no longer postulate otherwise," he says.

2.) IN REGARDS TO TIME EXISTING PRIOR TO THE EXPANSION OF THE SINGULARITY::

       This is quite possibly the most important part of the entire argument so lets break this up into sections. Please forgive me if this gets kind of long, but we really have to make sure that atheists can no longer make the claim that time did not exist prior to the big bang. 


First lets start with a simple question which I think everyone can easily understand. How can energy, a photon, matter, or particles exist without any events occurring whatsoever?? In other words reaching an absolute stillness?? The claim by the author here is that ''they certainly cannot."  Reaching utter absolute stillness, in either an infinitely hot zone or at absolute zero (something we know is not possible http://io9.com/5889074/why-cant-we-get-down-to-absolute-zero), without any change in temperature, increase or decrease in potentiality, momentum increase or decrease, no transferring, no motion, no movement, no pressure increase or decrease, etc. cannot be done. Even something as seemingly insignificant as change in potentiality, or pressure increase/release in any way, prior to the expansion of the singularity in the BB model, suggests that events were occurring.  


Absolute stillness and complete absence of events in moving particles, energy, photons, or matter, is not possible and there is no reason to believe it could ever be achieved.


Secondly, let us ask another question that I think everyone can easily comprehend. What change occurred, that made the singularity or photon in the BB model go from its non-expanding state, to a state where it expanded? The atheist will more than likely respond with, "Something cannot 'happen' or 'change' if there is no time." At which point we will happily say...EXACTLY....Only a free agent or personal mind can achieve this (we will get into that later)!! Time was existing prior to the expansion of the singularity or no change could have occurred, and the atheist has just supported this fact. So even if all there was space, and some infinitely dense singularity (which Hawking pleads), how did it go from its non-expanding state, to the point where it does expand?? Something had to change, as time is necessary for change to occur within space. That change, prior to the expansion, which resulted in the singularity doing what is proposed, shows us that events were occurring. Therefore this proves that not only did space exist prior to the expansion of the singularity (as we found in point #1), but also that the concept of time was in play because ''events'' were in fact occurring.


Thirdly, Roger Penrose from the University of Oxford, has published a new paper saying that the circular patterns seen in the WMAP mission data on the Cosmic Microwave Background suggest that space and time perhaps did not originate at the Big Bang. This is evidence that Space-time DID NOT ORIGINATE at the moment of the big bang, but it IS NOT proof or evidence that Space-time itself is in fact eternal (without true beginning).  Penrose, and his co-author (Gurdzadyan), do not believe that space and time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, but instead, that event was just one in a series of many. Penrose and Gurzadyan say they have identified regions in the microwave sky where there are concentric circles showing the radiation’s temperature is markedly smaller than elsewhere. These circles allow us to “see through” the Big Bang into the aeon that would have existed beforehand. these circles don’t jive with the idea of inflation, because inflation proposes that the distribution of temperature variations across the sky should be Gaussian, or random, rather than having discernible structures within it.


(
http://www.universetoday.com/79750/penrose-wmap-shows-evidence-of-%e2%80%98activity%e2%80%99-before-big-bang/#ixzz2JIjaBMSD)


Also, California Institute of Technology professor Sean Carroll urged cosmologists to broaden their horizons: "We're trained to say there was no time before the Big Bang, when we should say that we don't know whether there was anything - or if there was, what it was."  Carroll, along with Caltech professor Marc Kamionkowski and graduate student Adrienne Erickcek have created a mathematical model to explain an anomaly in the early universe, and it also may shed light on what existed before the Big Bang. “It’s no longer completely crazy to ask what happened before the Big Bang,” said Kamionkowski. The problem with inflation, however, is that it predicts the universe began uniformly. But measurements from Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) show that the fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) –the electromagnetic radiation that permeated the universe 400,000 years after the Big Bang — are about 10% stronger on one side of the sky than on the other.

Carroll urged cosmologists to broaden their horizons: "We're trained to say there was no time before the Big Bang, when we should say that we don't know whether there was anything - or if there was, what it was." 


This is an interesting time to be a cosmologist,” Carroll said. “We are both blessed and cursed. It’s a golden age, but the problem is that the model we have of the universe makes no sense.”  “The WMAP snapshot of how the early universe looked shows it to be hot, dense and smooth [low entropy] over a wide region of space,” said Carroll. “We don’t understand why that is the case. That’s an even bigger surprise than the inventory problem. Our universe just doesn’t look natural.”Carroll said states of low-entropy are rare, plus of all the possible initial conditions that could have evolved into a universe like ours, the overwhelming majority have much higher entropy, not lower. But the single most surprising phenomenon about the universe, said Carroll, is that things change. And it all happens in a consistent direction from past to future, throughout the universe.  “It’s called the arrow of time,” said Carroll. This arrow of time comes from the second law of thermodynamics, which invokes entropy. The law states that invariably, closed systems move from order to disorder over time. This law is fundamental to physics and astronomy. One of the big questions about the initial conditions of the universe is why did entropy start out so low? “And low entropy near the Big Bang is responsible for everything about the arrow of time” said Carroll. “Life and earth, memory, the flow of time.” Events happen in order and can’t be reversed. http://www.universetoday.com/22400/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/#ixzz2JImKvxgq



Recently, as early as January 2013, there was a major discovery in this field. Scientists at University of Munich in Germany created a quantum gas which some were claiming went below zero kelvin. This was not the case. At absolute zero, atoms would occupy the lowest energy state. At an infinite temperature, atoms would occupy all energy states. Negative temperatures then are the opposite of positive temperatures — atoms more likely occupy high-energy states than low-energy states. "The inverted Boltzmann distribution is the hallmark of negative absolute temperature, and this is what we have achieved," said researcher Ulrich Schneider, a physicist at the University of Munich in Germany. "Yet the gas is not colder than zero kelvin, but hotter. It is even hotter than at any positive temperature — the temperature scale simply does not end at infinity, but jumps to negative values instead." Why are we talking about cold temperatures when the singularity in the BB model is supposively hot? Because as previously noted by Mr. Schneider, the two seem to coincide with one another, and infinitely hot temperatures reach a point where they seem to flip and take on negative valuesEnergy will always flow from objects with negative temperature to ones with positive temperatures. In this sense, objects with negative temperatures are always hotter than ones with positive temperatures. The article then goes on to provide more evidence for Mr. Elliott's assertion that events were in fact occurring and that utter atomic stillness was still not achieved. Thus the concept of time is certainly in play. "Temperature depends on how much atoms move — how much kinetic energy they have. The web of laser beams created a perfectly ordered array of millions of bright spots of light, and in this optical lattice, atoms could still move, but their kinetic energy was limited." 
Another interesting note: Temperature is linked with pressure — the hotter something is, the more it expands outward, and the colder something is, the more it contracts inward. To make sure this gas had a negative temperature, the researchers had to give it a negative pressure as well, tinkering with the interactions between atoms until they attracted each other more than they repelled each other. But for some reason proponents of the BB model believe the singularity was an infinitely HOT infinitely dense zone (not cold). If it was infinitely hot and infinitely dense, how was it just sitting there without expanding if it had all the pressure on it? Wouldn't it have just expanded immediately after coming into existence? If it was just sitting there in such a state why did it not expand immediately? And also why then is the universe expanding now at an increasingly rapid rate although it is much cooler than it was in its past? This seems to go against all logic and scientific theory.

And Finally, there are even further issues with claiming time didn't exist prior to the expansion. According to quantum physics, there is no "absolute stillness" (but always some "quantum noise"). This seems to be one of the implications of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (because if there was absolute stillness, then you could know both the position and momentum of a particle). This is further scientific proof that absolute stillness CANNOT be reached.

In regards to ''Space-time Curvature'' in a [[Gravitational singularity]], Wikipedia says, "there are freely-falling particles whose motion cannot be determined beyond a finite time, being after the point of reaching the singularity." We should point out that, "Even though the particles motion ''cannot be determined'', that doesn't mean that the motion of these particles cease to exist. If these particles have motion, which they do, then the concept of time is still in play even if we wouldn't be able to measure their length. It's simply special pleading, and a weak attempt at dismissing the concept of time to try and make your model fit a specific worldview." We also know that conscious observers need not be present for the concept of time to still be in play. If events are occurring in any manner at all, which they were, then you cannot claim the concept of time did not exist. This is proven by the tree falling in the forest when no one is around to witness it. Clearly time itself did no cease to exist simply because no one was in the forest watching the tree fall. The question really becomes, where did this proposed singularity come from?? Where did all the space and time come from that existed before the singularity expanded?? Did they come from pure nothingness on their own, or were they eternal in the past without beginning? Essentially bringing us back to the initial claim that atheists only have two options for the existence of the universe. '''STE''' and ''SCPN''.



**Questions about a photon in empty space - A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force, even when static via virtual photons.

1.) Just because you cannot measure the speed of a photon in empty space does not mean there is no speed.  Also, if it is moving, that is an event which requires time. Just like change in its potentiality, momentum, transfer of energy, etc. Make the atheist admit this statement is true.


2.)  If they assert the photon could be still respond like this. Can you please link me to a site which proves the photon could be still, as its my understanding that absolute stillness is impossible.


3.) If the atheist can prove the photon was absolutely still, and just sitting there in empty space, then remind him no change could occur. Time is a requirement for change unless the photon had a personal mind where it with-holds timeless intention. No the atheist has trapped himself


4.) When the atheist makes the further claim that general relativity is non-existent if a single photon existed in empty space (because there are no points of reference). Remind them, that this simply is not true. If you were small enough to sit on one edge of this elementary particle, and I was small enough to sit on another edge of the particle, our reference frames to the middle of the photon would be different. ;)  Again we see space cannot exist with time.


Above we have already proven that time did exist prior to the expansion of the singularity in the Big Bang model. Now I leave you with this from Stephen Hawkings own mouth. "Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them." http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html


Right there Hawking admits events were occurring. He just says that they have no observational consequences so we may as well cut them out. Might as well cut them out?? LOL, Nice try Hawking, but I'm not one of your sheep who is going to let that slip by so easily!! Observational consequences are irrelevant to the problem of STE. It only matters that events are in fact occurring, and therefore the concept of time was in play. Just to say event one happened before event two, or they both were occurring simultaneously is all I need. Example: One particle pops into being and cannot be measured...A second particle pops into being and cannot be measured. The fact that they cannot be measured or have no observational consequences is a side note to the fact that events were occurring. Even if one particle pops into being and then out of being, that in itself is an event!! Now were these events occurring eternally in the past without true beginning, or did they begin to exist at some point??

Important to note - The space time which existed prior to the expansion of the singularity, ''was'' casusally connected to the existence of our universe.

Here is more information on how to break down a Primordial Singularity option: https://www.facebook.com/notes/atheism-dismantled/how-to-break-down-the-primordial-singularity-option/555427774558324
[[Quantum Vacuum|Virtual Particles]] Many people try to make the claim ''virtual particles'' may be evidence that something can come from nothingness. The fact here is that virtual particles do not come from ''pure nothingness'', are not known to have the capability to create entire universe(s), and therefore do not provide valid evidence for 'SCPN'.  "Virtual particles exist in what is known as the ''Quantum Vacuum'', which is a sea of fluctuating energy, endowed with a structure and a rich physical reality that is governed by physical laws. It emphatically NOT pure nothingness",  says Mr. Elliott and [[William Lane Craig]] on [http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/cosmos172.htm Origins and Design 17:2]

Also its important to note that indeterminancy is unclear at the quantum level. There is no evidence or reason to believe that causality breaks down.

Furthermore, If you construe of the causing of (E) as the actualizing of the potential for (E), and all things which contribute to the actualization of that potential as the causes of (E), then clearly there cannot be an (E) without something that contributes to the actualization of the potential for it. In order for a potential to be realized, there must first be a potential, and something other than the potential to actualize the potential. Beyond this, it seems logically impossible to conceive of things beginning to exist without it cause. After all, if there are no potentialities for something, isn't that just to say that it cannot begin to exist? And also, if there are potentialities for something, and it begins to exist, how could it be that the potentiality is not realized? If it is realized, then how are the things that contribute to its realization not its causes? In the case of quantum mechanics, there exists a potentiality for spontaneous quantum events grounded in the nature of physical space, energy, laws, and actualized by the passage of time. Spontaneous events, then, are far from uncaused!

For more information read here:: Virtual particles are particles described by quantum physics that exist for an extremely limited space and time. Specifically, less than one planck time. The term virtual should not suggest that these particles do not exist. They exist, and they have been measured -- or the effect they have on their environment has been. The very laws of physics prevent them from ever actually being directly seen or measured.  Virtual particles do have mass, even when they are part of massless forms, such as photons.  The vacuum of space (or, more correctly any "space") has an energy level. The Nothingness that physicist talk about is in fact something. This is why we have specifically used the term PURE NOTHINGNESS in our argument to refer to the concept of literal non being.  Due to the uncertainty principle, virtual particles will always appear from the energy of a vacuum and always appear in pairs. These particles "borrow" energy from the vacuum and immediately collide and annihilate themselves, repaying the energy back into the vacuum so as not to violate the laws of thermodynamics. This process has implications for the development and eventual dissipation of black holes; when a virtual pair appears next to the event horizon of a black hole, one particle may fall in and if that happens the other will free itself. In order to maintain the first law of thermodynamics (energy cannot be created or destroyed) the black hole must then give up a little of its own energy to repay the lost energy - this is called "Hawking radiation."


