Peter Godfrey UNHINGED
The following article was written by a Mr. Peter Godfrey. He has been humiliated and destroyed by COL and the Atheist Killa (me) multiple times while consistently refusing our challenges for live debate. It has just been brought to our attention however, that Mr. Godfrey recently submitted a formal refutation to TEA (The Elliott Argument). If he ever changes he mind and wants to accept our live debate challenge we would be more than happy to publically dismantle him. Thanks for visiting....
The Godfrey rebuttal can be seen here in its entirety. http://pgodfrey.blogspot.com/2013/01/lesson-6-elliott-argument.html. Although laughable, I find it entertaining to destroy illogical nonsense on my down time, and thus have decided to address this particular article. Enjoy....
[[Apparently Mr. Godfrey has written numerous blogs, all of which seem to be similarly fallacious in nature, so this will be our only mention of him. On the following page we will thoroughly dismantle Mr. Godfey and offer our refutation to the many errors he has presented. God Bless]]
If you don't know what TEA is, it can be seen here. http://theatheistkilla.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-elliott-argument-official.html
**As usual We have decided to respond to the article line for line, word for word. Everything inside BLACK will be directly copied from the Godfrey article and will be followed with our refutation in // BLUE //. God Bless. If anyone thinks they can defeat TEA please contact us.**
LETS US BEGIN....
Elliott; I will now unpack and defeat The Elliott Argument.
//LOL. I think what you mean is that you are going to try to defeat TEA but fail miserably//
P1 - Both ''STE'' and ''SCPNCEU'' are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence.
//'SCPNCEU' actually has been reduced to 'SCPN' but Ill let that slide for now, as more than likely you don't keep up on your apologetics. I stick by my claim that both STE and SCPN are illogical, irrational, incorrect, and have no evidence.//
With regard to your STE postulate, you appear to have shot yourself in the foot.
//Wrong...We have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that STE is not only illogical, irrational, and incorrect, but also has no supporting evidence. No self inflicted gun shot wounds here champ.//
In your exegesis, you state that, “[t]ime was existing prior to the expansion of the singularity or no change could have occurred…”
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!! AMAZING!!
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.
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, matter, and moving particles (such as the singularity is defined) , even if infinitely dense, 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, 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 and 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 in the BB model go from its non-expanding state, to a state where it expanded? The atheist will undoubtably 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.
(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 values. Energy 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 am 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.
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.
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?? //
Einstein’s SR theory postulates that space and time are a continuum, and experimental and observational evidence strongly supports this contention.
//AHHH, I agree!!! I Iove Einstein's work and the theory of SR is absolutely amazing!! Not only is it amazing, it fits in perfectly with TEA!! 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!! This doesn't mean however that STE is therefore a rational position, it just means that the two are linked. In other words, you haven't proven STE a rational concept, rather all you have shown is that one existing independently without the other is logically absurd. I agree with this, as we know for a fact that the two are intrinsically woven together forming a four-dimensional fabric called "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. 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. 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 could be undermined, goes against all known science, reasoning, and logic. 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.
Space-time is one thing, not two separate entities. 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. 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 could be undermined, goes against all known science, reasoning, and logic. 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.
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)
(http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html)
Here are some more good references on spacetime if you need them ::
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-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/)
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".(http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/)
Arthur Schopenhauer wrote [[On the Fourfold Root of the Principla of Sufficient Reason(1813):]]..."The respresentation 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.
For more on SR see this from our official blog...
[[Special Relativity|SR]] – (Wikipedia) - 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".
Mr. Elliott replies, “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) //
According to your statement quoted above, space (or space/time) must have existed prior to the Big Bang. How, then, can you make the claim that STE (Space-Time Eternal) is “irrational, illogical, and [has] no evidence”
//Once we prove that spacetime existed in the Big Bang model prior to the expansion of the singularity, then we ask the atheist if that spacetime was eternal in the past without true beginning, did it come from somewhere else, or did it pop into being from Pure Nothingness. Once again they have become trapped. One must note - Just because we have shown that spacetime existed prior to the expansion of the singularity, IN NO WAY does that prove that STE is therefore a rational or logical position. We have only shown that spacetime was existing, not that it must be eternal in the past without true beginning. The origin of this initial spacetime then becomes the atheists main issue.//
Let me remind you that, in your own exegesis of the argument, you state that STE “is designed to be used in the ''broadest sense''. Meaning not just space-time in our universe, but also any other proposed universes, voids or deminsions (sic).” This immediately undermines your own argument, in that space/time MUST have existed prior to the Big Bang (and therefore MUST be eternal) if your theory is correct.
//FAIL...Again let me remind YOU, just because spacetime existed prior to the expansion of the singularity in the Big Bang model, that does not therefore mean that spacetime was eternal in the past without true beginning. It just means that it (spacetime) existed at that particular point. The issue for the atheist then becomes, where did that spacetime originate? As far as us defining STE in its "broadest since" to cover all other proposed universes, voids, dimensions, etc., this was done to ensure that a 3rd option can never be presented. In no way does it undermine the argument, rather seemingly it makes the argument so strong that it can never be defeated. Your claim is that because we have defined STE in its broadest since, that spacetime must therefore be eternal. FAIL!! Again this is a misrepresentation of the argument and an obvious error in Mr. Godfreys logic/reasoning skills. If I say Pepsi cannot be eternal in the past without true beginning, and then I show that Pepsi existed prior to the Big Bang, that doesn't mean that Pepsi was eternal in the past without true beginning, it just means Pepsi existed at that particular moment. The issue becomes where did that Pepsi come from. We know that it cannot be eternal in the past without true beginning (STE) and that it couldn't come from Pure Nothingness (SCPN). <<-------- Which need I remind you are the atheists only two options. Furthermore, if Pepsi existed in many universes, that would only show that well...Pepsi existed in many Universes. LOL!! We know that those Universes cannot be eternal in the past without true beginning (STE), and that they couldn't have come from Pure Nothingness (SCPN). You lose on every front, including proving to anyone that your brain actually works.
