REFUTATION: "The Demise of Elliott Argument" - Daniel Lasris destroyed

"We have proven atheism is incorrect without making any claims about GOD. That's the beauty of TEA. Moreover, once TEA is established and proven to be sound and valid, one must also accept it's conclusion. It is at that point we introduce further argumentation that proves a God exists. God Bless"  -AK


**The following article was written by a Facebook page known as CIR. It's claimed by the author that it defeats TEA (The Elliott Argument), and has proven the argument to be invalid.  In this blog we will thoroughly disprove this notion and offer our refutation to the many errors it has presented.

http://ciireligion.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-demise-of-elliott-argument.html

We have decided to respond to the article line for line, word for word. Everything inside // BLUE // will be directly copied from the CIR article, and will be followed with our refutation. God Bless. If anyone thinks they can defeat TEA please contact us.

So before we begin, it's important to note that I had been taunting this particular individual for a couple of weeks because he continually tried to personally attack me and talk reckless. After praying about it, I felt badly and decided to make a public apology to him on his page. Underneath  the apology I asked him if we could start over and if he would answer two questions for me. He said ok. The first question I asked him (we never got to the 2nd one because he failed to answer the first) was, "Do atheists have more options than the two (STE and SCPN) that I have presented, and if so can you provide one for me." For the next 50 or so comments he tried to say that the words I DONT KNOW are a third option for the existence of the UNIVERSE. I tried to explain to him that this logic was faulty, but he didn't seem to comprehend this fact. Finally at the end of the thread I corned him, asked him a very direct question, and told him if he didn't answer it I would accept victory on this subject. Here is the screen shot of that question, and his failure to answer....

 

//P1: Atheists only have 2 options for the creation of the Universe
P2: STE & SCPN are both illogical & irrational
C: God created the Universe//

If you claim that you have defeated TEA, then you have to present the actual argument, not a strawman argument that you made up . The following is what the actual argument looks like. Notice it's very much different than the made up strawman version that CIR presented.

P1: A position which leaves you with only two incorrect options cannot be correct
P2: Atheism is a position which leaves you with only two incorrect options
C:  Atheism cannot be correct

 

//P1: Atheists only have 2 options for the creation of the Universe//

This is not the true P1 of the actual argument, However please note that atheists have two option for the origin of the Universe. Creation implies that something was created. STE for example would not have created anything, rather it would just be a fact.

 //C: God created the Universe//

The Elliott Argument makes no claims about the existence or validity of God, nor does it conclude that a God created the Universe. It's conclusion is merely that atheism is incorrect. Once this is established, and is proven valid, then other arguments are presented which prove God exists.

//I have that 3rd option and he won't accept it, but it defeats his argument completely. I will get into it further down//

The third option that he presented are the words 'I DONT KNOW.' The problem is that we are talking about options for the origin of our physical universe. Further down on this page we will go into this in great detail and show that IDK is actually not a third option for HOW the universe exists.

//God - Defined personally by each individual (as stated by Chad himself, see video//

There are many different definitions of Gods. All of which atheists deny or disbelieve exist. The definition of GOD (The UC option) which is used in The Elliott Argument is a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal mind. I stand by this as an option which atheists cannot accept. (Important to remember however, that TEA makes no claims about the UC options existence of validity).

 //STE is considered illogical and irrational because this would mean that the Universe did not have a beginning and always existed.//

Not true. STE stands for spacetime eternal, not limited or confined to our known universe, but any other voids, dimensions, multiverses, etc. Claiming that it 'means our universe did not have a beginning' is dishonest at best, as the TEA makes no such distinction.  Also, the reason STE is irrational, incorrect, and irrational is based upon the impossibility of an [[infinite regress]] infinite number of past events (see below). Also there is no evidence that spacetime is eternal in the past (without beginning), and all the positive evidence points to the opposing view (that spacetime had a finite beginning).

//But what if Space & Time were Eternal? This is a question we may never find an answer to in our lifetime, but it is worth asking anyways.//

 Worth asking?? I don't think so....Freedictionary.com defines ''infinite'' as 1.) Having no boundaries or limits and 2.) Immeasurably great or large; boundless. Wikipedia defines ''infinity'' as "without any limit."[[David Hilbert]], considered by some to be the greatest mathematician of the twentieth century. “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.” Mathematicians realize that an actual ''infinite number of things'' leads to self-contradictions.