The causal principle is so basic, so intuitive, and so universal to human experience that the burden is on anyone who would deny it, or claim to have found an X for which the causal principle does not apply. It is impossible to demonstrate the absence of a cause empirically. Since QM is an empirical discipline, it cannot possibly demonstrate that quantum events are uncaused.


[[Special pleading|''Special Pleading Fallacy'']] - ''Atheists'' sometime claim that ''The Elliott Argument'' is special pleading for the existence of God. However, this rebuttal is usually shot down fairly quickly by Mr. Elliott, as he likes to point out that neither the [[conclusion]] nor [[premises]] make any outright claims about the existence or validity of [[God]] (or a UC option.). ''Mr. Elliott'' claims that UC option is only presented as an ''option'' which ''atheists'' deny or disbelieve in. Nothing more. Also some ''atheists'' will claim that God falls under STE or SCPN. We can respond in the following ways.

1.) God does not fall under 'STE' because God by definition is ''spaceless'' and ''timeless''. Thus making the UC option (God), virtually the polar opposite of the STE acronym.

2.) God is not ''SCPN'' because God does not ''come from'' anywhere. Therefore it would be an incoherent statement to claim God ''comes from'' pure nothingness and then creates entire universes.  Also, God himself is not Pure Nothingness or literal non-being, so whatever he creates did not "come from" pure nothingness.


It's common for the atheist to then try and make the jump to, well if God is not pure nothingness, then he must create from pure nothingness. Mr. Elliott states emphatically that this is not true. "It is important to remember that nothing can exist outside the presence of God. This is to imply that everything which exists (which God created), was supernaturally manifested from [[within]] God (who is not pure nothingness). For example, something like energy didn't exist eternally inside of God in its current [[naturalistic]] form, rather what was required to bring the energy into existence, existed ''timelessly'' inside of God who is supernatural, all knowing, all powerful, and [[omnipresent]]." Picture god as having the blue print and the tools/materials inside of him to manifest these things supernaturally. For more on special pleading you can watch the following video:

(http://youtu.be/70ALcyajBnY)

*TEA makes no claims about God or Gods existence so we have no burden of proof in this regard. God (the UC option) is simply presented as a defined term which atheists (by definition) must deny. For that reason, when we define God as spaceless, timeless, and immaterial, we do not have to prove that he is those things, rather all we have to do is prove that atheists deny such a being.
[[TIME TRAVEL]] - Ever heard an atheist say they can defeat TEA by offering up a "Time Traveler" hypothesis??  Well if you have, first you need to know if they are claiming the Time Traveler is in someway responsible for the creation of our Universe. If your opponent says yes, then all you have to do is ask them the following question: BEFORE the Time Traveler figures out how to time travel, BEFORE he ever goes back in time and creates our universe, BEFORE he ever time travels at all or does anything (as a baby)... WHERE DOES HE EXIST?? They will have to offer up some form of spacetime. After that question is answered, ask if this initial pre existing space-time he existed in was eternal in the past, came from pure nothingness, or was a result of something else. Remember if the atheist is claiming to have a third option he must define it, otherwise he is just asserting he has a third option but not proving it.

Lets get into this further...There must be some form of spacetime already in existence, if one were to travel BACK INTO spacetime.  We will call that the pre-existing spacetime. So let us focus only on the pre-existing spacetime which the time traveler travels back into, before time travel became possible. [[Also one must remember, wherever the time traveler exists before he creates the universe, there must to be some form of spacetime.  Unless your opponent makes the claim that the time traveler was spaceless, timeless, and immaterial before creating. If they do that then they have simply defined him as the UC option.]]


Demonstration: Ask your opponent to draw  you the following picture...(A blank piece of paper can represent Pure Nothingness). On the paper I want you to draw the time traveler as a baby who just came out of his moms stomach for the very first time...He has never time traveled before, existed before that moment, or figured out anything at all...Hell, he cant even talk or change his own diaper. He's a baby, and in his initial infancy...Now I want you to write above the babies head, "BEFORE any time travel existed."...Next I want you to draw his mom standing behind him, because she is the reason he was born and the reason he exists...He did not come from the future and cause himself to exist, as remember we are only talking about the pre-existing spacetime time and BEFORE time travel ever occurs...Then I want you to draw his moms mom (his grandma) behind her, because she allowed for the mom to be born. I think you get the point...Then I want you to draw a big circle around all three of them and I want you to write the words 'spacetime' in the circle. As all of them require some form of spacetime to exist. Next, I want you to tell me if that pre-existing (initial) spacetime (before time travel was possible) which they all existed in, was eternal in the past, or if it came from somewhere else. Remember, you won't be allow to say the time traveler created this spacetime or had any influence over its existence, because we are only talking about the initial conditions.  Meaning BEFORE the time traveler ever talked, walked, time traveled, created, came from the future, etc. You will quickly see that the time traveler needed an initial spacetime to exist in, prior to ever time traveling... and that initial pre-existing spacetime could not have been caused by a future time traveling event.


The atheist may not agree to draw such a picture the way you want him to, and instead make the claim that his picture (idea) would look more like a dome.  The bottom being a flat line representing space-time and the curved top being a dotted line representing the time travel trip, with events being put down on the bottom. However this depiction doesn't work as one must remember we are only talking about things that exist BEFORE time travel ever occurs. So there would be no curved dotted top line representing any time travel trip. Atheists will continually try to show the causality loop and it's effects to shift the focus, but for me to illustrate my point, I only need them to focus on what happened BEFORE time travel ever was ever possible. They know this and will begin to realize they are trapped. Their option can now be proven STE or SCPN.


Extra fun

Example: Imagine I needed Pepsi to survive. When I was born people gave me Pepsi to keep me alive...I claimed later in life that when I turned 18 I figured out how to time travel and went back in time and I was the one who invented Pepsi. Is that possible?? No!! Why? Because BEFORE I ever time traveled at all, Pepsi already existed without any of my doing or casual influence. Meaning BEFORE I ever figured out how to time travel, Pepsi already existed and in fact is what allowed me to live. I never would have gotten to be 18 years old, time travel, or been able to go back in time and create Pepsi, if Pepsi didn't already initially exist. I would have been dead as soon I was born.  So I couldn't say that in the future I went back and created Pepsi so I could live, because YOUR FUTURE has no potential if your dead as soon as your born. Your potential to time travel & Pepsi creating days also are non-existent!! So since I wasn't actually the true or initial creator of Pepsi, and it existed before I was born, where did it come from?? Was it eternal in the past or was something else responsible for its existence?? This is the equivalent of asking, was the initial spacetime eternal in the past or was something else responsible for it's existence.

Someone may say, well what if the time traveler is given the initial Pepsi until he is 18, then when he figures out how to time travel, he goes back in time and kills the person who really created Pepsi. That's called the grandfather paradox [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox]]. (An equivalent paradox is known (in philosophy) as autoinfanticide.) One must remember that the initial potential to time travel was allowed for because Pepsi already existed (and was given to him as a baby). So without that initial Pepsi, the time traveler wouldn't have been able to grow up, figure out how to time travel, go back in time, or kill the person who created Pepsi. Essentially he would be killing his own potential.


The Novikov self-consistency principle also proves that I could not travel back in time and kill the true creator of Pepsi: According to this hypothesis, the only possible time lines are those entirely self-consistent—so anything a time traveler does in the past must have been part of history all along, and the time traveler can never do anything to prevent the trip back in time from happening, since this would represent an inconsistency. Nicholas J. J. Smith argues, for example, that if some time traveler killed the child who lived in his old address, this would ipso facto necessitate that the child was not the time traveler's younger self, nor the younger self of anyone alive in the time frame that the time traveler came from. This could be extrapolated further into the possibility that the child's death led to the family moving away, which in turn led to the time traveler's family moving into the house guaranteeing that the house later became the home the time traveler would then grow up in, forming a predestination paradox. This applies further from the stand point that his time traveler could not be the true originator or creator of the initial space-time that he was first born into. That initial space-time was the potential which allowed him to grow up and ultimately learn how to time travel, but he had no causal influence over its origins. Therefore, even if he wanted to do something like travel back into time and destroy it, he could not, because that would effect his own self consistency. Rather, it would prevent the trip back in time from ever happening or occurring in the first place. So, if the time traveler cannot do something like destroy this initial space-time that he was born into, which necessarily exists independent of any time traveling actions, then we see that this (initial space-time) was the necessary potential needed for time traveler to ever occur. If it didn't exist he would never have become a time traveler at all. But apparently he did. And we need to know where that initial space-time came from. We realize anyone presenting a TT option is not saying the time traveler went back and destroyed space-time, we are just using this principle (as extra fun on top of his formal destruction) to prove that the initial space-time did in fact exist and he had no causal influence over it.


This is relevant for a person who tries to make the claim that space-time didn’t exist prior to, or BEFORE , the time traveler creates it. If a time traveler cannot go back in time and destroy space-time because it would affect his own existence (The Novikov self-consistency principle), then that is further proof that the initial space-time did exist.
Seth Lloyd and other researchers at MIT have proposed an expanded version of the Novikov principle, according to which probability bends to prevent paradoxes from occurring. Outcomes would become stranger as one approaches a forbidden act, as the universe must favor improbable events to prevent impossible ones.

It might be argued that the ordinary concept of human "free will" is equivalent to this sort of time-travel paradox, for if one could travel back in time to change a future relative to that past space time interval, then how would that be distinguishable, in principle, from the everyday choices and decisions considered to be freely made within any space time frame taken as the "present"?

One might build a more plausible case for the prohibition of classical time-travel simply by considering how it might violate several conservation laws by the duplication of matter along a single space time line and perhaps require a near-universal redistribution of mass-energy.

Consideration of the grandfather paradox has led some to the idea that time travel is by its very nature paradoxical and therefore logically impossible, on the same order as round squares. For example, the philosopher Bradley Dowden made this sort of argument in the textbook Logical Reasoning, where he wrote:

"Nobody has ever built a time machine that could take a person back to an earlier time. Nobody should be seriously trying to build one, either, because a good argument exists for why the machine can never be built. The argument goes like this: suppose you did have a time machine right now, and you could step into it and travel back to some earlier time. Your actions in that time might then prevent your grandparents from ever having met one another. This would make you not born, and thus not step into the time machine. So, the claim that there could be a time machine is self-contradictory."

[[Time on an Eternal Loop]] - "No man steps in the same river twice. As the man is not the same nor is the river." This shows that it's impossible for one to recreate an event exactly the same way twice.  The position of the sun will be different, the wind will be in a different location, the mans thought process won't be identical, the river water that touched his foot the first time will be further down stream and a different water will touch his foot the second time, the man will be slightly older (even if by milliseconds), etc., etc. There are literally and endless amount of variables that cannot be recreated.  

We begin to see fairly quickly that this rebuttal is easily knocked down and shown to be logically incoherent, irrational, and incorrect. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that it is true. So before we begin, it's important to understand that this option falls under STE. If our universe, and time were on some eternal cycle or 'loop' which simply repeats itself, then clearly space and time are without beginning (eternal in the past). That's STE at its finest.


Now we will take a look at a few other reasons (among many) that prove this option is incorrect and logically insufficient:


1.) You would have to have been born and died already an infinite amount of times. 


2.) You would have no free will, which means you would be an illusion to yourself, and in reality you would only exist as part of some pre programmed simulation. (and the world, universe, and everything in it could not be random). Why??... because you would have to do things exactly the same way, at the same time, with the same outfit on, with the same blood pressure, with the same amount of hair on your legs, with the same people around you, etc. to ensure that the loop were repeated (identically) . Otherwise it would not be a true loop of time, as time is a measurement of events. You also wouldn't even be able to think about trying to effectively recreate the past events because surely that would show that your thought process was also different than before. If ANYTHING at all were different then the events to be measured would change, and therefore would prove time was NOT on a loop, but had forward progression.


3.) Picture this loop to be a gigantic bicycle wheel that spins. Every tread on the tire will ultimately face downward at some moment if an infinite amount of time is given. This is regardless of how big or small the wheel is. The wheel never began to or started to spin, it just always was spinning. And if it was always spinning, eternally in the past without beginning, then every possible act becomes realized.


4.) New things could never be born or ever begin to exist. Why? Because technically they wouldn't be new!! Their existence or newness would in reality just be a replay of the infinite amount of times they had already began to exist. If something really was new or different, or began to exist, then it would prove the loop not to be true.


[[Some may say that infinite numbers can exist, so why cant infinite days?}]] - The answer is because there is a difference between an abstract infinite series and a concrete one. The one is purely theoretical, and the other is actual. Mathematically, we can conceive on an infinite number of days, but actually we could never count or live and infinite number of days. You can conceive of an infinite number of mathematical points between two bookends on a shelf, but you could not fit an infinite number of books between them. That's the difference between abstract and concrete. Numbers are abstract, days are concrete.

[[Mutual Exclusivity]] - It is very rare for an opponent of The Elliott Argument try and defeat it by claiming (STE and SPNC) are not mutually exclusive. Before I explain why they must be mutually exclusive, I think its important for my readers to note that even if the two acronyms were not mutually exclusive, it still would not defeat the argument. The argument states that both STE and SCPN are illogical irrational and have no evidence. That means that even if you could combine the two, it would still not change the conclusion. Adding together two irrational illogical concepts that have no evidence, does not magically make for a rational logical concept with evidence.