Let us look at something like Multi-Universe theory for a moment:
If this theory is simply an eternal cycle (of universe creating universe, creating universe, creating universe, without beginning) that it would logically fall under STE. Since in each of the previous universes there would in fact be some form of spacetime. The very act of 'universe creating universe' is in itself an event, and that all the universes ''would be causally connected'' if responsible for creating one another. Once this cycle has been proven to be STE then logically it can be concluded that it is incorrect. 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. What’s important to keep in mind is:
Mr. Elliott replies, “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) //
According to your statement quoted above, space (or space/time) must have existed prior to the Big Bang. How, then, can you make the claim that STE (Space-Time Eternal) is “irrational, illogical, and [has] no evidence”
//Once we prove that spacetime existed in the Big Bang model prior to the expansion of the singularity, then we ask the atheist if that spacetime was eternal in the past without true beginning, did it come from somewhere else, or did it pop into being from Pure Nothingness. Once again they have become trapped. One must note - Just because we have shown that spacetime existed prior to the expansion of the singularity, IN NO WAY does that prove that STE is therefore a rational or logical position. We have only shown that spacetime was existing, not that it must be eternal in the past without true beginning. The origin of this initial spacetime then becomes the atheists main issue.//
Let me remind you that, in your own exegesis of the argument, you state that STE “is designed to be used in the ''broadest sense''. Meaning not just space-time in our universe, but also any other proposed universes, voids or deminsions (sic).” This immediately undermines your own argument, in that space/time MUST have existed prior to the Big Bang (and therefore MUST be eternal) if your theory is correct.
//FAIL...Again let me remind YOU, just because spacetime existed prior to the expansion of the singularity in the Big Bang model, that does not therefore mean that spacetime was eternal in the past without true beginning. It just means that it (spacetime) existed at that particular point. The issue for the atheist then becomes, where did that spacetime originate? As far as us defining STE in its "broadest since" to cover all other proposed universes, voids, dimensions, etc., this was done to ensure that a 3rd option can never be presented. In no way does it undermine the argument, rather seemingly it makes the argument so strong that it can never be defeated. Your claim is that because we have defined STE in its broadest since, that spacetime must therefore be eternal. FAIL!! Again this is a misrepresentation of the argument and an obvious error in Mr. Godfreys logic/reasoning skills. If I say Pepsi cannot be eternal in the past without true beginning, and then I show that Pepsi existed prior to the Big Bang, that doesn't mean that Pepsi was eternal in the past without true beginning, it just means Pepsi existed at that particular moment. The issue becomes where did that Pepsi come from. We know that it cannot be eternal in the past without true beginning (STE) and that it couldn't come from Pure Nothingness (SCPN). <<-------- Which need I remind you are the atheists only two options. Furthermore, if Pepsi existed in many universes, that would only show that well...Pepsi existed in many Universes. LOL!! We know that those Universes cannot be eternal in the past without true beginning (STE), and that they couldn't have come from Pure Nothingness (SCPN). You lose on every front, including proving to anyone that your brain actually works.
Let us look at something like Multi-Universe theory for a moment:
If this theory is simply an eternal cycle (of universe creating universe, creating universe, creating universe, without beginning) that it would logically fall under STE. Since in each of the previous universes there would in fact be some form of spacetime. The very act of 'universe creating universe' is in itself an event, and that all the universes ''would be causally connected'' if responsible for creating one another. Once this cycle has been proven to be STE then logically it can be concluded that it is incorrect. 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. What’s important to keep in mind is:
(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.
(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.
William Lane Craig -
So we see that STE being defined in its "broadest since" doesn't hurt the argument, but strengthens it. //
You second postulate, SCPNCEU, is not a model that is accepted in any cosmological theory of the beginning of the Universe that I am aware of (if you know of any such theory, please present the paper), nor do I know of any Atheists who ascribe to such an idea. It seems that you have created this model yourself and attributed it to Atheism and Atheists generally without any evidence that it can be so ascribed. This is a classic straw-man argument and is therefore entirely without merit.
//MORE FAIL...It's not a strawman because even though we agree that SCPN is irrational illogical, incorrect, and has no evidence, it still remains an OPTION for atheists. Not a good one I agree, but still an option//
The obvious and most honest answer a non-theist can give is “I don’t know” when asked about the ultimate origin of the Universe, which is perfectly valid and represents a “third option”. This effectively demolishes premise 1 of this argument.
//AND MORE FAILURES FROM MR GODFREY...
So you think the words 'I DONT KNOW' could be responsible for the existence of our Universe?? Do ya huh, Mr. Godfrey?? LOL!! Prove it!! If you refuse, then you have not shown how the words IDK are a third option. Therefore you have not proven TEA a false dichotomy nor have you made any valid rebuttal.
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 'I DONT KNOW' 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 its 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 third option. It's still either his mother or his father. Simply saying 'IDK' does nothing except show that you don't know something. Unless of course you can tell me how the letters 'IDK' somehow represent an unknown third parents height, at which point that option will need to be defined.
2.) I show 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. If you have 5 choices, saying IDK does not create a 6th. 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. So logically they CANNOT PRODUCE NEW OPTIONS...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.
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?
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. Mr. Elliott claims that it's logically impossible for a new option to ever present itself given the way the two acronyms have been so broadly defined.
P2 - If you deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated Creator'' option as the cause of the universe, then your only two options are ''STE'' and ''SCPNCEU''.
//MORE FAIL...It's not a strawman because even though we agree that SCPN is irrational illogical, incorrect, and has no evidence, it still remains an OPTION for atheists. Not a good one I agree, but still an option//
The obvious and most honest answer a non-theist can give is “I don’t know” when asked about the ultimate origin of the Universe, which is perfectly valid and represents a “third option”. This effectively demolishes premise 1 of this argument.