''Mr. Elliott'' points out this apparent dilema when he says, "if there was an infinite number of subsequent causes and events in the past eternity, we can never arrive at our present moment. We would have had to traverse an infinite number of events to get to today and you cannot traverse an infinite number of events. If there is an ''infinite amount of time'' in the past eternity we can never arrive at our current position in time." [[Infinite Regress|'''Infinite Regress''']] - According to Wikipedia, an ''infinite regress'' in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, and the truth of proposition Pn-1 requires the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity.

To suggest that there have been an infinite regress of past events/moments, is to suggest that we would have had to come to an end of an infinite series. An infite series however is by definition is a series with no end.This is logically incoherant says Timothy Mccabe in the following link :: [http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=424 thegodcontention index 4].

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

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

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

//SCPN is considered illogical and irrational because something cannot come from pure nothingness. But wouldn't that mean that the Universe didn't have a beginning?//

The Universe can still have a beginning. In the theist option for example, there is a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal being who creates the Universe. Thus the Universe did NOT come from Pure Nothingness, rather it came from GOD. Again TEA makes no claims about the existence or validity of GOD, and it is true what you say that something cannot come from Pure Nothingness. That's why we are quoted as saying SCPN is irrational, illogical, incorrect, and has no evidence.

 Here are some more reasons SCPN fails.

A. No reason to believe that PN has ever existed or could ever be achieved.
B. PN has no creative powers.
C. PN cannot be Discriminatory - If something can come from PN then everything can.
D. Certain mathematical absolutes cannot be undermined. You cannot divide ZERO, 0+0=0, 0-0=0, and 0X0=0. Atheists may say that's true but, -1+1=0. The problem is in a PN Hypothesis you don't get a -1 or a +1 to add together. Atheists may also claim that 0^0=1, but this is not a mathematical absolute (More information for this can be found in the common rebuttals section).
E. There is NO EVIDENCE to support the claim that something can in fact come from PN.

//Chad puts it like this, 0+0=1 is false, because you can't add to nothings to create a something. But what he fails to realize is this 0=1+-1. Yes, this is basic math and can bee seen as 0=1 and -1 and proves that something did come from nothing. But he will argue you can't use an negative number to create nothing. OH, but you can. That is what is great about math, it is a constant when all other things are subjective.//

This was actually covered in the previous point, but we will address it further. Atheists may say -1+1=0. The problem is that in a PN Hypothesis you don't get a -1 or a +1 to add together. So the equation has to start with zeros (which represent Pure Nothingness). For example the atheist is more than likely claiming that all the positive and negative energy in the universe balance each other out, and therefore equal zero. That's true, but in a PN hypothesis you don't have any negative or positive energy, all you have is literal non-being. So explain how you get to a universe from literal non-being, not how you get a universe from positive and negative energy. Because if that's the road you want to go down I will also prove that will fall under STE or SCPN once I make you define it.

 

//But we will give it to him and say that SCPN is irrational and illogical, because we can't just create things out of pure nothing.//

Here he admits that SCPN is irrational and illogical.

//IDK is my 3rd option and it is the most honest answer for the creation of the Universe.//

Again, saying IDK is perfectly honest and acceptable, but it is NOT presenting a new third option for atheists. If you think the words 'I DONT KNOW' could be responsible for the existence of our Universe, I say 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.(http://youtu.be/8ffcO4sLZvA)

 

//We ONLY have theories as to how the Universe was created and our best guess with the evidence we have is the Big Bang//

The BB theory also fails, as it falls under STE or SCPN depending on which was you personally decide to break it down. Have a look...

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 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 prove this reasoning 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 spacetime curvature, which is at the center of a [[black hole]]. 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. There in fact was no space or time prior to this event. This is well documented in 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. "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 ueasily nderstand. How can energy, matter, and moving particles (such as the singularity is defined) , even if infinitely dense, exist without any events occurring whatesoever?? 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 descrease, 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 occuring.  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 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 occuring. 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 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''.

//There are many more theories out there and even more questions about what came before the existence of the Universe.//

This is another baseless nonsensical assertion without evidence to support it. We stick by our claim that for the atheist there remain ONLY TWO options for the existence of the Universe, and unless you present another one, you have failed to prove the argument a false dichotomy. While there are an unlimited amount of theories, all of them will ultimately fall under STE or SCPN (because they have been so broadly defined) once broken down.