Now that that's out of the way, we have to talk about why its true that the two must be mutually exclusive. For most this is fairly obvious. One must remember that The Elliott Argument is an argument about origins (specifically the origin of the universe).  STE and SCPN cannot both be responsible for the existence of the universe. It would have to be neither, or one or the other. The question at hand is how did the universe get here and what made that possible. If space-time is eternal in the past then we would say that STE is responsible for the existence of the universe. On the other hand, if there was once pure nothingness, and then something came from that pure nothingness and either created our universe or kick started the process, that would be SCPN. Someone may say, "Yea I understand that, but what if space-time is eternal in the past, and we also find that something can come from pure nothingness?" The answer is simple. If space-time is eternal in the past without beginning, then STE would be the responsible party for the existence of our universe and SCPN would just be a secondary fact.


[[In the future STE or SCPN could be proven correct]] - This is 100% false, and here's why...

1. It’s impossible that a 3rd option for atheists EVER be presented. In ten million years, atheists only two options will still be STE and SCPN. If you claim a false dichotomy you have to prove it otherwise you are just making baseless assertions. Also the Law of Existence cannot be undermined.



2. There is no possible scenario, scientific evidence, or philosophical understanding which could arise in the future that would prove STE a logical concept. Infinite regress will always remain an insurmountable issue. This can NEVER change.
 
3. There is no possible scenario, scientific evidence, or philosophical understanding which could arise in the future that would prove SCPN to be correct. Pure nothingness cannot be tested for, it never has been and never will be. Moreover, even if we did find something which ‘appears’ to pop into being uncaused from PN, we cannot be sure that it has. On top of that, we would still be stuck with all inherent problems of accepting a Pure Nothingness hypothesis. These can NEVER change and  eternally will remain an insurmountable task that proponents of SCPN cannot conquer.

So what this means is that not only is atheism an incorrect position today...But it will remain an incorrect position forever!!

[[Wmap|Infinite]] - Anyone attempting to present this evidence is simply trying to prove that time did exist before the big bang...Which of course I agree with, but they are not providing evidence for how an eternal universe is logical...and that's the issue. 

Secondly, when someone tries to bring up WMAP as apparent evidence for an eternal or infinite Universe I immediately refer them to the timeless work of "Robin Collins" (Professor of philosophy at Messiah College and also holds a PhD. in physics). Collins says the following. "First, WMAP only shows that is very close to being flat, which still allows for the possibility that it has a small finite curvature, in which case it is finite. Second, a spatially flat universe does not imply an infinite universe. There are ten possibilities in which the hypersurface is locally flat but nonetheless closes back in on itself, thus forming a finite universe, the most familiar is the being the 3-Torus. One way of understanding how a finite universe is compatible with it's being locally flat everywhere is to note that spatial curvature is a local notion defined by the intrinsic property of the space at every point. The overall topological structure – which determines whether the universe is finite or infinite – is a global notion that is constrained though usually not completely determined by the local curvature.

[[B-theory of time|''B Theory of time'']] “A view of time according to which all events in time are equally real and temporal becoming is merely a subjective feature of consciousness. The number of past events in a beginningless universe on such a view would be obviously actually infinite, since it would be akin to a spatial array of items.” (Dr. Craig - http://www.reasonablefaith.org/past-and-future-in-the-kalam-cosmological-argument#ixzz29ojSIAwV)

''The Elliott Argument'' welcomes proponents of both the ''A-theory of time'' and ''B-theory of time''. The author makes the claim that the B-theory of time, or ''static time'', falls under the definition of ''STE'' because even though tenseless, both space and time still exist, and are still eternal in the past without beginning. There is no available evidence for such a position (space and time themselves are eternal in the past), but rather all the evidence points to the contrary view of “STE”. 

The B-theory of time is irrational and illogical because it is self-refuting. The following is a summary from [http://www.amazon.com/Time-Eternity-Exploring-Gods-Relationship/dp/1581342411 Time and Eternity Exploring Gods relationship to Time] (pg. 199) by [[William Lane Craig]]. "Static Time, or the B-theory of time requires us to believe that our experience of change in the external world as well as within our own minds is wholly illusory. Both tenets are required to be believed if one wishes to hold to static time. However, If our changing experiences are themselves illusions, then we are experiencing a Changing illusion, which is objective and leads to a vicious infinite regress. For example, if that change is an illusion, then something's causing that illusion, and that illusion, and that illusion. Therefore, the static theory of time is self-contradictory."

There are also many other serious problems with the B-theory of time::

“Most significantly, the delivery of the (supposed illusory) doses is perfect. There are no revealing dislocations of serial order of the moments. While there may be minor dislocations, there are none of the type that would definitely establish the illusory character of passage. We do not, for example, suddenly have an experience of next year thrown in with our experience of today; and then one of last year; and then another from the present. There are some minor dislocations, but they’re not the sort that suggests passage is illusory. They are the sort we would expect exactly if passage were objective, but there were occasional malfunctions of our perception of it. Take, for example, the odd experience we have under anesthesia of no time at all passing between the administration of the drug and its wearing off. That is easily explained in the passage view as a suspension of that part of our neural system that detects the passing moments. This world tube is like someone resting comfortably on a sofa. The sofa presses uniformly over the body, whose mind could in principle sense the pressure over the full length all at once. Yet the pressures are communicated to consciousness in a slow series that starts at the feet and marches inexorably up the length of the body to the pillow behind the head; and it is the same for every reclining body, without failure or serious dislocation. The result is that the reclining body and all others like it experience an illusory passage of pressure. If this sofa parable sounds fantastic, then you should find equally fantastic the same idea when applied to world tubes of brains. There is something odd in the idea that an element of our experience that is so universal and so solid and immutable is just an illusion.

So what do we have to do to show that passage is (really) an illusion (and not just asserted to be one)? Here we can take cues from the many experiences we know to be illusory. If I hold out my outstretched fingers nearly touching in front of my face, I will see the illusion that has amused children since the beginning of human time. There, floating in space right in front of my face, is a finger sausage. There is an enormous literature devoted to much more elaborate illusions. Here is a remarkable one. When one glances at the pattern below, we see it is animated. It is a seething, boiling surface. But that is an illusion. There is no motion. The image is entirely static.


{{Image generated by Paul Nasca and released into the public domain at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anomalous_motion_illusion1.png}}


We convince ourselves that both of these are illusions by two means.

First, we note that, viewing the illusion slightly differently, it can be eradicated. Merely shutting one eye leads to the sausage disappearing. Or in the case of the anomalous motion illusion, we can eradicate the motion in any smaller part of the image merely by covering the rest. (Indeed I was surprised to find that some people don't even see the illusion of motion at all!)
Second, we can often identify the mechanism through which the illusion arises. In the case of the finger sausage, it results directly from an improper fusion of the images received by each of our eyes. No doubt similar explication of the anomalous motion illusion is possible in terms of vagaries of our visual perception. It is striking, for example, that the illusion is eradicated also merely by fixing one's gaze rigidly on just one spot of the image. The illusion seems to require both the use of peripheral vision and the motion of the point of view.

If the passage of time is an illusion, it is quite unlike these familiar examples of illusions. It carries none of the distinguishing marks that enable us to identify other illusions.


First, it seems impossible to eradicate passage from experience in a way that would reveal its illusory character. Indeed there is a healthy tradition in experimental psychology that seeks to generate temporal dislocations in our experience. Subjects hear sounds in each ear that are delivered slightly dislocated in time. Yet they misperceive them as simultaneous. Subjects are lead to misperceive the exact timing of an event they see by hearing cleverly timed audible clicks. These sorts of experiments are quite successful in leading to dislocations of the order of milliseconds. That sort of dislocation is remote from what one would expect if the entirety of passage is an illusion. With all the tricks at their disposal, why can't an inventive researcher induce dislocations of the order of a day or a year? But if the passage of time is an objective fact independent of our neural circuitry, that failure is no surprise. The greatest dislocation possible would only be the milliseconds of time involved in the neural processing of the moments once they have been delivered to our senses and are routed to consciousness.


Second, what of identifying the mechanism that restricts the delivery of moments to consciousness into the rigid series we experience? In particular, what in the neural machinery blocks us from having perceptions of tomorrow or next year? While neuroscientists have made enormous advances in recent years, I do not think that circuitry blocking this avenue of perception has been identified. But if passage is an illusion of our perception, there must be some mechanism that blocks us perceiving the future.


We should stop protecting our vanity and admit what is now becoming obvious to me. We have no good grounds for dismissing the passage of time as an illusion. It has none of the marks of an illusion. Rather, it has all the marks of an objective process whose existence is independent of the existence of we humans. Passage exhibits no sign of being an illusion.” (John D. Norton- Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh -http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html)


For another able defense of the reality of the passage of time, see (Tim Maudlin, "On the Passage of Time" Ch. 4 in The Metaphysics within Physics. Oxford University Press, 2007.)


“In many well-known phenomena, the appearance of violation of time-reversal symmetry indicates the existence of a profound transition. The transition from the normal state into a superconducting state in unconventional superconductors is one such example. The broken time-reversal symmetry is an important clue on the transition point of such a phenomenon. If this is an "illusion", someone has a lot of explaining to do.


Radioactive decay doesn't care if we have a "mind" or not. It will take the same amount of time no matter if we designate time as fundamental or an illusion. Considering that at a single nuclear level, this is a random process and yet as a conglomerate of nuclei, they all somehow "know" the decay rate that they have to "obey", I'd say that these nuclei know about "time" and respect it. why are not claiming that length and space are an illusion as well? Why stop with time?”

(ZapperZ - http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2007/03/time-is-illusion.html)

[[Eternal Block Universe|Tenseless view of time]] - You may hear an atheist make the claim that they are neither an “STE” or an “SCPN” and try to present a third option known as Eternal Block Universe. This is simply a mistake on the atheists part and an error in logic/understanding of the defined acronyms. The fact here is that the "Eternal Block Universe Theory" is rooted in a B-theory of time/tenseless foundation, and in fact falls under “STE”. An opponent of "The Elliott Argument" may or may not understand how this is possible and at first, given the proposition that the whole four-dimensional space-time manifold exists tenselessly in this Eternal Block Universe option. We will get into why in fact this option falls under “STE” after a quick quote from Dr. William Lane Craig. "On a B-theory of time, the universe never truly comes into being at all. The whole four-dimensional space-time manifold just exists tenselessly. Although the space-time manifold is intrinsically temporal, in that one of its four dimensions is time, nonetheless it is extrinsically timeless, in that it does not exist in an embedding hyper-time but exists tenselessly, neither coming into nor going out of being. The four dimensional space-time manifold is this latter sense eternal." (Naturalism: A Critical Analysis (200) pp 232-3 ~ William Lane Craig).

As this pertains to "The Elliott Argument", one must focus their attention on the following quote - Dr. Craig says, "Although the space-time manifold is intrinsically temporal, in that one of its four dimensions is time, nonetheless it is extrinsically timeless, in that it does not exist in an embedding hyper-time but exists tenselessly, neither coming into nor going out of being. The four dimensional space-time manifold is this latter sense eternal." In this one notices that Dr. Craig admits one of the 4 dimensions is “time”!! It's important to remember that if there is time at all, and it's eternal (in the past) without beginning, then that would fall under the acronym “STE”. The difference here is that this proposed option of “STE” becomes irrational and illogical for different reasons than the classical dynamic (A-theory of time) since in this option the universe exists tenselessly. This particular option (Eternal Block Universe) of “STE”, becomes illogical and irrational for all the reasons noted above under [[The B-theory of Time]]. Also there is no known evidence for such a proposition while all the evidence actually points to the universe not being eternal but rather having a finite beginning and distinct starting point.


**More Philosophical objections to this type of Eternal Block Universe theory, B Theory of time and Special Relativity (as it pertains to this topic) :


Philosophers such as John Lucas argue that "The Block universe gives a deeply inadequate view of time. It fails to account for the passage of time, the pre-eminence of the present, the directedness of time and the difference between the future and the past"[16]


The comment summarizes the main objections. In more detail, they are:


Subjective sense of flow -Whilst the idea that there is some objective sense in which time is flowing can be denied, the fact that conscious beings feel as though it is in some sense flowing cannot. However, if the flow of time didn't have an objective existence, then it is argued conscious beings would simultaneously experience all moments in their lives. A response is that since the brain presumably perceives time through information processing of external stimuli, not by extrasensory perception, and obeys the laws of causality, it is hard to see how the flow of time, whether it exists or not, could make any subjective difference: all conscious beings are built to perceive time as a chain of events, whether or not it occurs as such.


Apparent differences between past, present and future- Many of our common-sense attitudes treat the past, present and future differently.


1.We apparently fear death because we believe that we will no longer exist after we die. But if Eternalism is correct, death is just one of our temporal borders, and should be no more worrisome than birth.

2.You are about to go to the dentist, or you have already been. Commonsense says you should prefer to have been. But if Eternalism is correct, it shouldn't matter which situation you're in.
3.When some unpleasant experience is behind us, we feel glad that it is over. But if the Eternalism is correct, there is no such property as being over or no longer happening now—it continues to exist timelessly.

Status of conscious observers - Eternalists often appeal to the idea that the flow of time is a subjective illusion. However, Eternalism takes its inspiration from physics and needs to give a physical account of observers. One could, for instance, portray conscious observers as moving through the block universe, in some physically inexplicable way, in order to account for the subjective sense of a flow of time. But there is no need to do so to explain the subjective flow of time.[citation needed] Their opponents claim that the time-flow itself, as an objective phenomenon, is physically inexplicable, and that physics is simply misrepresenting time in treating it as a dimension.