//AND MORE FAILURES FROM MR GODFREY...
So you think the words 'I DONT KNOW' could be responsible for the existence of our Universe?? Do ya huh, Mr. Godfrey?? LOL!! Prove it!! If you refuse, then you have not shown how the words IDK are a third option. Therefore you have not proven TEA a false dichotomy nor have you made any valid rebuttal.
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 'I DONT KNOW' 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 its 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 third option. It's still either his mother or his father. Simply saying 'IDK' does nothing except show that you don't know something. Unless of course you can tell me how the letters 'IDK' somehow represent an unknown third parents height, at which point that option will need to be defined.
2.) I show 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. If you have 5 choices, saying IDK does not create a 6th. 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. So logically they CANNOT PRODUCE NEW OPTIONS...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.
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?
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. Mr. Elliott claims that it's logically impossible for a new option to ever present itself given the way the two acronyms have been so broadly defined.
P2 - If you deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated Creator'' option as the cause of the universe, then your only two options are ''STE'' and ''SCPNCEU''.
As noted above, the two options you claim are the only ones available to anyone who denies the existence of an “Uncreated Creator” who caused the Universe to exist are both unavailable in support of your argument, in that the first (STE) is required to support your own theory (which means that you must accept that either space/time IS eternal in the past, or that your own theory is “illogical, irrational and without evidence”), while the second is a straw-man fallacy.
//As we have proven throughout this article, atheists only have two options for the existence of the Universe. STE and SCPN. Both are illogical, irrational, incorrect, and have no evidence. We have proven your logic invalid as it pertains to STE, and also shown that SCPN (while wildly illogical), is still an option for atheists, and therefore not a straw-man.//
//As we have proven throughout this article, atheists only have two options for the existence of the Universe. STE and SCPN. Both are illogical, irrational, incorrect, and have no evidence. We have proven your logic invalid as it pertains to STE, and also shown that SCPN (while wildly illogical), is still an option for atheists, and therefore not a straw-man.//
Furthermore, you state in your exegesis that the Elliott Argument “makes no claims about the ''existence or validity'' of [the Uncreated Creator] option”.
//That is correct. TEA makes no outright claims about the existence or validity of a UC.//
On the basis of P2, this claim is entirely disingenuous; while the argument makes no explicit claim to support the UC option, by (falsely) asserting that there are only two other options.
//FAIL...We have not 'falsely' asserted that atheists only have two options. Rather it remains to be an absolute fact that atheists only have two options.
The fact that atheists only have two options for the existence of the universe can be shown multiple ways...
[[PROVE THESE ARE ATHEISTS ONLY TWO OPTIONS]] - From the AK - "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."
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."
Is TEA a [[False Dichotomy]] ?? - I don't think so champ!!
It is a common objection from atheists to try and make the claim that there are in fact ''more options'' than the two presented in ''The Elliott Argument''. Thus proving it a [[false dichotomy]]. 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."
Mr. Elliott frequently says, "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 try and 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)
This fact is sometimes hard for atheists to accept, but it is important to remember that both options were defined in their broadest sense, and they were specifically designed to cover any and all possible or conceivable options. For people who still cannot grasp this fact, Mr. Elliott frequently falls back to the 7 fundamental questions to help show his opponent where their proposed option actually falls.
He will ask them::
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 5 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.
[[I'm an Atheist but I don't have to 'pick' either option]] - Atheism is the negative position and makes no claims about the existence of the universe....Or does it? While it is true that atheism is the negative position, and is simply the position that no God exists, when you select this position and take an atheistic stance, you are left with only two options for the existence of the universe. Mr. Elliott always tells his opponents, 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!!
CHECKMATE!!//
Besides this, it very clearly implicitly supports that option to the exclusion of all others. Attempting to claim in light of this that it lends no support to the UC option is thus quite simply fallacious – it’s dishonest.
Secondly, 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 conditions.
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.
Something can be timeless only if it is unchanging and no events are occurring... And something can be unchanging only if it is immaterial //
It is a common objection from atheists to try and make the claim that there are in fact ''more options'' than the two presented in ''The Elliott Argument''. Thus proving it a [[false dichotomy]]. 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."
Mr. Elliott frequently says, "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 try and 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)
This fact is sometimes hard for atheists to accept, but it is important to remember that both options were defined in their broadest sense, and they were specifically designed to cover any and all possible or conceivable options. For people who still cannot grasp this fact, Mr. Elliott frequently falls back to the 7 fundamental questions to help show his opponent where their proposed option actually falls.
He will ask them::
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 5 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.
[[I'm an Atheist but I don't have to 'pick' either option]] - Atheism is the negative position and makes no claims about the existence of the universe....Or does it? While it is true that atheism is the negative position, and is simply the position that no God exists, when you select this position and take an atheistic stance, you are left with only two options for the existence of the universe. Mr. Elliott always tells his opponents, 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!!
CHECKMATE!!//
Besides this, it very clearly implicitly supports that option to the exclusion of all others. Attempting to claim in light of this that it lends no support to the UC option is thus quite simply fallacious – it’s dishonest.
//"We have proven that atheism is incorrect without making any claims about GOD. This is the beauty and elegance of TEA. It was designed with a specific purpose and provides us a way to corner atheists without allowing them to rationally respond. Moreover, once TEA is established and proven to be sound, one must also then accept it's conclusion. It is at that point we introduce further argumentation which proves a God exists. We also understand that Atheism makes no claims about the origin of the Universe. However, when a person chooses to deny or disbelieve that God had any casual influence on the matter, they unfortunately leave themselves with only two incorrect alternatives. Atheism is dead....God Bless" -AK
So let us take a closer look at this. First of all, it's important to remember that the argument itself (TEA), makes no claims about the validity or existence of the UC option. That is to say in no premise does the argument make any positive or negative claims about the UC option!! THIS IS A 100% absolute FACT!!! 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 big mack, 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 big mack 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 candy bar. Nothing at all....Would that mean that the candy bar must therefore be good for you?? Possibly, but we never made any claims about the candy bar. The only validity of the candy bar was established by making claims about the other two options. It could very well be the case however, that as of today the candy bar 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 was 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 candy bar. 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 Candy Bar is in fact good for you with further argumentation.