For TEA I created 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 dont 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 physical 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. Not gonna happen.

 //How was the Universe created?//

TEA does not claim to know. TEA claims that atheists have only two options and both are incorrect.

//Does God exist?//

This has nothing to do with TEA, as TEA makes no claims about  the existence or validity of a GOD option. Once TEA is established we have other arguments that prove God does exist.

//Now Chad uses this example to prove IDK is invalid:

If I have 2 drinks in the fridge and you tell me there are more options than that, I say prove it and you say I don't know. That is not proving there are more than 2 drinks in my fridge.//

Actually the example used in the official blog is - 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 Chad claimed there were only 2 drinks in a fridge, that neither of us owned or opened and I said there were more options than that, he would ask me for proof and I would say I don't know. Unless we both opened the fridge and looked inside, neither of us would know if there were any more or any less than 2 drinks.//

Yes you can say you don't know. Saying IDK is an option for anyone. This is true!!! But it's not creating a NEW OPTION for what could be in the refrigerator!! If I claim there can only be two kinds of drinks inside (Clear drinks, or colored drinks for example), and you say there are more options, then I say prove it, and you say I DONT KNOW, you haven't offered a new option for what could be in the fridge. Basic logic.

//God, according to Chad is Spaceless and Timeless and is Eternal in the past. Unfortunately, if he is eternal, there is no past. Well there is, but since there is no beginning, there can be no real past.//

Correct, God is defined as a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal mind...He exists timelessly prior to creating time, at which point he becomes temporal. When we say eternal in the past, we mean that which is without beginning, we are not talking about past TIME, as there is no time prior to the creation of time. Again this has absolutely nothing to do with defeating TEA, as the argument makes no claims about the existence of validity of God.

//For something that is spaceless, why is he only worried about this one in let's just say a trillion planets we are on//

What mechanism would prevent a spaceless timeless immaterial personal mind from creating a ZILLION planets and putting life on only one? There is none. This in no way suggests he cannot be spaceless. Furthermore, this again has absolutely nothing to do with defeating TEA, as the argument makes no claims about the existence of validity of God.

//And if he is timeless, then why was the heavens and earth and all things on it created in 6 days and why did he need a rest on the seventh?//

As soon as he begins creating (the first instance of any act) time begins, at which point God is no longer timeless. The passages in the bible about days and resting on the 7th are to show us that is how he designed a work week to go. He could have created the ENTIRE universe in one nano-second. Again this has nothing all to do with defeating TEA, as the argument makes no claims about the existence of validity of God. For more on the timelessness of God read below.

//If he is eternal, he had plenty of time to rest and if he is timeless, he could have made everything with the blink of an eye or whatever he uses to see with. //

Again, there is no time prior to God creating time. He exists eternally in the past (without beginning), but there is no time to be measured. Once time begins, and God becomes temporal after the first act of creation, what would prevent God from taking a day off? Nothing! Nor would it effect his timeless nature that he withhold prior to creating.. Again this has nothing all to do with defeating TEA, as the argument makes no claims about the existence of validity of God. If you want to learn more about the TIMELESSNESS of GOD however, here you go...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/creation-and-time#ixzz2HejWTkQg

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-time-and-creation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt2lueTLHF4

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

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

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

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

//See, there are more questions than there are answers and none of the answers fully explains the existence of God.//

This has nothing all to do with defeating TEA, as the argument makes no claims about the existence of validity of God. However, I can answer any questions you have about God. Its also important to note that you will not be able prove God an incorrect option for the existence of the Universe, but I can prove both atheists options (STE and SCPN) are.

//Who created God?//

No one created GOD, that's why refer to him as the UNCREATED creator. You might want to check the definitions before posting illogical questions like this. Again, this has nothing all to do with defeating TEA, as the argument makes no claims about the existence of validity of God.

//When did he begin to exist?//

He didn't begin to exist. He exists eternally in the past WITHOUT BEGINNING. Plus there is no time before God creates time, so asking WHEN something happens is nonsensical and absurd. You might want to check the definitions before posting illogical questions like this. Again, this has nothing all to do with defeating TEA, as the argument makes no claims about the existence of validity of God.