Determinism and indeterminism - Previously, it was noted that people tend to have very different attitudes towards the past and the future. This might be explained by an underlying attitude that the future is not fixed, but can be changed, and is therefore worth worrying about. If that is correct, the flow of time is perhaps less important to our intuitions than an open, undetermined, future. In other words, a flow-of-time theory with a strictly determined future (which nonetheless does not exist at the present) would not satisfy common-sense intuitions about time. If indeterminism can be removed from flow-of-time theories, can it be added to Eternalist theories? Regarding John G. Cramer’s transactional interpretation, Kastner (2010) "proposed that in order to preserve the elegance and economy of the interpretation, it may be necessary to consider offer and confirmation waves as propagating in a “higher space” of possibilities.[17]


In his discussion with Albert Einstein, Karl Popper argued against determinism: The main topic of our conversation was indeterminism. I tried to persuade him to give up his determinism, which amounted to the view that the world was a four-dimensional Parmenidean block universe in which change was a human illusion, or very nearly so. (He agreed that this had been his view, and while discussing it I called him "Parmenides".) I argued that if men, or other organisms, could experience change and genuine succession in time, then this was real. It could not be explained away by a theory of the successive rising into our consciousness of time slices which in some sense coexist; for this kind of "rising into consciousness" would have precisely the same character as that succession of changes which the theory tries to explain away. I also brought in the somewhat obvious biological arguments: that the evolution of life, and the way organisms behave, especially higher animals, cannot really be understood on the basis of any theory which interprets time as if it were something like another (anisotropic) space coordinate. After all, we do not experience space coordinates. And this is because they are simply nonexistent: we must beware of hypostatizing them; they are constructions which are almost wholly arbitrary. Why should we then experience the time coordinate—to be sure, the one appropriate to our inertial system—not only as real but also as absolute, that is, as unalterable and independent of anything we can do (except changing our state of motion)?


The reality of time and change seemed to me the crux of realism. (I still so regard it, and it has been so regarded by some idealistic opponents of realism, such as Schrödinger and Gödel.)

When I visited Einstein, Schilpp's Einstein volume in The Library of Living Philosophers had just been published; this volume contained a now famous contribution of Gödel's which employed, against the reality of time and change, arguments from Einstein's two relativity theories. Einstein had come out in that volume strongly in favor of realism. And he clearly disagreed with Gödel's idealism: he suggested in his reply that Gödel's solutions of the cosmological equations might have "to be excluded on physical grounds".

Now I tried to present to Einstein-Parmenides as strongly as I could my conviction that a clear stand must be made against any idealistic view of time. And I also tried to show that, though the idealistic view was compatible with both determinism and indeterminism, a clear stand should be made in favor of an "open" universe—one in which the future was in no sense contained in the past or the present, even though they do impose severe restrictions on it. I argued that we should not be swayed by our theories to give up realism (for which the strongest arguments were based on common sense), though I think that he was ready to admit, as I was, that we might be forced one day to give it up if very powerful arguments (of Gödel's type, say) were to be brought against it. I therefore argued that with regard to time, and also to indeterminism (that is, the incompleteness of physics), the situation was precisely similar to the situation with regard to realism. Appealing to his own way of expressing things in theological terms, I said: if God had wanted to put everything into the world from the beginning, He would have created a universe without change, without organisms and evolution, and without man and man's experience of change. But He seems to have thought that a live universe with events unexpected even by Himself would be more interesting than a dead one.[18]( —Karl Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography)


[[Atheism is a disbelief and you cannot disprove a null-hypothesis]] -  Atheism is not a null hypothesis. That would be agnosticism. Atheism is the BELIEF that no God exists. Anything you disbelieve exists, you believe that thing does not exist...For example I disbelieve the tooth fairy exists. This means I BELIEVE the tooth fairy does not exist!! After that all you need to know is that one can prove a 'BELIEF' is incorrect. A position which leaves you with only two incorrect options cannot be correct. Atheism is a position which leaves you with only two incorrect options. Atheism is incorrect.

[[Reverse the argument to try and prove the UC option/Theism is Incorrect]] -

1.) If you admit TEA is correct, and make the exact same argument against theism, at best all you're  left with is agnosticism. Atheism will still be incorrect.

2.) A person cannot prove that a UC option is incorrect for the origin of the Universe, but WE CAN prove that STE and SCPN are incorrect!


3.) There is NO EVIDENCE at all for STE or SCPN. Not even any disputable evidence. There is however tons of evidence for the UC option that hundred of thousands of people accept. Even if you think that evidence is disputable matters little when compared to STE and SCPN. 


4.) There is positive evidence against STE and SCPN. Evidence that shows the opposite view of STE and SCPN is actually correct. There is no positive evidence against the UC option.






[[Special Relativity|SR]] Special relativity suggests that the concept of simultaneity is not universal: according to the relativity of simultaneity, observers in different frames of reference can have different perceptions of whether a given pair of events happened at the same time or at different times, with there being no physical basis for preferring one frame's judgments over another's (though in a case where one event A happens in the past light cone of another event B, all frames will agree that A happened in the past of B). So, in special relativity there can be no physical basis for picking out a unique set of events that are all happening simultaneously in "the present".

As it applies to The Elliott Argument, so what? I see no apparent issue here. Ones present need not be the same as everyone else’s present at the exact same universal moment. The fact that there can be different “present moments” for different people depending on their reference frames in no way undermines "The Elliott Argument". Beyond that, if it is true that the concept of simultaneity is not universal (which SR suggests), that’s would not be proof that space AND time are in fact eternal in the past. It’s only evidence that people are experiencing different past, present, and futures at different moments/instances according to their frames. It could still be that space and time themselves had a finite beginning and starting point (which all the evidence points to), and that SR is just a construct of perception after space and time begin to exist at some point. It’s not evidence they are eternal in the past.

Vesselin Petkov writes:


There are many ways around this apparent conflict [A] The presentist could simply deny Naturalism. Such denial could take different forms. One could, as does Jonathan Lowe, claim that SR is not a theory about time. [B] Second, a presentist might reject SR-Realism, simply asserting that SR is not approximately true of the world. This could occur simply on a priori grounds... Also, considerations from quantum mechanics can be invoked in an attempt to establish that SR is false or incomplete insofar as it lacks an absolute, privileged frame of reference. This response comes in different flavours: (a) (non-relativistic) collapse dynamics require a preferred frame in which the collapse occurs; (b) Bohmian interpretations are incompatible with SR; and (c) invoke Bell's theorem to argue that some tenets of SR must be given up... [C] a presentist could claim what is present is relative to an inertial frame, meaning what exists becomes fragmented in that it depends on the choice of frame. [D] insist that absolute simultaneity still exists. It is just that we cannot possibly detect the privileged frame of reference which determines the present. In other words, absolute simultaneity is not empirically accessible... [The] metaphysics fully relies on postulated extra-structure that can't even in principle be observed.(—Vesselin Petkov, "No Presentism in Quantum Gravity" in Space, Time, and Spacetime: Physical and Philosophical Implications of Minkowski's Unification of Space and Time)

There are some, such as Dean Zimmerman, who have argued that it is possible to accept the physical predictions of relativity while adopting an alternative interpretation of the theory (For instance, see Lorentz ether theory) in which there is a single privileged frame whose judgments about length, time and simultaneity are the "true" ones, even though there would be absolutely no empirical way to distinguish this frame from other frames.

[[0+0 (always) = 0]] - This equation is a mathematical absolute which cannot be broken or undermined. There are others such as 0+0=0, 0-0=0, 0x0=0, and the fact that you cannot divide literal non-being.  Any position to the contrary would be viewed as illogical. The zeros in this equation represent the concept of Pure Literal Nothingness and non-being (which is has been previously defined in this article). This equation is further proof that acronym “SCPN” is inherently flawed. An opponent of “The Elliott Argument” may say, “while it is true that the equation is sound, the total energy of the universe is in fact zero, and all the positive and negative energy balance each other out.” At first glance this may seem like a valid rebuttal. But be careful, this is not true! What the opponent is presenting is actually a far different equation that would look something like this (+1-1=0.) This equation is not a valid representation of “SCPN” because in a Pure Nothingness hypothesis you never have a +1 or -1 to add together in your equation. All you have is zeros!

So why pick zero as the representation? Well, for two reasons really.  First of all, everyone/mathematicians equate zero as being 'nothing or without any'.  This would be a valid representation of literal non-being. The statement "I have zero money in my bank account" would clearly indicate that there was no money at all in the persons account. Secondly, zero is constant and unchanging the same way pure-nothingness is. Nothing begets more nothingness. Nothing breads more nothingness. From nothing nothing comes. This is exactly what one sees from the mathematical absolute zero plus zero. In such an equation one can never arrive at anything other than zero. It is unchanging. Zero plus zero never produces a positive, the same way pure nothingness can never produce anything other than literal non-being. Therefore we find this is the perfect analogy and reference to represent our concept of SPNC


[[0^0=1]] - You have two conflicting rules here: x^0=1 for any x, but 0^x=0 for any x. This means that 0^0 should, by all rights, be 0 and 1 at the same time, if it were defined.
For this reason, most people say that 0^0 is undefined.  However, people do usually say 0^0=1 if they absolutely have to assign a value to it. This does not make it a mathematical absolute. Most mathematicians will say 0^0=1 cannot be proven but that they make is so in order to make other formulas work more seamlessly. What if I told you to multiply Zero by itself three times 0^3. (0x0x0). Your answer would be Zero.
But, what if I told you to multiply Zero by itself NO TIMES (or zero times). Essentially doing nothing at all to the initial Zero? What would your answer be? I say zero!!


Now lets get into this a little deeper.

[[Remember that the zeros in the equation represent Pure Nothingness or (literal non-being).]]
It is commonly taught that any number to the zero power is 1, and zero to any power is 0. But if that is the case, what is zero to the zero power? Well, the answer is that it’s UNDEFINED! One reason is that 0^0 as a function of 2 variables is not continuous at the origin.

Mathforum.org says - "YOU can’t prove that 0^0 is equal to 1!! When x is not 0, x^0 is equal to
 1, because that definition is consistent with the rules for exponents:
 x^0 = x^(1-1) = x^1 / x^1 = x/x = 1. These rules don't work when x = 0, however."
Showing that x^x approaches 1 as the positive value x gets arbitrarily close to zero does NOT prove that 0^0=1. The variable x having a value close to zero is different than it having a value of EXACTLY zero. It turns out that 0^0 is undefined. In other words, 0^0 does NOT HAVE A VALUE!!!

What does all this mean? It means that the claim 0^0=1 is NOT a mathematical absolute, nor can it be defined!! Actually far from it!! Many would argue it’s incorrect all together as we have shown in these examples, and other people who support it will admit that they only do so to make other formulas work more

Nothing, times itself, no times, is nothing!! Period!! Saying a true 0^0=1 equation is valid, is essentially saying, “nothing, times itself, no times, equals a positive. This is ignorance at its finest!! Also please don’t forget, Abstract objects (such as numbers) cannot create anything either, and TEA is about the origin of our physical Universe. So saying numbers can create our Universe is also a fail. When we use mathematical absolutes such as 0+0=0 to prove that something cannot come from Pure nothingness, we are showing that Literal non being plus more literal non-being cannot produce anything but more literal non-being. We are not arguing that two zero’s cannot create a Universe, as that should already be a known fact.  
 

[[The UC option is Pure Nothingness]] - This claim is 100% false, and it's extremely rare for anyone to try and take this route, but it is worth noting.  An opponent of TEA may try and make the claim that the UC option falls under the definition of Pure Nothingness and then try to prove it by using propositional logic. Before we get into that lets first remind our readers why the UC option is clearly not Pure-Nothingness (literal non-being). TO KEEP IT SIMPLE THE UC OPTION IS NOT SCPN BECAUSE THE UC IS NOT LITERAL NON-BEING, RATHER a Spaceless, timeless, immaterial, supernatural, personal mind which in some way influenced or had a part in the existence of the universe. IF YOU LOOK AT THE ABOVE DEFINITIONS, UNDER "PURE NOTHINGNESS" IT CLEARLY SAYS NO ENERGY, MATTER, LAWS, CONSTANTS, STRUCTURE, Supernatural beings,“MINDS”, ETC….THE UC IS not only a supernatural being, but is also a PERSONAL MIND, therefore clearly DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF 'PURE NOTHINGNESS'. HE IN FACT IS SOMETHING!! This shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp, but defeating TEA has become so impossible for atheists that they are now trying to act like they cannot understand definitions. 
Now lets see how the atheist may try and use propositional logic and how it fails. The following is an example of what you may see from an atheist :

//p: Is timeless
q: is spaceless
r: is Pure Nothingness
p and q is sufficient for r
(p ^ q) --> r

Essentially, If it is timeless and it is spaceless, then it is pure nothingness.
This is propositional logic. Therefore, if something satisfies the timeless and spaceless conditions, then it is Pure Nothingness.//


Lets now look at why this rebuttal fails:

The opponent STATED THAT P AND Q ARE SUFFICIENT FOR R, BUT they HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT IF MORE ATTRIBUTES ARE ADDED TO THE ARGUMENT SUCH AS “M” (PERSONAL MINDS), THAT THE SUBJECT MUST STILL BE PURE NOTHINGNESS…YOU WOULD BE LAUGHED OUT OF THE CLASSROOM WITH SUCH PATHETIC NOTIONS…ACTUALLY OUT OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSITY!!...I would remind my opponent that their IGNORANCE OF PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC HAS FAILED TO INCORPORATE “ALL OF THE DEFINITIONS” OF THE UC OPTION INSTEAD OF JUST TWO. FOR EXAMPLE

P: IS GOOD CARDIO

Q: IS GOOD EXERCISE
R: IS RUNNING

THIS IS TO SAY THAT RUNNING IS GOOD CARDIO AND GOOD EXERCISE. WHICH IS TRUE, BUT HERE IS where the opponent fails and misses the point. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS GOOD EXERCISE AND GOOD CARDIO DOESN’T MEAN ITS RUNNING…IT COULD BE A SWIM MEET, OR JIU JITSU TOURNAMENT, OR SEX WITH YOUR WIFE. THE SAME WAY A UC IS SPACELESS AND TIMELESS BUT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE PURE NOTHINGNESS. YES IT HAS THOSE TWO QUALITIES, BUT THATS NOT THE ENTIRE DEFINITION, NOR AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THE SUBJECT AS A WHOLE…LET ME PUT IT TO YOU LIKE THIS IF YOU STILL DON’T UNDERSTAND…IMAGINE WE HAVE SUBJECT A…PART OF SUBJECT A’s DEFINITION IS GOOD EXERCISE AND GOOD CARDIO….RUNNING IS GOOD EXERCISE AND GOOD CARDIO…DOES THAT LOGICALLY FOLLOW THAT SUBJECT A IS RUNNING??? HELL NO!!! SUBJECT A COULD BE JUMPING, LIFTING WEIGHTS, OR BOXING. LOL…SUBJECT A IS NOT DEFINED AS RUNNING MEARLY BECAUSE GOOD CARDIO AND GOOD EXERCISE ARE DEFINTIONS ‘OF’ RUNNING. THIS IS BASIC LOGIC….ITS AMAZING THAT SOME OF THE blockheads on these social media sites  ACTUALLY POST THE MATERIAL THEY POST when it has all been screen captured and they WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO LIVE IT DOWN.