[[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 and misinterpruted 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.)
Example of an argument that would be illogical and unsound ::
P1 - Bob can 'only' drink from my refrigerator.
P2 - My refrigerator only has gasoline and bleach.
C - Therefore Bob is irrational and illogical."
The reason the above argument would be illogical and unsound is because P1 is invalid and the conclusion does not logically follow. (P2 may or may not be true). It is not true that Bob can only drink from my refrigerator. (The argument has unsoundly asserted this). The truth is that Bob has many different options as to where they can drink. Therefore it would not be valid to conclude that Bob is irrational and illogical because it's not true that he only has two choices. However ''The Elliott Argument'' clearly doesn't fall into the same illogical pit. Why?? Simple, ''The Elliott Argument'' does not trap a person into two illogical choices. Rather it assumes that a person actually is presented with three choices.
If we were using the refrigerator analogy again the argument would look like this::
P1 - Both Gas and Bleach are irrational and illogical choices for consumption
P2- If you deny all other refrigerators than mine, then your only two options for consumption are gasoline and bleach << (lets assume of course that I can hypothetically prove there were NO OTHER options remaining after a person denies all other refrigerators...which of course I can do with ste and scpn of The Elliott Argument)
P3 - Bob denies all other refrigerators
T- Bob is irrational and illogical
You see in this option the person has more choices than the two. He actually had many, but decided to box himself into a corner all on his own. This argument points out that Bob chose for himself to be left with only two irrational choices. This argument is very different that the first one.
Going back to "The Elliott Argument", this is similar to when a person choses the atheistic position for themselves. 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 the problem here is that the atheist has really misrepresented and misinterpruted 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.)
Example of an argument that would be illogical and unsound ::
P1 - Bob can 'only' drink from my refrigerator.
P2 - My refrigerator only has gasoline and bleach.
C - Therefore Bob is irrational and illogical."
The reason the above argument would be illogical and unsound is because P1 is invalid and the conclusion does not logically follow. (P2 may or may not be true). It is not true that Bob can only drink from my refrigerator. (The argument has unsoundly asserted this). The truth is that Bob has many different options as to where they can drink. Therefore it would not be valid to conclude that Bob is irrational and illogical because it's not true that he only has two choices. However ''The Elliott Argument'' clearly doesn't fall into the same illogical pit. Why?? Simple, ''The Elliott Argument'' does not trap a person into two illogical choices. Rather it assumes that a person actually is presented with three choices.
If we were using the refrigerator analogy again the argument would look like this::
P1 - Both Gas and Bleach are irrational and illogical choices for consumption
P2- If you deny all other refrigerators than mine, then your only two options for consumption are gasoline and bleach << (lets assume of course that I can hypothetically prove there were NO OTHER options remaining after a person denies all other refrigerators...which of course I can do with ste and scpn of The Elliott Argument)
P3 - Bob denies all other refrigerators
T- Bob is irrational and illogical
You see in this option the person has more choices than the two. He actually had many, but decided to box himself into a corner all on his own. This argument points out that Bob chose for himself to be left with only two irrational choices. This argument is very different that the first one.
Going back to "The Elliott Argument", this is similar to when a person choses the atheistic position for themselves. 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.
There is also a valid third option which violates none of the conditions you have set; this is that the Universe came into being as a result of completely natural, non-sentient phenomena which exist outside of our space-time continuum. This option violates neither the STE nor the SCPNCEU options (even though I have shown both to be unavailable to support your argument) and still provides an option which does not require an “Uncreated Creator” in the form of an intelligent, sentient being – AKA God. This effectively demolishes P2.
//LOL AT YOU...MORE FAIL....If you think you can present a 3rd option for the existence of the Universe (for atheists), you would have to break it down and answer all of my questions about it. Simply saying it can be a natural, non-sentient phenomena which exists outside of space-time is nothing more than a baseless assertion. After we forced you to answer the 7 fundamental questions you would be backed into a corner and your option would be proven to be STE or SCPN at its foundation. So....let us just take a quick look at
Why does the UC option have to be personal?? – First of all, I think we need to make it clear what we mean when we say the UC is 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 cause’ or (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. Secondly, 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 conditions.
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.
Something can be timeless only if it is unchanging and no events are occurring... And something can be unchanging only if it is immaterial //
P3 - ''Atheists'' deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated Creator'' option as the cause of the universe.
This one I have no argument with
//That's good...We didn't want you to make yourself look any more foolish than you already have.//
//That's good...We didn't want you to make yourself look any more foolish than you already have.//
T - ''Atheists'' are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence
Without P1 and P2, this conclusion cannot be supported. The Elliott Argument is defeated. QED.
//P1 and P2 have been supported and therefore the conclusion of the argument logically follows. You have easily been defeated and we thank you for the entertainment. God bless your little soul.//
In conclusion we are confident that this rebuttal fails for multiple reasons, and has not shown TEA to be invalid or unsound in any form.
We look forward to responding further objections to TEA as they become available. We remain undefeated and enjoy posting these responses on COL (our official website) for the public to view. Thank you.
-The Atheist Killa-
And chad’s response to the “quote”
he has manufactured:
//FAIL...We have not 'falsely' asserted that atheists only have two options. Rather it remains to be an absolute fact that atheists only have two options.//
Again, it wasn’t a misquote, it was a response to part of a quote. However, this is correct. We have not ‘falsely’ asserted that atheists only have two options. Rather it remains to be an absolute fact that atheists only have two options.
