The Peachtree Argument (Official)



**Under heavy contruction (Check back soon)



*The Peachtree

The formal Argument:
1- IF YOU ARE GIVEN TWO OPTIONS (ONE OF WHICH IS CORRECT), AND YOU PURPOSELY SELECT THE OPTION WHICH IS IRRATIONAL ILLOGICAL AND HAS NO EVIDENCE, THEN YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY BEING DISHONEST
2- IF YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY BEING DISHONEST, THEN YOU ARE A LIAR
3- ATHEISTS ARE GIVEN TWO OPTIONS (ONE OF WHICH IS CORRECT), YET THEY PURPOSELY SELECT THE OPTION THAT IS IRRATIONAL ILLOGICAL AND HAS NO EVIDENCE.
T- ATHEISTS ARE LIARS


Defending the premises:

*First of all its important to note that the two options we are referring to in the is argument are, 'there is a god' and 'there is no God'. One of these options must be correct and there is no other choice.  Secondly from the Elliott argument, we know that choosing the option ‘there is no God’,  would be irrational illogical and have no evidence. To defeat this statement one would have to be able to defeat The Elliott Argument, which as of today has never been done.

[[Defending Premise 1]] - We must point out why it's knowingly and purposely dishonest to select the irrational, illogical option which has no evidence. The key word here is select. Imagine for a moment you are taking a test. You know for an absolute fact that you only have two options and one of them must be correct. One of the choices, lets call it choice (B), has been proven throughout the semester to be irrational, illogical and have no evidence. The other option, choice (A), can be proven through science, philosophy, mathematics, logic, reason, and formal argumentation to be more than plausible, however you still have not seen choice A physically with your own eyes. Now this is where being an atheist gets you in trouble. The agnostic would simply NOT SELECT either option and would  write a little note to his teacher under the answer which read, "Sorry, I did not feel there was enough evidence either way to adequately answer this question so I left it blank. Please forgive me. The theist would of course choose option (A) and support their answer to the teacher by reminding he/she that one of the two answers had to be right. This response my sound like this, "Option (B) was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be irrational, illogical, and have no evidence to support it.  Choice (A) on the other hand had more than enough compelling support. Therefore teacher, we feel as though we are more than justified in selecting the option we did." The atheist on the other hand has no answers for the teacher and cannot explain why he choose the answer he choose. He selected choice (B) fully knowing that it was irrational, illogical, and had no evidence. The teacher asks the student, "Why would you do such a thing? Throughout this semester I made it more than clear that choice (B) could be proven invalid by using science, mathematics, philosophy, logic, etc. Yet you still chose it? This is what we call being purposely and intellectually dishonest. Get out of my classroom."


WHY IS ATHEISM IRRATIONAL AND ILLOGICAL? BECAUSE CHOOSING THE ATHEISTIC POSTITION BOXES A PERSON INTO A CORNER AND LEAVES THEM WITH ONLY TWO incorrect OPTIONS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE...STE AND SPCN...(SPACE TIME ETERNAL) AND (SOMETHING CAN COME FROM PURE NOTHINGNESS AND THEN CREATE ENTIRE UNIVERSES). WHY ARE STE AND SCPN IRRATIONAL AND ILLOGICAL? WELL THAT CAN BE SHOW TO BE THE CASE NUMEROUS WAYS...WE CAN PROVE THIS FACT USING SCIENCE, EVIDENCE, PHILOSOPHY, MATHEMATICS, LOGIC, REASON, AND FORMAL ARGUMENTATION. 

IS IT TRUE THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR EITHER OF THEY OPTIONS?? YES THAT IS TRUE..THERE IS ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE OF EITHER ONE OF THESE OPTIONS.

WHY CANT AN ATHEIST COME UP WITH A THIRD OPTION? ITS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. THEY CAN TRY BUT THE WAY THE TWO ACRONYMS HAVE BEEN DEFINED IT  BECOMES AND IMPOSSIBLE TASK. WE ALSO HAVE A REWARD FOR ANYONE WHO CAN PROVE THIS ARGUMENT OR THE ELLIOTT ARGUMENT IS A FALSE DICHOTOMY.


Common Rebuttals:

[[This argument can be flipped around and used on theists]] - this argument cannot be flipped around and used on theists because the option ‘there is a god’ can be proven rational, logical.  Not only that, but a God is necessary for the existence of the universe. Not only that, but all the probabilities point to there being some kind of creator. Not only that but the probability of there not being a creator makes it a mathematic impossibility...the universe is finely tuned to a razors edge and there is not evidence that any other universes other than our own actually exist. Not only that , but there is evidence for God. Not only that, but there are formal argument that prove a god exists.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Elliott Argument (Official)

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

Chad Elliott The Atheist Killa