SECONDLY ONE ALSO CAN NOTE THAT YOU ARE ASSUMING NATURATLISTIC SCENARIO, BUT THOSE IMPLICATIONS DO NOT APPLY TO A SUPERNATURAL DEFINITION (UC)…JUST THE WORD SUPERNATURAL BEING, AND OR MIND, PROVE THAT THE SUBJECT IS IN FACT SOMETHING AND NOT LITERAL NON-BEING (PURE-NOTHINGNESS).


[[First Law of Thermodynamics]] Some opponents of ''The Elliott Argument'' may try to bring up the ''First Law of Thermodynamics'' as apparent evidence for STE. ''The First Law of Thermodynamics'' basically states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, the line of reasoning would follow that if energy exists, and it cannot be created or destroyed, that it must be eternal.The problem then becomes, anyone presenting the 1st law as evidence must also consider what the 2nd law says. [[Second law of thermodynamics]] states that everything was once at zero entropy and like a wind up clock, everything is slowly ''winding down''.  All of the ''useable energy'' is being used up, and there will eventually come a point where there is none left. The problem here is obvious. The universe (space-time) therefore ''cannot be'' eternal, because if it was, then all the useable energy would have long since been used up and there would be none remaining. But, ''we see that we still have useable energy today.'' Astronomer [[Robert Jastrow]], who is currently serving as the director of the Mount Wilson Observatory (in his book In God and the Astronomers), explains that there are “Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, and the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a beginning” (1978, p. 111). More on Jastrows thoughts regarding this topic can be seen at [http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=310 apologetics press].

This argument about whether or not the universe had a beginning, persisted into the 19th and 20th centuries. It was conducted mainly on the basis of theology and philosophy, with little consideration of observational evidence. This may have been reasonable, given the notoriously unreliable character of cosmological observations, until fairly recently. The cosmologist, Sir Arthur Eddington, once said, 'Don't worry if your theory doesn't agree with the observations, because they are probably wrong.' But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun. http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

[[Time Eternal without Space - Third option?]] -  Here are three things for to remember 

1.)  If time is eternal in the past without beginning, as you claim, then that means events are also eternally occurring infinitely into the past. Events cannot occur without the potential to exist (space of some form). THIS MEANS SPACE WOULD ALSO EXIST ETERNALLY IN THE PAST WITH TIME....THIS IS STE!! Therefore NOT a new third option 2.) Your second problem is that you forget space and time are linked together. They essentially cannot exist one without the other. 3.). Time cannot create space, as time alone has no creative powers. This option fails at every turn.


[[Space Eternal without Time|Third option?]] - This option clearly falls under STE because space cannot exist without time, and anyone claiming otherwise can easily be defeated.
"Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, proves that space and time are one, and cannot be seperated. Furthermore, time is required for change. If there is no time, then no change can occur from and impersonal mindless cause. Also, anything that exists in space must be temporal, as it undergoes at least extrinsic change in relation to the things around it."  - AK

http://youtu.be/oOAfz0H4f00

May 4, 2011- Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex around Earth, and it's shape prefisely matched the predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity. Researchers confirmed these points at a press conference today at NASA headquarters where they announced the long-awaited results of Gravity Probe B (GP-B). "The space-time around Earth appears to be distored just as general relativity predicts," says Stanford University physicist Francis Everitt, principal investigator of the Gravity Probe B mission.(http://science.nasa.gov/.../science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/)

To compound the issue, lets talk about science and the evidence.  We know that space and time are interwoven as one, but besides time, could space exist by itself without matter or energy?? No! "Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe. This is not speculation, but sound observation." Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) for the NASA Astronomy Cafe, part of the NASA Education and Public Outread Program.
(http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html)


If space is eternal then time is also eternal!! If time is eternal then space is eternal!! Period end of story. Fundamentally they are the same thing!!  Claiming one or the other existed independently without the other is logically absurd, as we know for a fact that the two are intrinsically woven together forming  what we know as "space-time." This is a concrete scientific foundation which has been proven by Einsteins theory of General Relativity and many countless other studies/works. As you may have guessed, this is exactly how STE is defined throughout The Elliott Argument as well. Claiming that space can exist without time is simply an error in scientific understanding and an outrageous misrepresentation of the argument.  In physics, 'spacetime' is a mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum.  By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the super galactic and subatomic levels. Spacetime (known technically as tensor mathematics) is what proved to be essential in deriving Einstein's theory of General Relativity. One of the greatest scientific discoveries in the history of mankind!!

Space-time is one thing, not two separate entities.  In relativistic contexts, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space. It's important to note that in The Elliott Argument, STE is defined as spacetime eternal, not space AND time eternal.  If the acronym were SATE (space AND time eternal) then someone could possibly offer up a third option simply by presenting one without the other. I.E. space without time, or time by itself without space. Luckily The Elliott Argument doesn't do that and both options are illogical as well as lacking in evidence.


How do we know what is impossible if it were the case that all known physics were broken?  Or possibly in some other universe/void there were different laws of physics? Someone may make the claim that space and time are connected only under our current model of physics.  Asserting that it could be possible to have one without the other if the conditions were different.  There are many problems with this line of reasoning.  First of all I think it's imperative that we talk about the evidence, or lack thereof.  There is no, I repeat no evidence, that there are other universes or dimensions out there beyond our own.  There is also no known evidence which proves the current laws of physics in our universe could ever change. It's all assumption and conjecture.  All we have to go off of is our current understanding, human logic and reasoning, current scientific modeling, experimentation, and what we can observe and test.  Anything else is pure speculation, and unscientific. As science is based on observation and experimentation.  This is why The Elliott Argument is so strong.  It was founded on science, observation, testing, human logic, reasoning, philosophy, mathematics, etc.  To assert that something so fundamental and interwoven as the spacetime continuum and General Relativity could be undermined, goes against all known science, reasoning, logic, etc.  To assume that it could change or somehow be broken is nothing more than a baseless assertion without support or evidence to back it up.


MORE INFOMATION:

Entanglement: Entanglement has no effect on STE or The Elliott Argument. Why? Because Entanglement cannot exist without Space (the potential to exist, or time (events occuring). Also Entaglement does NOT produce any evidence that spacetime is eternal (without true beginning.) Anyone claiming otherwise is simply lying to you. The B theory of time has been thoroughtly destroy & proven incorrect. Read more here: http://theatheistkilla.blogspot.com/2014/09/b-theory-of-time-fails.html



Nail in the coffin: If space were a construct without time then no change could occur, therefore the universe would never and could never have come into existence. Or put another way, if you didn't have time or any change, the eternal space could never change from a 4-dimensional timeless space into the timed space that we currently experience. This completely destroys this proposed third option, and shows its not a possible option for the existence of our universe.  Here we need to remember not to use our classical model of infinite regress to prove this option irrational and illogical.  This is how we then prove such an option is flawed, beyond the fact we've already proven there is no evidence for it  --- Time is necessary for change to occur within space. This brings us back to question #3 of the “7 fundamental questions”.  Which asks the atheist, “give a step by step process of how this option (in this case, space without time) created our physical universe.  Starting with step 1, where our physical universe did not exist.” Clearly if space were a construct without time then no change could occur, therefore the universe would never and could never have come into existence. Or put another way, if you didn't have time or any change, the eternal space could never change from a 4-dimensional timeless space into the timed space that we currently experience. This completely destroys this proposed third option, and shows its not a possible option for the existence of our universe.  If space is eternal then time is also eternal (without true beginning).  If time is eternal then space is eternal (without true beginning). Period end of story. Fundamentally they are the same thing!! Claiming one or the other existed independently without the other is logically absurd, as we know for a fact that the two are intrinsically woven together forming a four-dimensional fabric called "space-time."

[[THE CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE MUST BE PERSONAL]] - By "personal" we simply mean, endowed with rationality, self-consciousness, volition, or the ability to alter intentions in some form. On rare occasions you may hear an atheist try to make the claim that a third option (for the existence of the universe) could simply be an ‘uncreated non-personal causeor (UCNPC).

This is where we would challenge our opponent to prove that a non-personal cause (UCNPC), could also in fact be space-less, timeless, immaterial, and unchanging. The truth is that we know the event (the creation of the universe) must have been beyond space and time. Therefore it cannot be physical or material. There are only two types of things that fit this description.  Either abstract objects, like numbers, or some sort of intelligent mind…But we know abstract objects don’t stand in casual relations and are causally impotent.  Therefore the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe, must be an un-embodied, personal, space-less, immaterial, intelligent mind.


Only a free agent can account for the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause.  If the cause of the universe were an impersonal (UCNPC), mechanically operating cause, then the cause could never exist without its effect.  For if the sufficient condition of the effect is given, then the effect must be given as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless, but for its effect to begin in time, is for the cause to be a PERSONAL agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time, without any antecedent determining conditionshttp://youtu.be/V4UEYHiBFjw


Another good way to ask the question is as follows…how else (other than how we have described) could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?  You see, if the cause were a non-personal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without its effect? If the cause were permanently present, then the effect would be permanently present as well. Thirdly, since the UC is the uncaused first cause, he is self-directed and self-motivated, and acted volitionally…If the cause were not personal it would not be capable of self-directed, self-motivated, volitional action. Preventing it from being the first cause.

Let us look at an example where an atheist tries to propose a UCNPC:

Atheist suggests that a brick is responsible for the creation of the universe.
You ask them the 7 fundamental questions about this proposed "brick."
The atheist claims the brick is spaceless timeless immaterial has no mind or no dimensions.
You point of that this is simply SCPN and therefore not a new third option.

What happened was the atheist tried to trick you. He tried to make you mentally visualize a brick, but yet when questioned, he described and defined his option as pure nothingness. You see, just because you claim something is a brick, if you define it as pure nothingness, its still pure nothingness, you just changed the title.


Something can be timeless only if it is unchanging and no events are occurring

And something can be unchanging only if it is immaterial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig1zw53vip8&feature=share&list=UUWyWFV9K5Ei0jiTttfnDpXQ&index=38

Superposition: is a principle of quantum theory that describes a challenging concept about the nature and behavior of matter and forces at the sub-atomic level. The principle of superposition claims that while we do not know what the state of any object is, it is actually in all possible states simultaneously, as long as we don't look to check. It is the measurement itself that causes the object to be limited to a single possibility.

As I have explained in the past, the before mentioned has nothing to do with something coming from pure nothingness, nor is it evidence that you can have a timeless dimension of unchanging space (with nothingness, no time, energy, matter, fluctuations, increase or decrease in potentiality, momentum, etc), and then get something, as we know time is a requirement of change. No time, no change!!


The concept of Superposition has NOTHING to do with a timeless dimension of space (where nothing at all exists) that could bring other things into existence. Superposition is simply talking about how "objects" can "exist" in all possible states...And if there were objects existing in this timeless dimension of the empty space I was talking about (where nothing at all existed), then it wouldn't in fact be a timeless dimension of space (where nothing at all existed), as objects would exist there. SIMULATNEOUSLY!!!


This completely destroys this proposed third option,  and shows it's not a possible or new option for the existence of our universe (for atheists)
Claiming a timeless special dimension could exist, you would need to
1. Prove your assertion that there could be no events occurring in this dimension.
2. Prove your assertion that this dimension could be immaterial, unchanging, and nothing but space could exist without anything else. (Not even a quantum vaccumm, as that would be something).
3. Prove your assertion that any form of space could exist without time.  (In this note we will get into why such a claim is unscientific).
4. Explain how, if there was only space and nothing else (not even time), the universe comes into existence, and what change occurred to this empty timeless unchanging immaterial space. As we know that time is neccessary for any change to occur.
5. Explain how this claimed timeless space could without hold its intention to create. As we know only a personal mind can be the cause of the universe
6. Explain where this dimension is when the universe was not yet born.
7. Tell us if this claimed dimension exists without true beginning, or did it come into existence from a different source.