UPDATE
The following was posted by Mr. Godfrey in response to the above
refutation. Let it be noted that the majority of our refutation was not
addressed. We assume this was because he could not formulate a rational
response to our work. We will take that as further proof and evidence of
our victory. That being said, you can find our initial responses
as well as his recent refutations in BLACK,
followed up by our recent responses in BLUE. Enjoy the
destruction :) As if it wasn't already bad enough. LOL
//It has just been brought to our
attention however, that Mr. Godfrey recently submitted a formal refutation to
TEA (The Elliott Argument). //
Actually, I have written critiques
of all of Chad’s arguments which I submitted to his blog between December 2012
and May 2013. He never responded directly to any of them, although it became
obvious that he was reading them when he referred to two of the counter
arguments I posited on his COL page only once actually referencing that it was
me who raised the argument; once in response to my “yellow shirt” example of
epistemological inquiry (Feb 1st 2013) and once in response to my raising of
Descartes’ “cogito” (Feb 20th 2013). So needless to say, the claim that it has
“just come” to his attention is an outright lie. I wonder why it has taken Chad
until now to respond to any of them (27th March 2014).
Apparently Mr. Godfrey
has written numerous blogs, all of which seem to be similarly fallacious
in nature, so this will be our only mention of him. Furthermore, I remain very
busy and cannot always respond directly to entire works until time
permits. We stand by our claim that only recently
had we seen Mr. Godfrey's entire blog in regards to
TEA. We have in the past responded to bits and pieces of Mr. Godfreys unsophisticated work.
//If he ever changes he mind and
wants to accept our live debate challenge we would be more than happy to
publically dismantle him. //
I attempted only once to enter one
of Chad’s “live debates” on Feb 25th 2013; he blocked me from the chat room as
soon as he saw my name appear. I have a screen cap of it.
I was having a live
debate with a different individual (not Mr. Godfrey), and as soon
as Mr. Godfrey entered the room he was immediately removed. I was
focused on the individual I was debating in a one on one exchange and couldn't be bothered with any of Godfreys possible nonsense. Again we
remind Mr. Godfrey, if HE ever changes he mind and wants to accept our live
debate challenge we would be more than happy to publically dismantle him.
// Apparently Mr. Godfrey has
written numerous blogs, all of which seem to be similarly fallacious in nature,
so this will be our only mention of him. //
Actually, he attempted a refutation
of one of my arguments on Feb 1st 2013. Naturally he got it all wrong.
I stand by my claim that
Mr. Godfrey has written numerous blogs and each one of them seem to be
similarly fallacious in nature. Because of that, this will be our only mention
of him.
//'SCPNCEU' actually has been
reduced to 'SCPN' but Ill let that slide for now, as more than likely you don't
keep up on your apologetics.//
It was still SPNCEU when I wrote the
critique over a year ago. Chad likes to move the goalposts and then claim they
were where he put them all along.
It's not a goal post move
to point out that Mr. Godfrey doesn't keep up on his apologetics, blogs, or
philosophical rebuttals. It's actually a sad fact and one he should be ashamed
of. We suggest staying as current as possible with your work or fall to the wayside champ!
//We have proven beyond a
shadow of a doubt that STE is not only illogical, irrational, and incorrect,
but also has no supporting evidence.//
and
And??? Well first let me
say thank you sir for this ADMISSION!!...Secondly, let me say this is
significant because it's a HUGE part TEA.
//Therefore this proves that not
only did space exist prior to the expansion of the singularity, but also that
the concept of time was in play because ''events'' were in fact occurring.//
and
And??? Well first let me
say again, THANK YOU for this admission!! Saying “and” is basically the same as
admitting the before mentioned is true, and then asking why is it important...Secondly,
for proponents of a naturalistic Big Bang model, with no creator,
this becomes the nail in the coffin. If space-time existed prior to
the expansion, the atheist is still stuck with the question of it's origin. At
which point we back them into a corner and prove it becomes nothing more than
STE or SCPN.
//It's important to note that in The
Elliott Argument, STE is defined as space-time eternal, not space AND time
eternal.//
Interesting, since this is a direct quote
from your version of the argument in 2012:
// P1: Both "Space and time are
eternal, without a timeless personal mind." (STE) and "Something can
come from pure nothingness and then create the entire Universe." (SCPNCEU)
are illogical, irrational and have zero evidence.//
Sometimes it's common for
people to get confused here, so I won't hold you 100% accountable for your
ignorance on this particular topic. Your ignorance and failed rebuttal in the
rest of your article is more than enough. Often times we loosely tell people
(common passer byes) that STE means space and time are eternal in the
past without true beginning. The reason for this is because it makes the
concept easier for people unfamiliar with certain scientific disciplines to
understand. If I tell someone that STE means space and time are
eternal in the past without true beginning, then they can usually comprehend
what I'm trying to convey. If I start talking about space-time being a single
entity many people get confused and lose sight of the argument all together. We don't want that now do we. That was our
reason for dealing with you in such an unscientific manner. You have proven to us many times over that you
aren’t up to par intellectually so we didn’t know how to address you. This
brings us to our second point. All of the OFFICIAL definitions for every
term (including STE) used in TEA can be found on our blog. If you want
to try and refute the argument you would have to use our
official definitions. Thirdly, we want to point out that if space-time is
eternal in the past without true beginning, that would be essentially the same
thing as saying space and time were eternal in the past without true
beginning. The only difference comes when someone tries to refute the
argument and separate the two, which you never tried to do, so this entire line
of reasoning, like most of your failed logic, is a waste of our valuable time.
It seems the goalposts have shifted
yet again. Apparently Chad can’t see the contradiction in claiming first
that STE (Space -Time Eternal) is “illogical, irrational, incorrect”, and
without “supporting evidence”, and then immediately claiming that space-time
must have pre-existed the Big Bang.