//To make a claim about a God, but have no origin for said God flies in the face of logic with utter disregard.//

God has no origin as he has been defined as without beginning. Again, this has nothing all to do with defeating TEA, as the argument makes no claims about the existence of validity of God.
//You can't claim something can exist eternally and then say the Universe couldn't be eternal. That is fallacious.//

Actually it's not fallacious or special pleading. Here's why...The Universe is a physical place and cannot be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. That's why it would be illogical to assume it was eternal in the past, as it would face the before mentioned issues of infinite regress. God on the other hand can exist eternally in the past without beginning, as HE IS spaceless, timeless, and immaterial until the first moment of creation. Again, this has nothing all to do with defeating TEA, as the argument makes no claims about the existence of validity of God.

//Now I did ask Chad, "Who defines God?" and his reply, "I define God". If an individual human defines God, then it is MAN who created God. If God existed, he could define himself.//

The God that I believe in does exist!! More than that, I know him and I have a personal relationship with him. When I say I define God, that is to say I am telling you who God is. It's not to say that I have made him and his attributes up in my mind. It is to say that I can present to you all of who God is and there be no issue. God has defined himself through many different ways, and taken the necessary measures for us to be sure of these definitions.  Again, this has nothing all to do with defeating TEA, as the argument makes no claims about the existence of validity of God.

TO READ MORE ABOUT HOW GOD IS DEFINED, PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING...Important to Remember this is NOT how we define the UC option in TEA:

The reason you haven’t heard of this objection, is probably because no philosopher presses it anymore. During the positivist era back in the 1920s and ’30s, it was widely thought among philosophers that “metaphysical” notions like God were meaningless. Why? Because no empirical content could be given to such notions. To be meaningful an informative sentence had to be empirically verifiable. Since it was thought that sentences like “God exists” could not be verified through the five senses, they were dismissed as meaningless. The so-called verification principle of meaning, however, was soon found to be unduly restrictive, rendering even some sentences of science meaningless, and in the end self-defeating. With the abandonment of the verification principle of meaning, the vital nerve of positivism was severed, and so it sank into the grave it so richly deserved. A new era then dawned in Anglo-American philosophy, ushering in a renaissance of metaphysics, ethics, and philosophy of religion, which the positivists had suppressed.
It would be very interesting to learn what undergirds the YouTube atheists’ conviction that “God” is a meaningless word. Is it verificationism? If so, then the foundations of their conviction have, unbeknownst to them, already collapsed long ago.

It’s easy to give content to the word “God.” This word can be taken either as a common noun, so that one could speak of “a God,” or it can be used as a proper name like “George” or “Suzanne.” Richard Swinburne, a prominent Christian philosopher, treats “God” as a proper name of the person referred to by the following description: a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things. This description expresses the traditional concept of God in Western philosophy and theology. Now the YouTube atheist might protest, “But how do you know God has those properties?” The question is misplaced. “God” has been stipulated to be the person, if any, referred to by that description. The real question is whether there is anything answering to that description, that is to say, does such a person exist? The whole burden of Swinburne’s natural theology is to present arguments that there is such a person. You can reject his arguments, but there’s no disputing the meaningfulness of his claim.
The best definition of God as a descriptive term is, I think, St. Anselm’s: the greatest conceivable being. As Anselm observed, if you could think of anything greater than God, then that would be God! The very idea of God is of a being than which there cannot be a greater.
This question has relevance to my recent debate with Sam Harris on whether the foundations of morality are natural or supernatural. Following the debate my friend John wrote,

Bill, in your debate with Sam Harris you claimed God was the grounding of objective morality. That word "God" is problematic though. Until that word is defined, or until you tell us how we know what this "God" wants us to do, or what it is, what you end up saying is that there is an objective grounding to morality, and that's it. But then Sam Harris agreed with you on that score.

If you’ll look at the text of my opening statement in the debate, which I’ve posted on our Reasonable Faith Facebook page, you’ll see that I did define what I mean by “God.” I stated,

On the theistic view objective moral values are grounded in God. As St. Anselm saw, God is by definition the greatest conceivable being and therefore the highest Good. Indeed, He is not merely perfectly good; He is the locus and paradigm of moral value.