 
MORE INFOMATION:
 
Entanglement: Despite a few illogical persons who know nothing of science, Entanglement has no effect on STE or The Elliott Argument.
Here's why. It cannot occur without
1.) Events occurring (time). Even the entanglement process is an event in and unto itself.
2.) The potential to exist (some form of space).

Also, Entaglement does NOT produce any evidence that spacetime is eternal (without true beginning.) Anyone claiming otherwise is simply lying to you. The B theory of time has been thoroughtly destroy & proven incorrect. Read more here: http://theatheistkilla.blogspot.com/2014/09/b-theory-of-time-fails.html
 
 If space were a construct without time then no change could occur, therefore the universe would never and could never have come into existence. Or put another way, if you didn't have time or any change, the eternal space could never change from a 4-dimensional timeless space into the timed space that we currently experience. This completely destroys this proposed third option, and shows its not a possible option for the existence of our universe.

 
Even More: May 4, 2011- Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex around Earth, and it's shape prefisely matched the predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity. Researchers confirmed these points at a press conference today at NASA headquarters where they announced the long-awaited results of Gravity Probe B (GP-B). "The space-time around Earth appears to be distored just as general relativity predicts," says Stanford University physicist Francis Everitt, principal investigator of the Gravity Probe B mission.
(http://science.nasa.gov/.../science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/) May 4, 2011- Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex around Earth, and it's shape prefisely matched the predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity. Researchers confirmed these points at a press conference today at NASA headquarters where they announced the long-awaited results of Gravity Probe B (GP-B). "The space-time around Earth appears to be distored just as general relativity predicts," says Stanford University physicist Francis Everitt, principal investigator of the Gravity Probe B mission.(http://science.nasa.gov/.../science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/)


To compound the issue, we know that space and time are interwoven as one, but besides time, could space exist by itself without matter or energy?? No! "Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe. This is not speculation, but sound observation." Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) for the NASA Astronomy Cafe, part of the NASA Education and Public Outread Program.
(http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html) To compound the issue, we know that space and time are interwoven as one, but besides time, could space exist by itself without matter or energy?? No! "Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe. This is not speculation, but sound observation." Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) for the NASA Astronomy Cafe, part of the NASA Education and Public Outread Program.(http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html)


If space is eternal then time is also eternal!! If time is eternal then space is eternal!! Period end of story. Fundamentally they are the same thing!!  Claiming one or the other existed independently without the other is logically absurd, as we know for a fact that the two are intrinsically woven together forming  what we know as "space-time." This is a concrete scientific foundation which has been proven by Einsteins theory of General Relativity and many countless other studies/works. As you may have guessed, this is exactly how STE is defined throughout The Elliott Argument as well. Claiming that space can exist without time is simply an error in scientific understanding and an outrageous misrepresentation of the argument.  In physics, 'spacetime' is a mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum.  By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the super galactic and subatomic levels. Spacetime (known technically as tensor mathematics) is what proved to be essential in deriving Einstein's theory of General Relativity. One of the greatest scientific discoveries in the history of mankind!!
Space-time is one thing, not two separate entities.  In relativistic contexts, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space. It's important to note that in The Elliott Argument, STE is defined as spacetime eternal, not space AND time eternal.  If the acronym were SATE (space AND time eternal) then someone could possibly offer up a third option simply by presenting one without the other. I.E. space without time, or time by itself without space. Luckily The Elliott Argument doesn't do that and both options are illogical as well as lacking in evidence.
How do we know what is impossible if it were the case that all known physics were broken?  Or possibly in some other universe/void there were different laws of physics? Someone may make the claim that space and time are connected only under our current model of physics.  Asserting that it could be possible to have one without the other if the conditions were different.  There are many problems with this line of reasoning.  First of all I think it's imperative that we talk about the evidence, or lack thereof.  There is no, I repeat no evidence, that there are other universes or dimensions out there beyond our own.  There is also no known evidence which proves the current laws of physics in our universe could ever change. It's all assumption and conjecture.  All we have to go off of is our current understanding, human logic and reasoning, current scientific modeling, experimentation, and what we can observe and test.  Anything else is pure speculation, and unscientific. As science is based on observation and experimentation.  This is why The Elliott Argument is so strong.  It was founded on science, observation, testing, human logic, reasoning, philosophy, mathematics, etc.  To assert that something so fundamental and interwoven as the spacetime continuum and General Relativity could be undermined, goes against all known science, reasoning, logic, etc.  To assume that it could change or somehow be broken is nothing more than a baseless assertion without support or evidence to back it up.

Secondly, let me present the nail in the coffin again.  Here we need to remember not to use our classical model of infinite regress to prove this option irrational and illogical.  This is how we then prove such an option is flawed, beyond the fact we've already proven there is no evidence for it  --- Time is necessary for change to occur within space. This brings us back to question #3 of the “7 fundamental questions”.  Which asks the atheist, “give a step by step process of how this option (in this case, space without time) created our physical universe.  Starting with step 1, where our physical universe did not exist.” Clearly if space were a construct without time then no change could occur, therefore the universe would never and could never have come into existence. Or put another way, if you didn't have time or any change, the eternal space could never change from a 4-dimensional timeless space into the timed space that we currently experience. This completely destroys this proposed third option, and shows its not a possible option for the existence of our universe.  If space is eternal then time is also eternal (without true beginning).  If time is eternal then space is eternal (without true beginning). Period end of story. Fundamentally they are the same thing!! Claiming one or the other existed independently without the other is logically absurd, as we know for a fact that the two are intrinsically woven together forming a four-dimensional fabric called "space-time."

This completely destroys this proposed third option,  and shows it's not a possible or new option for the existence of our universe (for atheists).

 
 
Here are some more good references on spacetime if you need them :: (more to come)

Hermann Minkowski (1864-1909), who announced it in a 1908 colloquium with the dramatic words: "Hencefort space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality".

Arthur Schopenhauer wrote [[On the Fourfold Root of the Principla of Sufficient Reason(1813):]]..."The representation of coexistence is impossible in time alone; it depends, for its completion, upon the representation of space; because, in mere time, all things follow one another, and in mere space all things are side by side; it ios accordingly only by the combination if time and space that the representation of coexistence arises."


The idea of a unified space-time is stated by Edgar Allan Poe in his essay on cosmology titled Eureka (1848) that "Space and duration are one."


*So in conclusion we find that anyone attempting to present such and option really fails on all fronts. They fail to understand the true definition of STE in the argument and fail to understand how their option falls under this category. They fail to understand that space and time are one single fundamental manifold that is interwoven and cannot be seperated. They fail to realize that this is no evidence for other universes, and or different laws of physics. And maybe worst of all, they fail to realize if you had space without time (events or any change), you actually cannot get a universe at all. They really fail on all accounts.
[[God is dead [[killed himself]] - Only a few times have I ever seen this objection to The Elliott Argument used; however it is worth noting for the sole purpose of anyone who may encounter such a rebuttal and is looking for an answer. It really comes down to a failure to understand definitions. An atheist may say that if God is dead and killed himself that 1.) they in fact have presented a new third option for the existence of the universe and 2.) they would not be irrational or illogical in accepting such a position because they do not fall under either STE or SCPN.

First of all, Mr. Elliott makes it very clear that this in fact is not a new third option for the existence of the universe. "It is simply the UC option, because in such a scenario, the UC would be the one responsible for creating our universe prior to killing himself or ceasing to exist." No atheist believes a God of any kind has EVER EXISTED because by definition they cannot.


 Secondly, the answer to this question really falls under Premise 3 of the argument which states, "Atheists deny or disbelieve in an Uncreated Creator option as the cause of the universe." If someone holds the position that a UC option did exist at some point, and was responsible for the existence of our universe, then then technically they wouldn't be an atheist at all. The following definition is found at dictionary.com - [[atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.]] That is to say that no supreme being ever existed. Not just that one currently does not exist. So a defender of The Elliott Argument can easily point out that his opponent is not an atheist (by definition), if he/she takes the stance that a "God originally created the universe." Even if it were true that God then killed himself (which is logically absurd due to the definitions) after creation. The Elliott Argument is about origins. Specifically about the origin of our physical universe. If you you take the stance that a "God of some kind was responsible for this act", then by definition, you are not an atheist at all.  So in conclusion we see that this objection falls flat for 3 simple reasons.
[[The Elliott Argument disproves the existence of [[God]] - Many times atheists will claim that if ''The Elliott Argument'' is in fact sound and valid, which the author claims, that it also disproves the existence of God. This cannot be so, for the mere fact that God (the UC option) does ''not'' fall under the definition of either ''STE'' or ''SCPN'.  God does not fall under STE because God is defined as being spaceless and timeless. So in actuality God is the opposite of STE!!  Dr. Craig talks in depth about this fact on his reasonable faith website. To read more about it you can click on the following link. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-the-cause-of-the-universe-an-uncaused-personal-creator-of-the-universe.  

Also God does not fall under 'SCPN' because God by definition is not pure nothingness, but rather an spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal mind which in some way influenced or had a part in the existence of the universe. You can read some scriptures about this definition on About Christianity (http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/qt/biblefactsgod.htm).Thus God (The UC option) would not fall under the category of literal non-being or Pure Nothingness.


[[An argument that gives a person 'only two' flawed options is illogical and self refuting]] - First of all let me just say that I completely agree with this claim. Luckily however, "The Elliott Argument" does not do this. "The Elliott Argument" actually shows there are three original options, not just two, and "atheists" are the ones who make the choice to deny one of the three. Which in turn leaves them with only two flawed options.

So the problem here is that the atheist has really misrepresented what the argument truly says. The reality is, the argument states "atheists" only have two options for the existence of our universe. (Meaning they are the ones who have chosen a position which leaves them with only two options). Before they chose such a position however, they were actually presented with three options, not two. The other option of course being the UC option, which the atheist has decided to deny or disbelieve in. (See P2 and P3 of the formal argument to see what is actually said about the UC option.)


Going back to "The Elliott Argument", this is similar to when a person choses the atheistic position for themself. By doing so they have narrowed their choices down to only two. Thus, essentially pinning themselves down and boxing themselves into an illogical corner all on their own. It is misleading and dishonest to claim "The Elliott Argument" provides a person with only have two flawed options and then asks them to pick. It clearly does not. The argument points out that when a person (like an atheist) chooses to deny or disbelieve in one of the three available options, they in fact are left with only two illogical and irrational ones. Thus, it's the "atheist" who has selected this flawed position (narrowed three choices down to two) all on their own. The argument is not responsible for such a choice.




It quickly becomes apparent that this is very different than providing someone with only two illogical options and making them pick. As it pertains to the refrigerator analogy, you can picture it like this:: Originally atheists had another refrigerator to select their drinks from. All on their own they decided that they would only drink from one refrigerator which had only two deadly drinks. Not very smart!! So in fact "atheists" are the ones that did it to themselves. "The Elliott Argument" is just pointing out the fact that these kind of people have chosen an irrational stance and decided to put themselves in a horrible bind.
So in conclusion to this rebuttal we learn that "The Elliott Argument" is not irrational and illogical nor is it self refuting for all the reasons previously mentioned. Giving someone two flawed options and telling them they have to pick, is a flawed unsound argument. Luckily "The Elliott Argument" does not do this. "The Elliott Argument" assumes a person is actually presented with three options, and it's their own doing if they wish to deny or disbelieve in one. In this case essentially denying #3 and leaving themselves with #1 and #2 (Gasoline and Bleach.)


[[Revision of the [[Kalam Cosmological Argument -KCA]] - "The Elliott Argument''' is fairly new compared to many other apologetic arguments and some have interpreted it to be a similar, or a re-worked version of the [[Kalam Cosmological Argument]]. ''Mr. Elliott'' likes to bring up 4 main points which differenciates his argument from the KCA.
1.) The arguments have a completely different structure.
2.) The arguments have completely different premises.
3.) '''The Elliott Argument''' makes the claim that atheism is irrational illogical and has no evidence without making any claims about the existence or validity of God. While the KCA on the other hand is designed to prove a God must exist.

4.) The arguments have two completely different conclusions.


So as we see The Elliott Argument and the KCA are two completely different arguments.



[[Abstract Concepts/Objects]] - Anyone who brings up abstract objects/concepts as an apparent cause of our physical universe clearly has no idea what they are talking about. Examples of abstract objects would be things such as, numbers, sets, redness, musical compositions, information, propositions, scientific laws, the equator, properties, etc. 

First of all its important to point out that there is no such thing as uncreated abstract objects. (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral-values-and-abstract-objects). Secondly it's important to point out that abstract objects cannot cause anything to exist. In other words , they lack casual powers. They in fact are casually impotent, they cannot stand in casual relations. Their essential casual impotence serves to distinguish abstract objects from entities which just happen to be casually isolated in our world. They describe causes in our universe, but they themselves are not causes.


Something like energy on the other hand, is by definition NOT an abstract object/idea or concept. Rather it is a real tangible/concrete item which does in fact possess casual powers.

So what does all this mean? It means a few things. First of all abstract objects cannot create anything!! Meaning an abstract object or object(s), cannot be responsible for the existence of our physical universe. Plain and simple!! It also means when someone claims "energy" is an abstract object and draws an equation such as 0(energy) + (energy) = 0 (and claims the "zeros" are abstract ideas) they have essentially contradicted themselves. How?? Well first of all one must remember that all numbers are abstract objects. No just zeros. Secondly, energy by definition NOT and abstract object. So you cannot put the two together in this way without changing definitions and or facing the fallacy of equivocation.