No goal post changes needed. However, I've
noticed that this does seem to be your favorite illogical response to much
of my work. It's almost as if you're attempting to change the goal posts and
shift the focus away from your obvious destruction, by continually claiming
that I have changed the goal posts. I can't help but laugh at this, as your
intellectual inferiority is always on display...Anyways, the fact remains
that STE is irrational illogical incorrect and has no evidence. Matter a fact,
you already admitted this for us a few paragraphs up. Thanks for
that!! What you need to focus on next is that we have proven (for
naturalistic) proponents of the Big Bang, that space-time existed prior to the
expansion. This however in no way undermines the argument. Why? Because
the atheist is still is stuck with the origin of this initial space-time. Think of
it like this...We prove space-time exists, then we show atheists only have two
options for its origin.
// Just because space-time existed
prior to the expansion of the singularity in the Big Bang model, that does not
therefore mean that space-time was eternal in the past without true
beginning.//
He seems to think this solves the
problem with the argument; the assertion (without the slightest evidence to
back it up) that space-time was created prior to the Big Bang.
No evidence to back it
up?? Lol, funny guy...Have a look...We have shown that any atheist accepting the BB theory
will ultimately be faced with STE or SCPN. One of the ways we do this is
to show that space-time must have existed prior to the expansion of the
singularity. The following is a quote from our official blog that may help
you..."Secondly, let us ask another
question that I think everyone can easily comprehend. What change occurred, that made the singularity in the BB model go from its
non-expanding state, to a state where it expanded?? The atheist will
undoubtably 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, but also that the concept of time was in play because
''events'' were in fact occurring."
How the Big Bang relates to TEA...Don't miss it!! :)
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!! AMAZING!!
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, matter, and moving particles (such as the singularity is defined) , even if infinitely dense, 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, 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 and 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 in the BB model go from its non-expanding state, to a state where it expanded? The atheist will undoubtably 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. His paper also refutes the idea of inflation, a widely accepted theory of a period of very rapid expansion immediately following the Big Bang. Penrose says that inflation cannot account for the very low entropy state in which the universe was thought to have been created. He 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 discernable 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 values. Energy 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 am 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.
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!! AMAZING!!
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, matter, and moving particles (such as the singularity is defined) , even if infinitely dense, 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, 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 and 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 in the BB model go from its non-expanding state, to a state where it expanded? The atheist will undoubtably 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. His paper also refutes the idea of inflation, a widely accepted theory of a period of very rapid expansion immediately following the Big Bang. Penrose says that inflation cannot account for the very low entropy state in which the universe was thought to have been created. He 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 discernable 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 values. Energy 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 am 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." Mr. Elliott points 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''.
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??
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??
However, this begs the question of
what kind of environment God existed in prior to the creation of this
prior-to-the-Big-Bang space-time. In a previous discussion with Philosotroll in
2012, he makes the claim that God exists in a kind of “meta space-time” – again
without the slightest shred of evidence to back it up. When Philosotroll
pointed this out, Chad blocked him.
What kind of environment
did God exist in?? Well first of all First of all, it's 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. So if you're
attempting to defeat TEA, which I thought you were, you're barking up the wrong
tree, as TEA makes no claims about God or the UC option. It's not until TEA is
established that we bring in further argumentation to prove God exists.
Secondly, God (UC option) is defined as a spaceless, timeless, immaterial
personal mind. We don't need to present any evidence for this as it
remains simply a defined option which atheists deny. All we need to do for TEA
to stand is support its premises and the claims that it makes.
Thirdly, Philosotroll was publically
humiliated and permanently destroyed by me. The evidence of that victory can be
found here (http://youtu.be/Z2tmjC92uDE, http://youtu.be/4RNB4gP3swc). Now if you will, try to focus on your own failures rather than those of
your fellow atheist friends.
Regarding my identification of
SPCNCEU as a straw man fallacy, he says:
//It's not a straw-man because even though we agree that SCPN is irrational
illogical, incorrect, and has no evidence, it still remains an OPTION for
atheists. Not a good one I agree, but still an option//
What Chad fails to acknowledge is
that few if any atheists actually hold to the idea that the universe came from
“Pure Nothingness”. Thus, it DOES qualify as a straw man fallacy, since Elliott
contends that they do in blatant disregard of this fact. He creates the
argument in order to knock it down.
Again it doesn’t matter if ‘few’ or ‘no’ atheists accept a
Pure Nothingness hypothesis. That’s irrelevant to this discussion, as SCPN
still remains an option for them (atheists). I challenge you to prove that although
flawed, it somehow is not an option at all. You can’t. I can give numerous reasons why SCPN is
incorrect, but you can’t give one reason that an atheist cannot illogically adhere
to such a belief system. SCPN remains an option for every atheist on the
planet. No straw-man fallacy here champ.
//So you think the words 'I DONT
KNOW' could be responsible for the existence of our Universe?? Do ya huh, Mr.
Godfrey?? LOL!!//
And here we have a classic example
of Chad deliberately failing to understand the meaning of a statement made by
an opponent. What I contended was that the admission of a lack of knowledge by
an atheist of how the universe came to exist is a valid answer to the question.
His assertion is that I am claiming the actual words “I DON’T KNOW” brought the
universe into being. Another straw man fallacy, this time tinged with his
grade-school form of personal expression.
Oh look, he claimed straw-man fallacy again. LOL. It appears
that Mr. Godfreys two favorite things to do in life, other than publically display
his low IQ, is to baselessly assert straw-man fallacies and goal post shifts.
LOL. Let us address him here. The lack of knowledge an atheist has does not
prove that a third option exists. Just because you say you don’t know how the
Universe began doesn’t mean that therefore you magically have more than the two
options I presented. If you assert TEA is a false dichotomy then you have to
prove it!! The fact is that the acronyms in TEA have been defined so broadly
that it’s logically impossible for a third option to EVER EXIST. Saying “I
don’t know”, in itself, is not presenting a new third option. Read more here…[[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 'I DONT KNOW' 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 its 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 third option. It's still either his mother or his father. Simply saying 'IDK' does nothing except show that you don't know something. Unless of course you can tell me how the letters 'IDK' somehow represent an unknown third parents height, at which point that option will need to be defined.