Since moral goodness is a great-making property, the greatest conceivable being must be morally perfect (as well as have the other superlative properties listed by Swinburne). Indeed, the greatest conceivable being will be the paradigm of moral value. Of course, it remains to be asked whether such a being actually exists. But the contentions I laid out for defense in our debate were conditional: IF such a being exists, then. . . . That’s why I think my first contention is almost obviously true. Of course, if such a greatest conceivable being exists, objective moral values and duties exist! How could they not?
The real question was whether Harris could provide an ontological foundation for objective moral values and duties in the absence of such a being. I presented what I take to be a decisive argument against his solution to what he calls “the Value Problem”, as well as powerful objections to his attempt to derive objective moral duties from science and his desire to affirm objective moral duties in the absence of any sort of free will.
Finally, let me say again what I said in answer to Question #208: I do not need to provide an account of “how we know what this ‘God’ wants us to do,” since that is a question, not of moral ontology, but of moral epistemology. My concern is with the reality of objective moral values and duties; I’m open to any epistemological theories anyone wants to suggest for how we come to know the values and duties that there are.

• by William Lane Craig

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defining-god#ixzz2uyZClwLs


First, the concept of a greatest conceivable being is inherently subjective, for what seems great to one person might not be great at all to another. This objection seems to confuse God’s being the greatest conceivable being with our discerning what properties a greatest conceivable being must possess. I’ve already acknowledged a degree of play in the notion of a great-making property. For example, is it greater to be timeless or omnitemporal? The answer is not clear. But our uncertainty as to what properties the greatest conceivable being must have does nothing to invalidate the definition of “God” as “the greatest conceivable being.” Here Anselm’s intuition which you mention seems on target: there cannot by definition be anything greater than God.
Now you might think, “But what good is it defining God as the greatest conceivable being if we have no idea what such a being would be like?” The answer to that question will depend on what project you’re engaged in. If you’re doing systematic theology, then you have that other control, namely, Scripture, which supplies considerable information about God, for example, that He is eternal, almighty, good, personal, and so on. Perfect Being theology will aid in the formulation of a doctrine of God by construing those attributes in as great a way as possible. On the other hand, if your project is natural theology, which makes no appeal to Scripture, then you will present arguments that God must have certain properties. Note that mere disagreement about whether a property is great-making does not imply that there is no objective truth about the matter. When we have a disagreement, then we may present arguments why we think it is greater to have some property than to lack it. The fact that some properties (like timelessness) are not clearly great-making does not imply that no properties are great-making or that the concept of a greatest conceivable being is wholly subjective.
Consider your two examples. First, is it greater to be omnibenevolent rather than not? If omnibenevolence really is a moral property, then it seems morally better to be all-loving than partially loving. The problem with your moral nihilist is that he denies that such a property as omnibenevolence has any moral value! That strikes me, along with most ethicists, as incredible, since love is one of the clearest examples of a moral virtue. On the nihilist’s view the concept of God, who is by definition a being worthy of worship, is incoherent. So the moral nihilist must be an atheist. If we believe that there are objective moral values, then we shall reject moral nihilism and along with it the nihilist’s claim that the concept of God is incoherent.
So suppose someone is not a moral nihilist and thinks that omnibenevolence is a moral property but denies that God has it because it infringes on His omnipotence (I can imagine a Muslim arguing in this way). In that case, one has two strategies to pursue in response. One would be to hold that any increase in power enjoyed by a non-omnibenevolent being is offset by such a being’s inferiority in moral worth and that on balance a being is greater if He is morally perfect even if unable to do certain (immoral) acts which a less than omnibenevolent being could do. The other strategy would be to show that omnipotence does not entail the ability to do just anything (see Flint and Freddoso’s article “Maximal Power” in my anthology Philosophy of Religion). In fact, I think Anselm and others argued plausibly that the ability to do evil acts actually evinces weakness not power. So there is no inconsistency between omnipotence and omnibenevolence.
Next, is it greater to be concrete rather than abstract? What you need to understand here is that the modern conception of abstract objects is quite different than the ancient conception. In the contemporary sense, abstract objects are essentially causally effete. They can’t do anything or cause anything. But for Plato and the ancients the Forms were causally potent and affected the world. They were really more like concrete objects. Now I take it to be clear that it is greater to be causally potent than impotent and that God therefore cannot be an abstract object in the modern sense. Moreover, God is personal and therefore cannot be an abstract object, since persons are concrete objects.
The point is that the attributes of God can be debated: there is no reason to think that we are utterly in the dark about the matter. Contrary to your claim, I think it is demonstrable that people’s conception of what a greatest conceivable being would be like has a core which has not varied much over history and culture since Anselm.
Second, APBT makes theism impossible, since only God can correctly conceive of God under APBT. Ironically, the medieval proponents of Perfect Being Theology would have heartily agreed that God alone has a perfect comprehension of His essence! In fact, that’s why Thomas Aquinas rejected Anselm’s ontological argument. But they would rightly respond that your conclusion that theism is impossible does not follow. First, it at most follows from your argument that theistic belief would not be warranted, not that theism would be false. Second, a partial grasp of God’s essential properties does not entail that one’s conception of God is false, but merely incomplete—especially if one is aware that one grasps only a glimmer of God’s greatness. Third, one can believe in x without being able to grasp x’s essence. For example, one could believe in God as the Creator and Designer of the universe.
But there is a more fundamental confusion underlying the second question, and that is the confusion of conceivability with imaginability. These are not the same. A thousand sided polygon is unimaginable, but it is hardly inconceivable. Conceivability is taken to be co-extensive with metaphysical possibility. So the greatest conceivable being is the same thing as the greatest possible being. It is, as Plantinga says, a maximally great being, the greatest being possible. True, Plantinga does give content to this notion in terms of specific properties, but those properties are obviously chosen because he thinks of them as great-making properties which a maximally great being cannot lack. Maximal greatness is doubtless not exhausted by the properties he mentions. His version of the ontological argument is based, in effect, on one of those incomplete, inadequate conceptions of God that you mention in this question.
Third, APBT undermines the glory and might of God by limiting His power and attributes to what we humans think of Him. The two confusions underlying the first two questions come together in this terribly misconceived objection. Of course, God “is entirely independent in both existence and essence from what we as humans think of Him.” To think otherwise is to confuse once again God’s being the greatest conceivable being with our discerning what properties a greatest conceivable being must possess. Moreover, the concept of the greatest conceivable being is not the same as the concept of the greatest imaginable being. No advocate of Perfect Being Theology thinks that God is “a being whose properties are contingent upon human cognition.” The very absurdity of such an allegation should have led you to suspect that something was very much amiss with the argument leading to such a conclusion.
So these objections are, I think, far from insurmountable. Notice that if you do think that Plantinga’s conception of God as a maximally great being is a metaphysically possible concept—as your advocating it for the task of Christian theology seems to suggest—, then it follows that God exists


Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/perfect-being-theology#ixzz2uya9vsBF

//Why is God a man anyways? Why not a woman? Does he even have a gender? See, more questions, but we already know that since it was MAN who created God and wrote the Bible, they made him a man, because men ruled back in those days and women were the servants of man.//

As for God’s being a “He,” Jesus taught us to think of God (who as an incorporeal being has no gender) under the metaphor of a Heavenly Father and, hence, a “He,” because this metaphor conveys both loving parental care as well as parental authority.  Again, this has nothing all to do with defeating TEA, as the argument makes no claims about the existence of validity of God.

//Atheism is the same way as they only disbelieve in God(s). It makes no other claims//

This is all covered in the official Blog under content definitions. An atheist is a person that denies or disbelieves a God exists. We also are aware that atheism makes NO CLAIMS. The problem remains however, and TEA has proven, when you deny one option (GOD), you are stuck with only two incorrect ones.

//So to sum it up, IDK is the 3rd option for the failed Elliott Argument, because there is NO way of knowing how the universe was created.//

In summary, saying IDK how the universe started is great, but atheists still only have two options for how it happened. Saying the words I DONT KNOW (as shown above), is not presenting a new option for HOW our physical universe came to be. Therefore you have not proven TEA invalid, nor have you defeated it by proving it a false dichotomy.

Atheism is the negative position and makes no claims about the existence of the universe. 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.

//God who can't be proven to exist//

God (the UC option) is a defined option...TEA however makes no claims about the existence or validity God. Therefore this has nothing to do with refuting the argument. It is important to remind our viewers however that we CAN PROVE GOD exists!! We just don't need to do so until TEA is established as sound. Moreover, one must remember that we can prove atheism (STE and SCPN) are incorrect options for the existence of the Universe, but no one can prove God is an incorrect option.