Either you have zeros (which are abstract), OR, you have energy which is not abstract. If you want to put the two together and claim they are together (as a whole) abstract, then you fail. The only way you could be successful is to use the regular definitions. Which is that energy is not an abstract idea or object, but a regular tangible/concrete thing. In fact it is true that all the known positive and negative energy in the universe balances its self out and does equals zero.


Also an equation like the one presented fails for other obvious reason. This being that energy is not pure nothingness or literal non being. Therefore, this equation would not be a valid representation of SCPN, even if the claim is made that the energy was an abstract concept or idea. By definition even an idea or concept is in fact something.


The equation also fails because if someone claims the zero energy in the equation is an abstract concept/object or idea, then they have essentially defeated themselves because we know abstract objects have no casual powers and cannot create anything.


And finally we see that an equation such as [[0(energy) + 0(energy) = 0]] actually proves nothing, but actually makes a logically incoherant claim...Energy + Energy = Literal non-being...(The sum at the end of the equation is Zero, and the claimant must remember zeros in a pure nothingness hypothesis represent literal non being!!) But we know energy cannot be created or destroyed thanks to the first law of thermodynamics. So assuming you add two energies together and achieve literal non-being is nonsensical and irrational at best. However, if the person sticks to their claims that the energy is just an abstract concept or idea, then what have they proven? Nothing. They have shown with there equation that when you add two abstract ideas/concepts together that the outcome is pure nothingness. Therefore such an equation is shot down and sent to rest.






[[The Timelessness of the UC option]] - If you go back beyond the beginning of time itself, there is simply eternity. By that, I mean eternity in the sense of timelessness. God, the eternal, is timeless in his being. God did not endure through an infinite amount of time up to the moment of creation; that would be absurd. God transcends time. He’s beyond time. Once God creates the universe, he can enter into time, but that’s a different topic altogether.

God, existing changelessly, alone without the universe, is timeless. Time comes into existence at creation and so has a beginning and is finite in the past. God, in virtue of  his real relation to the temporal world, becomes temporal at the moment of creation. So God exists timelessly without creation and temporally since the moment of creation. For example, a man sitting from eternity could will to stand up; thus, a temporal effect arises from an eternally existing agent. Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have willed to bring the world into being at that moment. In this way, God could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. By “choose” one need not mean that the Creator changes His mind but the He freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning.

1) There is no moment prior to creation. Rather time begins at creation. This is the classical Christian view, as defended, for example, by Augustine. On this view, it is logically incoherent to ask, “What was God doing prior to creation?” because “prior to creation” implies a moment before creation, which the view denies. So the question is asking, “What happened at a moment of time before the first moment of time?”, which makes no sense. It’s like asking, “What is the name of that bachelor’s wife?” Now some theists have disagreed with the classical view. Isaac Newton, the founder of modern physics, for example, believed that time is infinite in the past and never had a beginning. For Newton absolute time just is God’s duration. Because God has always existed, time goes back and back and never had a beginning. So on Newton’s view, it makes perfect sense to ask, “What was God doing prior to creation?” In fact, the philosopher G. W. Leibniz, who held to the Augustinian view, tormented Newton’s follower Samuel Clarke in their celebrated correspondence with the question, “Why (on Newton’s view) didn’t God create the world sooner?” This question is very difficult to answer from a Newtonian point of view (see my discussion in Time and Eternity [Crossway, 2001]). Whichever view you take, I think you can see that there’s a huge difference between holding that God exists timelessly without creation and holding that He has endured through an infinite past time prior to the moment of creation.

2) Yes, speaking of a moment “before” the moment of creation does imply time before time, which is incoherent on the Augustinian view I defend. But notice that I don’t use that word in your quotation from my interview with Lee. In my early work, I thought people would understand, once I explained my view, that the expression “before creation” is just a harmless façon de parler (manner of speaking), not to be taken literally. But in light of the confusion engendered by the phrase, I have since been very careful to avoid it, speaking rather of God’s existing without (or sans) creation or existing beyond, though not before, the Big Bang. One nice way of expressing God’s priority to creation is to say that God is causally but not temporally prior to the beginning of the universe.

3) My thought experiment (about the man sitting in the chair) is meant to illustrate a point about freedom of the will. A person can exist changelessly and then freely execute a certain intention because free will doesn’t require any antecedent determining conditions. The very nature of free will is the absence of causal determinants. So a free choice has the appearance of a purely spontaneous event. The man can simply freely will to stand up. Thus, you can get a temporal effect from a changeless cause, if that cause is a free agent. Now in God’s case, God exists changelessly without the universe. Creation is a freely willed act of God that, when it occurs, brings time into being along with the universe. Thus, to say that “a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have willed to bring the world into being at that moment” does not imply that there was time prior to that moment.

4) What timelessness entails is that one doesn’t do anything different, that is, that one does not change. Timelessness implies an unchanging state of being. Now some activities don’t require change and time. For example, knowing something doesn’t require change or time. God can know all truths in that timeless state without any change. Similarly, one can have unchanging intentions. So long as one’s intentions don’t change they can be timelessly held. That’s why I said that God can exist without the universe with a timeless intention to create a world with a beginning. One can love someone else without change. Here we have insight into the nature of the love relationship between the three persons of the Trinity in that timeless state without creation. There exists a perfect, changeless state of mutual of knowledge, will, and love between the persons of the Trinity without the creation. (The wonder of creation is that God would bother to create a world of creatures and invite them to freely enter the joy of that fellowship as adopted children!)

5) Yes, by “choose” I mean that God has a free intention of His will. Its timelessness does not negate that this is, indeed, a choice. For one can conceive of possible worlds in which God has a quite different intention, namely, to refrain from creating a world at all. Initially, I thought that this was all that was needed to explain the origin of the world; but reflecting on agent causation leads me to think that in addition to that timeless intention there must also be an exercise of causal power on God’s part. That act is simultaneous with the moment of creation - indeed, it just is the act of creating - and brings God into time. If you ask, “But why didn’t God execute His intention sooner?”, you’ve fallen back into the Newtonian view of thinking of God as existing temporally prior to creation. On the Augustinian view, the question is unintelligible.


http://www.reasonablefaith.org/creation-and-time#ixzz2HejWTkQg
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-time-and-creation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt2lueTLHF4

So if God is timeless, he is also unchanging, but it does not follow that he cannot change. I’d say that He can change and if He were to do so, He would cease to be timeless. And that’s exactly what I think He did. Whether God is timeless or temporal is a contingent property of God, dependent upon His will. What is impossible is changing while remaining timeless. But it seems to me that a timeless being can change and thereby cease to be timeless. (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-timelessness#ixzz2CEarjqjd

This is to say that God is timeless and has a timeless intention to create. When his will, and timeless intention to create is realized, he is no longer unchanging. Therefore at that very moment when this intention manifested is when time essentially begins.

Brian Leftow argues that a temporal God could not be the creator of time and that therefore God should be conceived as timeless. Leftow's first argument, that there is no time at which a temporal God could act to create time fails because God could act at any time t to create t or, alternatively, could act at t in such a way as to be responsible for time existing prior to t. Leftow's second argument, that a temporal God could not have decided at any time t whether time should have a beginning or not fails because Leftow erroneously presupposes that in order for God to be responsible for time's topological properties, there must have been a time at which He made such a decision


Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/timelessness-and-creation#ixzz2CEdIkIcm


[[Do we have to defend the UC options validity for TEA to stand?]] - This is still unclear, however before I begin, let me just say that defending the UC option is not a problem. In regards to the origin of the universe, we can easily defend the logic and reasoning of a UC option and also present evidence for one. The question is should we have to do so in order for TEA to remain valid? If the answer to that question is no, then it's a pointless conversation to have with an opponent who is trying to defeat TEA.

So let us take a closer look at this. First of all, its important to remember that the argument itself (TEA), makes no claims about the existence or validity of the UC option.  That is to say in no premise does the argument make any positive or negative claims about the UC option. The UC is only presented to the reader of the argument as an option which atheists have. Which by definition they choose to deny or disbelieve in. Once TEA is proven, then the reader can draw any conclusions, or make any assumptions they want about a UC option.


Let us look at this hypothetical situation known as 3 choice logic, which deals with things that are good for you to eat. Imagine hypothetically you had a candy bar, an ice cream cone, and a banana, and that one of them logically has to be good for you. I tell you that you can eat any two of the three you want, but only two. Now hypothetically again, imagine you chose the candy bar and the ice cream cone...After you made your choice,  I prove to you that both were bad for you!!...But, I never said anything about the banana. Nothing at all!!!....Would that mean that the banana must therefore be good for you?? Possibly, but we never made any claims about the banana.  The only validity of the banana was established by making claims about the other two options. It could very well be the case  however, that as of today the banana was also considered bad for you, and could be proven as such. Meaning modern medicine hadn't been able to identify which one of the 3 was good for you, only that all three seemed to be equally bad. It would be sometime before we find out which of the three were actually good.  At best this would just leave someone with agnosticism, as all three (UC, STE, and SCPN) would all be considered flawed. That does not invalidate TEA however, as atheism would still have been proven incorrect, and its conclusion would still stand. The Elliott Argument itself makes no positive claims about the validity of the banana (UC option). NONE! It's only presented as an option which atheists choose to throw out. After this happens, and TEA is established as sound and valid, then we prove that the banana is in fact good for you with further argumentation.


So basically I would like to submit an OPEN INVITATION for anyone to prove to ME why (as it pertains solely to using The Elliott Argument in debate) that the UC option must be defended. I have yet to see or hear a reason why one would need to bring that into a debate while utilizing TEA, as TEA itself makes no outright claims about the validity of a UC option.

[[PROVE GOD IS Spaceless and timeless]] - TEA makes no claims about God or Gods existence so we have no burden of proof in this regard. God (the UC option) is simply presented as a defined term which atheists (by definition) must deny. For that reason, when we define God as spaceless, timeless, and immaterial, we do not have to prove that he is those things, rather all we have to do is prove that atheists deny such a being. That being said, we can prove God must necessarily be spaceless and timeless.

[[QMT| Not a third option]] - This option was presented by the people over at New Apologetics in a weak attempt to try and defeat TEA. “Quantum Minds Theory” or QMT for short, basically is defined as a vast multitude of non-spatiotemporal minds. These non-spatiotemporal minds exist as uncreated beings (in a manner similar to how God’s one mind can exist uncreated). None of these minds is worthy of worship individually, and neither are they collectively worthy of worship as (let's assume) they are in opposition to each other and do not possess any unified intent.  The beginning of physical space and time could be caused by one of these minds freely altering its intentions. Such a change is the first event, and therefore the beginning of time. It is logically possible that time may be metaphysically inextricable from space, matter, and energy such that the beginning of one entails the concomitant beginning of the others by sheer metaphysical necessity.

The answer:  This option (QMT) which has been presented, without a shadow of a doubt falls under the UC option because it carries the exact same definition. Therefore it is not a new third option at all.  If one takes a look at this (QMT) option more closely, they will see that the Non-spatiotemporal minds my opponent speaks of, were also defined as being spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncreated, supernatural, personal minds.  This is the exact same definition as he UC option!  If a bunch of them exist (as many of these minds as there are quarks and leptons combined (any finite number equal to or higher than the number of constituent particles in the universe my opponent claims), that certainly means that ONE of them exist.  Not to mention that one of them was specifically designated as the single mind who freely kick starts the process of creating our entire universe.

We must remember that theists believe in many different types of GODS, with many different powers, limitations, and definitions. They are all still considered Gods!! All of which, atheists, by definition must deny or disbelieve exist. Once broken down, the (QMT) option clearly falls under our UC category. It's a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal mind who freely decided to create our universe and had an influence in the product. It is irrelevant that the QMT was not all knowing or all powerful, as many Gods have many different attributes and characteristics. That does not mean they are not Gods. The second point here, on top of that, is that your opponent may claim that this personal mind (QMT) who created the Universe, is also not worthy of praise. This is purely subjective, not to mention absurd. If a QMT existed, and was responsible for the creation of our Universe, then certainly many people would praise him and believe he was worthy of such adoration...Finally we see that even though this option fails to defeat TEA, and falls under the UC option, notice the asinine propositions someone has to go through just to attempt to refute it. THAT ALONE SHOULD PROVE HOW AWESOME AND STRONG IT HAS BECOME!!


In conclusion we see fairly quickly that rebuttals such as these fall flat and have not challenged "The Elliott Argument" on any front.

== Notes ==


''The Elliott Argument'' has never been defeated and in over 750 formal online debates it remains virtually unchallenged. I have an open debate challenge for any atheist in the world that can be seen here -
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4DtnkBxCI4)

**I will debate any atheist in the world and welcomes any and all challengers. If interested or would like further information, I can be reached via email inquiry at::

Comments

  1. You forgot one logical statement atheists have Space-Time Eternal plus MATTER IS ETERNAL you can not destroy matter only change it from one type to another so the universe formed because space-time and matter always have and always will exist at some point in time two articles of matter while moving along happened to collide creating a new form of matter with slightly more gravity this chain of events continues to this day and will continue for all eternity

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong. I didnt forget that at all. That falls under the category STE. If spacetime is eternal and matter is eternal that still means spacetime is eternal. lol. Thats STE! So you have not presented a third option. There is no evidence for STE and Its also irrational illogical and has no evidence. You lose!