2.) I show 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. If you have 5 choices, saying IDK does not create a 6th. 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. So logically they CANNOT PRODUCE NEW OPTIONS...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.
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?
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. Mr. Elliott claims that it's logically impossible for a new option to ever present itself given the way the two acronyms have been so broadly defined.
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 third option. It's still either his mother or his father. Simply saying 'IDK' does nothing except show that you don't know something. Unless of course you can tell me how the letters 'IDK' somehow represent an unknown third parents height, at which point that option will need to be defined.
2.) I show 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. If you have 5 choices, saying IDK does not create a 6th. 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. So logically they CANNOT PRODUCE NEW OPTIONS...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.
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?
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. Mr. Elliott claims that it's logically impossible for a new option to ever present itself given the way the two acronyms have been so broadly defined.
// On the basis of P2, this claim is
entirely disingenuous; while the argument makes no explicit claim to support
the UC option, by (falsely) asserting that there are only two other options.//
This is actually a misquote; here is
the full sentence without the period incorrectly placed:
“On the basis of P2, this claim is entirely disingenuous; while the argument makes no explicit claim to support the UC option, by (falsely) asserting that there are only two other options besides this that could be taken and that both are actually invalid, it very clearly implicitly supports that option to the exclusion of all others. Attempting to claim in light of this that it lends no support to the UC option is thus quite simply fallacious – it’s dishonest.”
“On the basis of P2, this claim is entirely disingenuous; while the argument makes no explicit claim to support the UC option, by (falsely) asserting that there are only two other options besides this that could be taken and that both are actually invalid, it very clearly implicitly supports that option to the exclusion of all others. Attempting to claim in light of this that it lends no support to the UC option is thus quite simply fallacious – it’s dishonest.”
Failure seems to be a common theme in
Mr. Godfreys responses...It wasn’t a misquote by me, it was me responding to a certain part of the quote. The rest of
his illogical quote was then responded to further down the page. If you missed
it, here is is again…
"We have proven that atheism is incorrect
without making any claims about GOD. This is the beauty and elegance of
TEA. It was designed with a specific
purpose and provides us a way to corner atheists without
allowing them to rationally respond. Moreover, once TEA is established and
proven to be sound, one must also then accept it's conclusion. It is at that
point we introduce further argumentation which proves a God exists. We
also understand that Atheism makes no claims about the origin of the Universe.
However, when a person chooses to deny or disbelieve that God had any casual
influence on the matter, they unfortunately leave themselves with only two
incorrect alternatives. Atheism is dead....God Bless" -AK
So let us take a closer look at this. First of all, it's important
to remember that the argument itself (TEA), makes no claims about the validity
or existence of the UC option. That is to say in no premise does the
argument make any positive or negative claims about the UC option!! THIS IS A 100% absolute
FACT!!! 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 big mack, 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 big mack 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 candy bar. Nothing at
all....Would that mean that the candy bar must therefore be good for you?? Possibly, but we never made any claims
about the candy bar. The only validity of the candy bar
was established by making claims about the other two options. It
could very well be the case however, that as of today the candy bar
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 was 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 candy bar. 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
Candy Bar is in fact good for you with further argumentation.
[[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 and misinterpruted 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.)
Example of an argument that would be illogical and unsound ::
P1 - Bob can 'only' drink from my refrigerator.
P2 - My refrigerator only has gasoline and bleach. C - Therefore Bob is irrational and illogical."
The reason the above argument would be illogical and unsound is because P1 is invalid and the conclusion does not logically follow. (P2 may or may not be true). It is not true that Bob can only drink from my refrigerator. (The argument has unsoundly asserted this). The truth is that Bob has many different options as to where they can drink. Therefore it would not be valid to conclude that Bob is irrational and illogical because it's not true that he only has two choices. However ''The Elliott Argument'' clearly doesn't fall into the same illogical pit. Why?? Simple, ''The Elliott Argument'' does not trap a person into two illogical choices. Rather it assumes that a person actually is presented with three choices.
So the problem here is that the atheist has really misrepresented and misinterpruted 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.)
Example of an argument that would be illogical and unsound ::
P1 - Bob can 'only' drink from my refrigerator.
P2 - My refrigerator only has gasoline and bleach. C - Therefore Bob is irrational and illogical."
The reason the above argument would be illogical and unsound is because P1 is invalid and the conclusion does not logically follow. (P2 may or may not be true). It is not true that Bob can only drink from my refrigerator. (The argument has unsoundly asserted this). The truth is that Bob has many different options as to where they can drink. Therefore it would not be valid to conclude that Bob is irrational and illogical because it's not true that he only has two choices. However ''The Elliott Argument'' clearly doesn't fall into the same illogical pit. Why?? Simple, ''The Elliott Argument'' does not trap a person into two illogical choices. Rather it assumes that a person actually is presented with three choices.
If we were using the
refrigerator analogy again the argument would look like this::
P1 - Both Gas and Bleach are irrational and illogical choices for consumption
P2- If you deny all other refrigerators than mine, then your only two options for consumption are gasoline and bleach << (lets assume of course that I can hypothetically prove there were NO OTHER options remaining after a person denies all other refrigerators...which of course I can do with ste and scpn of The Elliott Argument)
P3 - Bob denies all other refrigerators
T- Bob is irrational and illogical
You see in this option the person has more choices than the two. He actually had many, but decided to box himself into a corner all on his own. This argument points out that Bob chose for himself to be left with only two irrational choices. This argument is very different that the first one.
Going back to "The Elliott Argument", this is similar to when a person choses the atheistic position for themselves. 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.