In conclusion, we feel confident that nothing was presented here which defeats TEA or offers up its demise. 85% of the article was about GOD, while TEA makes no claims about the existence or validity of such an option. Other than that, the article failed from the onset when it created a weak strawman by not attempting to defeat the REAL ARGUMENT. Rather presented a different (made up version) argument and tried to knock it down. Furthermore, the only rebuttal offered was an opinion that the words I DONT KNOW, somehow offer a new option for HOW the Universe came to be. This logic was obliterated, and proven to be nonsensical!! In the end this has shown to be one of the easier refutations we've ever had.

 

                                God Bless


//UPDATE://

 // Even though the generalization of the 2 illogical  and irrational options make it hard to pose a 3rd option, Chad cannot claim there isn't one. People have made these claims before and have been proven wrong later, i.e. the Higgs Boson or Quarks. //

Higgs Boson,Quarks, and anything else you can think of will fall under STE or SCPN once I make you break it down to its foundation....

So, not only is it hard, no one has ever done it. Not only has no one ever done it, but it's impossible. Not only is it impossible today, it will forever be impossible!!! Given the way the 2 acronyms have purposely been so broadly defined, it is logically impossible for a 3rd option for atheists to EVER be presented!! So yes, I do claim there IS NOT a 3rd option for atheists.

 Again, you have to remember that I created two acronyms which are so broadly defined, its logically IMPOSSIBLE for an atheist to ever present a third option. 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 dont 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 physical 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. Not gonna happen.

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

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

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

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

//The fact of the matter is, no matter what argument he comes up with, it is not up to the Atheist to prove anything, that is on the individual or argument making a claim.//

TEA makes no claims about the existence of validity of God or the UC option. All of the other claims that TEA does make have been thoroughly proven!!

// If you claim God created everything, it is on you to meet the burden of proof and supply evidence for the existence of God.//

I agree, luckily however TEA makes NO CLAIMS about the existence or validity of GOD or about him creating everything. So that means TEA has no burden of proof to meet in this regard.

//With that being said, the Elliott Argument has long been dead since it's inception as per Special Pleading, Argument from Authority, False Dichotomy, Argument from Ignorance & every other fallacy you can think of all combined into one.//

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

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

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

[[False Dichotomy]] - It's common for the atheist to then try and make the jump to, well if God is not pure nothingness, then he must create from pure nothingness. Mr. Elliott states emphatically that this is not true. "It is important to remember that nothing can exist outside the presence of God. This is to imply that everything which exists (which God created), was supernaturally manifested from [[within]] God (who is not pure nothingness). For example, something like energy didn't exist eternally inside of God in its current [[naturalistic]] form, but rather what was required to bring the energy into existence, existed ''timelessly'' inside of God who is supernatural, all knowing, all powerful, and [[omnipresent]]." Picture god as having the blue print and the tools inside of him to manifest these things. For more on special pleading you can watch the following video ::
(http://youtu.be/70ALcyajBnY)

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 capabilties/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 withold 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.

[[Argument from Authority]]??

P1: A position which leaves you with only two incorrect options cannot be correct
P2: Atheism is a position which leaves you with only two incorrect options
C: Atheism cannot be correct

No part of the above argument is an argument from authority!! P1 is a fact and has nothing to do with my authority. P2 is a fact that also has nothing to do with my authority. The conclusion logically follows.

 [[Argument from Ignorance]]??

 P1: A position which leaves you with only two incorrect options cannot be correct
 P2: Atheism is a position which leave you with only two incorrect options
 C: Atheism cannot be correct

No part of the above argument is an argument from ignorance!! P1 is a fact and has nothing to do with ignorance. P2 is also a fact and cannot be shown to come from ignorance unless you can prove atheism leaves you with more than the two options presented. You have failed to do so. The conclusion logically follows.

 

Again, nothing substantial was offered in the CIR article. It was filled with baseless nonsensical assertions and never once came close to putting a dent in TEA. In conclusion, we feel confident that nothing was presented here which has shown TEAs demise. 85% of the article was about GOD, while TEA makes no claims about the existence or validity of such an option. Other than that, the article failed from the onset when it created a weak strawman by not attempting to defeat the REAL ARGUMENT. Rather presented a different (made up version) argument and tried to knock it down. Furthermore, the only rebuttal offered was an opinion that the words I DONT KNOW, somehow offer a new option for HOW the Universe came to be. This logic was obliterated, and proven to be nonsensical!! In the end this has shown to be one of the easier refutations we've ever had.

 

 

 

GOD BLESS