      Delete
  2. Wrong. I didnt forget that at all. That falls under the category STE. If spacetime is eternal and matter is eternal that still means spacetime is eternal. lol. Thats STE! So you have not presented a third option. There is no evidence for STE and Its also irrational illogical and has no evidence. You lose!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I reject the first premise. Why is STE irrational?

    I apologize if you addressed this in your post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its not just irrational...STE is irrational, illogical, and has no evidence...All of that is covered in the blog. Thank you for taking the time to stop by.

      Delete
  4. I read through a portion of this and it's definately thought through and fascinating. My question is: if nothing comes from nothing, and I do believe there is no such thing as pure nothingness, then how do you suppose God came into being? He is obviously an intelligient being with the ability to think, feel and create or that is my premise anyhow. Of course if we had this answer, there would be no God. But I just wondered if you had any ideas or possible explanations?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. //if nothing comes from nothing, and I do believe there is no such thing as pure nothingness, then how do you suppose God came into being?//

      God doesn't come into being. He is eternal in the past without beginning.

      //He is obviously an intelligient being with the ability to think, feel and create or that is my premise anyhow.//

      Yes God is a personal mind

      //Of course if we had this answer, there would be no God//

      Not sure I follow you here

      Delete
    2. "God doesn't come into being. He is eternal in the past without beginning."

      How is that not special pleading?

      Delete
    3. Nordel...Because God is neither STE or SCPN. If we claimed STE and SCPN were invalid and then said God was STE or SCPN and its ok for him, then that would be special pleading. We don't do that.

      Delete
  5. Your blog openly challenges atheists to a debate - can I as a theist debate against you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure...Please inbox us at COL for details or my direct email.

      Delete
  6. Excellent work. Amazing how people still have the gall to challenge pure logic. Astounding.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey Chad, love the blog - was just wondering have you ever submitted your argument to any philosophy schools or organised debates?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1.) Tried to contact numerous people and also send in for peer review. No response given. Perhaps you can submit to some reputable sources you know. 2.) Would love to see this argument start to take foot in organized debating circles.

      Delete
  8. How do you know that something cannot come from 'pure nothingness'? Just because there's no evidence for it, it doesn't mean it's not possible (and let's face it, there isn't much 'pure nothingness' available to test right now).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We recommend the following 7 points in refuting anyone who attempts to make a stand for SCPN...

      A. No reason to believe that PN has ever existed or could ever be achieved.

      B. PN has no creative powers.

      C. PN cannot be Discriminatory - If something can come from PN then everything can.

      D. Certain mathematical absolutes cannot be undermined. You cannot divide ZERO, 0+0=0, 0-0=0, and 0X0=0. Atheists may say that's true but, -1+1=0. The problem is in a PN Hypothesis you don't get a -1 or a +1 to add together. Atheists may also claim that 0^0=1, but this is not a mathematical absolute (More information for this can be found in the common rebuttals section).

      E. There is NO EVIDENCE, scientific or otherwise, which supports the claim that something can in fact come from PN. All the evidence points to the contrary view.

      F. It would break the law of cause and effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality)

      G. It would break the law of uniformity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism)

      Delete
  9. hey mate. i have a question. i found a pic that says "why does the universe need a creator?, if u can say with no evidence God does not need a creator then i can say the universe does not need a creator either" is it ok to tell them that the universe does need a creator as it is bounded by space and time therefore it cant be causeless?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good Question. The answer is that you have to remember God is a defined option. He is defined as a space-less, timeless, immaterial, uncreated, personal mind. Therefore he does not fall under the acronym STE. It doesn't matter if there is tons of evidence for this position or no evidence at all because he is still a defined option. That definition cannot change!! The same with the Universe. It is also a defined thing. However, the difference is that the Universe is a physical place, where things exist, time passes, there is space, etc...This means that if the universe were uncreated/eternal in the past (without a TRUE BEGINNING) it would fall under the category of STE.

      Delete
  10. There is a third option: I do not know. Science is steadily working to get the answer. Until then we are left without the step by step you request.

    Further, how do we know God (Christian) created all of this? Maybe it was founded in the remains of a large troll and overseen by Odin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look back at the blog and you will see a section that talks about people saying I DONT KNOW. I think we covered it very well.

      Secondly, this argument is an argument for the existence of the Christian God, rather it is simply an argument to defeat atheism.

      Delete
    2. You can't defeat atheism unless you prove your god exists. Everything else is irrelevant.

      Delete
    3. If you actually read the blog you will see that THE GOLD FLIP proves God exists. Also if Atheism had been proven invalid, guess what that means for God :). Yea, it means he necessarily exists. Thank you

      Delete
  11. This was an interesting and fairly substantiated argument. And it is hard if not close to impossible to argue many of the conclusions. Currently, there are but two options as presented and I cannot make a claim against either. However, the claim that in 10,000 years there will still be no other options seems presumptuous at best. In the short amount of "relative" time we appear to have been studying nature and its laws we have often been forced give up one conclusion in favor of another. Simple conclusions like the heliocentric or geocentric models took many years to be proven and debated until the larger truth was uncovered - until we with our limited technology of the time could "see" it and the math available could prove it.
    Despite the fact that we revel in our techno-laden world where will be in 10,000 years considering the advancements made and the current rate at which we do so, in 10,000 years it is plausible that we may indeed find a more universal law that affects our understand of time, mathematics, matter or energy. I am not aware of any major recent discoveries that challenge these but considering the time frame posited, it is possible. In no more than 2000 years our understanding of the world around us has led us to understand the complex nature of continually complex things. And as our understanding has grown, the complexity has also grown. As a function of time, perhaps the time needed to uncover a new idea about the universe increases as the complexity of the problem posed increases i.e. moving from atoms to subatomic particles. Not to mention the needed element of brilliant mind a la Einstein.
    In any logical argument, we are forced to argue the case and present evidence that is based on laws and facts and it is what makes logic work. However, the argument is only as strong as the law it is based on. It may not be probable or possible but these laws contain within them the possibility of change.
    We only see two options currently because at best this is all we can see. It will without a doubt take an enormous and revolutionary discovery - earth-shattering feels appropriate - to alter our current understanding and what we believe to be the laws of the universe but it might and could be possible - unless you argue that we understand all of the major points of the universe. Saussure, roughly summed up, stated that we can only define what something is not but never define something as it is. Nature may not be bound by his theory of linguistics but our ability to define, argue and ultimately understand is, at present, limited in these terms. Natural laws define what something does by effect telling us what something cannot do. And when we live in a world defined by what is not possible we limit ourselves - until the ones who disagree come along and we are amazed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fail...

      THREE FUN FACTS

      1. It’s impossible that a 3rd option for atheists EVER be presented. In ten million years, atheists only two options will still be STE and SCPN. If you claim a false dichotomy you have to prove it otherwise you are just making baseless assertions. The way the two acronyms have been defined makes it so they cover every possible scenario that could arise.

      2. There is no possible scenario, scientific evidence, or philosophical understanding which could arise in the future that would prove STE a logical concept. Infinite regress will always remain an issue. This can NEVER change.



      3. There is no possible scenario, scientific evidence, or philosophical understanding which could arise in the future that would prove SCPN to be correct. Pure nothingness cannot be tested for, and even if we did find something which ‘appears’ to pop into being uncaused from PN, we cannot be sure that it has. Moreover, we would still be stuck with all inherent problems of accepting Pure Nothingness hypothesis. These can NEVER change.


      If the atheist still disagrees, they would have to answer the 7 fundamental questions about how his proposed third option was responsible for our Universes' existence. If they fail to do so then they have asserted they have a third option, but because they did not define it, they could not prove it so.

      Again, we begin our questioning with these 7 fundamentals....

      1.) Where does your option exist before it creates our Universe?
      2.) What are its properties/what is it made of?
      3.) Give me a step by step process of how this option created our physical universe, starting with step 1 being "our universe did not exist".
      4.) Is your option eternal in the past or did it begin to exist at some point?
      5.) Does your option have thinking capabilities/some kind of mind?
      6.) Why didn't your option create the universe sooner?
      7.) What change happened inside of it, or to it, to make it create, if it didn't have a personal mind to withhold the intention?

      Delete
  12. Question for you. Did this god create the universe out of his own body? If you say yes, then that means that his body is made up of some form of matter and for matter to exist eternally, then "space time eternal" has to be a viable and acceptable argument. However, if you say no, then that means he created the universe and all of the matter contained within it out of pure nothingness; that would mean that "something created from pure nothingness" has to be a viable and acceptable argument. This is strange seeing as you condemn both arguments as scientifically impossible.

    I wouldn't suggest either as possible either, and will in fact claim that I don't know what happened before the birth of our universe. In fact, I really don't care about what happened before it. The past is the past and I would rather live in the present and look to the future. Sure it would be cool to know what created the universe, but we may never know in our life time and I'm fine with the possibility that I might not know. I'm not going to bash you for believing what you want to believe, but please don't bash other people's beliefs either which is exactly what you are doing (whether you mean to or not) with this egotistical argument of yours. Whether God exists or not, we live in a universe of endless possibilities. Why squander that potential fighting about who is right and wrong about a subject that won't even matter until the day we die?

    I mean, don't get me wrong. I could sit here and try to hold an intellectual debate with you all day long. The problem is that you can never change my beliefs and I can never change yours. I would rather speak to you on more friendly terms, conversing about sports, the future of technology, about this television show or that novel that one of us might opine is a modern day classic. After all, why would you want to argue when you can enjoy a friendly chat about the small things in life?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would love to answer your question and clear up any misconceptions you may have. First of all we need understand that God is an immaterial personal mind. So that takes care of your first option. He does not have a material body where 'matter' exists eternally in the past. Secondly God is not defined as Pure Nothingness. This means that when he creates the universe, this action does not fall under SCPN because nothing (including the Universe) ever COMES FROM PURE NOTHINGNESS, rather it comes from the immaterial personal mind which is God.

      So I believe your question is how does a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal mind create a material Universe. You seem to believe that the only way this can happen is if God were either material, or things come from PN. This is simply untrue and can be proven to be an incoherent statement, not to mention a false dichotomy.

      For more information and a detailed answer to your question please see the following....

      https://www.facebook.com/notes/creationism-and-the-origin-of-life/how-an-immaterial-mind-can-create-a-material-universe/648336441888904

      TEA (The Elliott Argument) cannot be defeated and your position of atheism has been proven incorrect. Its over. If you want to talk about sports or the weather that's fine, but just know that if you're an atheist you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself. God bless!

      Delete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "STE LAW: If time exists infinitely in the past without true beginning, we can never arrive at our current position in time."

    Yet, you claim that God exists infinitely in the past?

    Also, there is no law saying that something cannot exist eternally... I would like to see the logical argument for why time can't be eternal. If it cannot be eternal, from whence cometh God?

    According to your "theory", it actually makes more sense for the universe to be created simply by probability laws, as it would take no arbitrary, conscious decision to define when to create the universe. If God existed in infinity, it would be conscious, and therefore any decision in "infinity" would require an arbitrary point at which to say "now", which the point you were trying to make refutes quite well (i.e. if time is eternal, one can never arrive at a decision in time).

    However, if there is no conscious decision to create a universe, rather there is simply existence of energy and all it requires is a certain size threshold to surpass, then there is no "decision", rather, simply a reaction to random fluctuations in size, with infinite amount of time to break the threshold. As long as it can happen, it will.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. God exists infinitely in the past and doesn't face the same problems as STE because God is spaceless and timeless. Time cannot be eternal without true beginning because of infinite regress. We cover this extensively throughout the blog. The fact that you would even ask such a basic question shows you haven't done your homework.

      For more on the timelessness of God (which was also covered in the blog) see here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/creationism-and-the-origin-of-life/the-timelessness-of-god/440043062718244

      Delete
    2. To answer the second part of your question, we know that the cause of the Universe must be personal. This was also covered in the blog. For more information see here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/creationism-and-the-origin-of-life/why-the-cause-of-the-universe-must-be-personal/668428909879657

      Delete
  15. How can you be certain that your christian god made everything and not Vishnu for example?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Elliott Argument is NOT an argument for any particular God...Rather, It's an argument that defeats atheism.

      Delete
  16. If God simply always existed:
    The problem with the logic that God always existed, and never had a first cause, is that there's no way to distinguish whether the universe always existed without a first cause. How do I know that God simply always existed vs the possibility that the universe always existed?

    If what existed before God was nothing, and God had a beginning with a first cause, then consider this scenario:
    If there's a God, and I meet him in the afterlife, I would ask him to explain how he came into existence from nothing. Because if 0+0=0, and that mathematical conjecture is used to say that the universe could not have come from nothing, then that exact same line of reasoning could be used to say that God could not have come from nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patrick you seemed to have conjured up some irrational conclusions. Let me help you.

      1.) God is spaceless and timeless before creating the Universe. At which point he becomes temporal. All of this is included in the blog. The eternal universe theory on the other hand cannot be true because it falls under STE. Please see [[Why does the UC option have to be personal]] and [[The timelessness of God]] above.

      2.) God doesn't come into existence from pure nothingness. God is eternal, which means he never began to exist. Thus the 0+0 mathematical absolute is not applicable.

      *NICE TRY, but TEA cannot be defeated and atheism is DEAD!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chad Elliott The Atheist Killa

Progressive Community Church Stockton, Ca. is DANGEROUS (Open Letter)