P1 - Both Gas and Bleach are irrational and illogical choices for consumption
P2- If you deny all other refrigerators than mine, then your only two options for consumption are gasoline and bleach << (lets assume of course that I can hypothetically prove there were NO OTHER options remaining after a person denies all other refrigerators...which of course I can do with ste and scpn of The Elliott Argument)
P3 - Bob denies all other refrigerators
T- Bob is irrational and illogical
You see in this option the person has more choices than the two. He actually had many, but decided to box himself into a corner all on his own. This argument points out that Bob chose for himself to be left with only two irrational choices. This argument is very different that the first one.
Going back to "The Elliott Argument", this is similar to when a person choses the atheistic position for themselves. 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.)
//FAIL...We have not 'falsely' asserted that atheists only have two options. Rather it remains to be an absolute fact that atheists only have two options.//
Again, it wasn’t a misquote, it was a response to part of a quote. However, this is correct. We have not ‘falsely’ asserted that atheists only have two options. Rather it remains to be an absolute fact that atheists only have two options.
It should be obvious by now that he
has failed to establish his contention as fact.
Excuse me? You have failed to prove a third option can
exist, and we remind you that such a task is logically impossible. "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...I technically don't need to prove these are the atheists only 2 options. 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."
First of all let me just say this...I technically don't need to prove these are the atheists only 2 options. 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."
It is a common objection from atheists
to try and make the claim that there are in fact ''more options'' than the two
presented in ''The Elliott Argument''. Thus proving it a [[false dichotomy]].
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."
Mr. Elliott frequently says, "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 try and 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)
This fact is sometimes hard for atheists to accept, but it is important to remember that both options were defined in their broadest sense, and they were specifically designed to cover any and all possible or conceivable options. For people who still cannot grasp this fact, Mr. Elliott frequently falls back to the 7 fundamental questions to help show his opponent where their proposed option actually falls.
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.
Mr. Elliott frequently says, "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 try and 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)
This fact is sometimes hard for atheists to accept, but it is important to remember that both options were defined in their broadest sense, and they were specifically designed to cover any and all possible or conceivable options. For people who still cannot grasp this fact, Mr. Elliott frequently falls back to the 7 fundamental questions to help show his opponent where their proposed option actually falls.
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.
Actually, I provided a third option
in the very response he is attempting to refute here; namely that the universe
could have come to exist through a completely natural, non-sentient phenomenon
or series of phenomena that exist outside our space-time. As can be seen, this
falls under neither STE (since it does not exist in our space-time) nor SPCN
(since the universe does not emerge from “Pure nothingness”).
Fail (as usual). We can prove that this
option is not a third option, and actually falls under STE or SCPN once broken
down and we force our opponent to answer the 7 essential questions about it. Therefore
this IS NOT A THIRD option. Secondly let us look at why the UC option 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
cause’ or (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.
Secondly, 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 conditions.
Secondly, 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 conditions.
http://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.
Something can be timeless only if it is unchanging and no events are occurring…And something can be unchanging only if it is immaterial
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.
Something can be timeless only if it is unchanging and no events are occurring…And something can be unchanging only if it is immaterial
This is Chad’s response:
// Simply saying it can be a natural, non-sentient phenomena which exists outside of space-time is nothing more than a baseless assertion.//
This is nonsense, of course. Chad has absolutely no basis to make such a claim and I challenge him to show how the argument is flawed.
// Simply saying it can be a natural, non-sentient phenomena which exists outside of space-time is nothing more than a baseless assertion.//
This is nonsense, of course. Chad has absolutely no basis to make such a claim and I challenge him to show how the argument is flawed.
As we mentioned above,
we can prove
that this option is not a third option, and actually falls under STE or SCPN
once broken down. Mr. Godfrey made the assertion that a third option could be natural,
non-sentient phenomena which exists outside of space-time. However, because he
failed to break this option down, define it for my readers, or answer the 7 fundamental
questions about it, it remains nothing more than a baseless nonsensical
assertion with no support or evidence. Thus he fails yet again. Remember
friends, it’s one thing to assert you have a third option, but quite another to
actually prove it. You lose champ!! Just like always...You are truly pathetic!! LOL
// 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 opposite of course is also the case; I can just as easily challenge Chad to prove that a non-personal cause of the universe cannot be “space-less, timeless, immaterial, and unchanging” – whatever that means.
The opposite of course is also the case; I can just as easily challenge Chad to prove that a non-personal cause of the universe cannot be “space-less, timeless, immaterial, and unchanging” – whatever that means.
Goal post change and logical fallacy by Mr. Godfrey. As we
have already discussed in this article, TEA makes no positive claims about a UC
option. Therefore, for TEA to stand, all we need to do is support its premises
and it’s claims. We are not required to prove a space-less, timeless,
immaterial being exists. We PROVE God exists after TEA is established. So
again we want our readers to focus on the fact that he (Mr. Godfrey) HAS NOT
presented a new third option and continually failed with his baseless
assertions.
As usual, Chad’s “defence” of his
“undefeatable argument” cannot withstand even the most basic scrutiny.
Defence? I think you mean “defense” buddy...Lol. Either way, we have
proven that your rebuttal falls short at every turn. TEA has never been
defeated and never will. This is just another example of an epic failure by and
atheist who is mad that his position has been scientifically, logically, and
philosophically destroyed.
Mr. Godfrey was given 3 chances to defeat TEA. Once on COL
where he was banned for failing to answer the Golden Question, Once in his
formal article, and now in his most recently updated rebuttal. He has been thoroughly annihilated at ripped to shreds. Now I just feel
sorry for him.
"Let this be known
however...If Peter Godfrey ever wants to have a live real time public text
debate with rules and moderators on the topic of TEA, I would happily entertain
him. He can have one of his associates contact us via email or inbox at COL.
Until then, he continually makes himself look pathetic, weak, and quite frankly
desperate after being logically humiliated by me. His responses have been so
terrible (just as the rest of his work) that they doesn't require any further
refutation. I'll be waiting for you Petey!! Have one of your people inbox us
for details." #undefeated - AK
Comments
Post a Comment