Anti Illogic DESTROYED

TEA HAS DESTROYED YET ANOTHER VICTIM!!!

The FB page Anti Illogic (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anti-Illogic/384389925039084)
recently posted their official written refutation to TEA (The Elliott Argument). The following is my rebuttal to their pathetic attempt, and further proof and evidence that TEA cannot be defeated. His remarks will be in //BLUE// followed by my responses in BLACK. This is just getting too easy now!!     -God Bless -




//LETS TALK ABOUT THE WORST ARGUMENT AGAINST ATHEISM!// 

I think you mean the greatest undefeated apologetics argument of all time...But we will let the people decide that after I humiliate you by destroying your pathetic attempt at a refutation.

//I understand that some people may disagree that atheism is a valid view or is even correct in several ways. However I highly doubt that you are going to claim that this argument is even an argument against atheism at all.//


We shall see won't we

//So what argument am I talking about well its called the TEA argument and goes something like this
P1 - Both ''STE'' and ''SCPN'' are incorrect
P2 - If you deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated Creator'' option as having any causal influence in the origin of the Universe, then your only two options are ''STE'' and ''SCPN''.
P3 - Atheists deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated Creator'' option as having any causal influence in the origin of the Universe.
T - Atheism is incorrect//

Great, you have decided to try and refute the EXTENDED version of The Elliott Argument. Good luck...Lets begin!!

 

//STE being space and time are eternal and SCPN and something can come from pure nothingness//


Fail...You are correct that SCPN is defined as 'Something can Come from Pure Nothingness, but your definition of STE is a weak strawman. The actual definition of STE is: Space-time eternal in the past without true beginning, not limited or confined to our known universe, but any other voids, dimensions, multiverses, etc. The fact that you used the wrong definition and tried to separate space and time into two entities is evidence that the rest of you rebuttal will be just as underwhelming.  Pathetic waste of time.

//So lets make this even more readable.

P1- If you deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated Creator'' option as having any causal influence in the origin of the Universe, then your only two options are space and time are eternal or something can come out of pure nothingness

P2- Space and time are not eternal

P3- Nothing can come out of pure nothingness

P4- Atheists deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated Creator'' option as having any causal influence in the origin of the Universe.

C- Atheism is incorrect//


Fail...Both P1 and P2 are false (strawmen) as they do not use the correct definition of STE

//So this is going to take quite a bit of time to prove everything wrong with this argument so I’m going to do one reason every post about this topic. Lets talk about the first flaw. //


Oh yay, there are going to be more failures coming from you that we get to destroy?? Great!! I can't wait!! :)

 

//This is a false dichotomy for starters.//


FAIL!!!... It's 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,  because of the way the two acronyms are defined, it's logically impossible to ever present a third option for the existence of our physical universe. There will never be a third option for atheists.

Asserting a false dichotomy is not the same as proving one. It's utterly amazing to me that anyone who actually understands the broad definitions (of STE and SCPN) presented in the argument would ever attempt to 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, we frequently fall back to the 7 fundamental questions to help show our opponent where their proposed option actually falls. 

We 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 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.
//Let me give an annogly here. We are trying to determine why a rock is glowing in front of us. Three people come up with a hypotheses in why this rock is glowing. John suggests that the rock isn’t glowing but is covered in a moss that is glowing. Smith says that its glowing because it’s radioactive. Marry suggests its god. // 

FAIL....First you need to learn how to spell analogy!! Its not annogly!! LMFAO...Secondly, the reason this analogy doesn't apply is because there are MORE options than the three presented.  With The Elliott Argument however, its an absolute FACT that when you deny the UC option, you only have 2 remaining options.

//So we have three theories; Moss (M) Radioactive (R) and God (G). So lets use the TEA argument here again but change the variables.

P1- If you deny G your only two options are M and R

P2- M is wrong

P3- R is wrong

P4-A denies G is true

C- A is incorrect. //

FAIL...as we have already discussed, the above strawman is NOT an accurate representation of TEA because P1 is false and can be proven false. For example the rock could be glowing because it had been sitting in a camp fire for 8 hours. There are tons of more options than the three presented. With TEA however the way the acronyms have been defined makes it impossible for a third option to EVER exists!!

I have 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 SCPNCEU. 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, but good luck



//Already the problem with this is obvious. Instead of proving that the rock isn’t covered in moss or radioactive we claim these are wrong to begin with without proving that these are wrong.//


FAIL. Are you joking?? We don't prove STE and SCPN are wrong?? Hmmm, maybe you tried writing your refutation without reading our official blog. Let me help you out.

We recommend the following 8 points in refuting anyone who attempts to make a stand for SCPN...

A. We have absolutely no reason to believe that PN has ever existed in the past or that it could ever be achieved.

B. PN has no creative powers. This means PN cannot create or be the cause of anything.

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

D. Certain mathematical absolutes cannot be undermined. 0+0 always equals 0.

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

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

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

H. PN has no limiting boundaries, so not only would everything be able to come from PN (c), but it would be able to do so ALL the time!!

As far as STE is concerned...STE is incorrect for a number of reasons. The first based upon the  impossibility of an [[infinite regress]] infinite number of past events. In other situations it (STE) can be shown to be a self contradiction and present logical absurdities. Also made there is absolutely no evidence that space-time is in fact eternal in the past (without a true beginning), rather all the scientific evidence points to space-time having a finite beginning.

[[Infinite/Infinity]] - Freedictionary.com defines ''infinite'' as 1.) Having no boundaries or limits and 2.) Immeasurably great or large; boundless. Wikipedia defines ''infinity'' as "without any limit." [[David Hilbert]], considered by some to be the greatest mathematician of the twentieth century, stated in“[http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/HowManyAngels/Philosophy/

Philosophy.html On the Infinite]”, in Philosophy of Mathematics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall, 1964, pp. 139, 141:) “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.” Mathematicians realize that an actual ''infinite number of things'' leads to self-contradictions. ''Mr. Elliott'' points out this apparent dilema when he says, "if there was an infinite number of subsequent causes and events in the past eternity, we can never arrive at our present moment. We would have had to traverse an infinite number of events to get to today and you cannot traverse an infinite number of events. If there is an ''infinite amount of time'' in the past eternity we can never arrive at our current position in time."
 
[[Infinite Regress|'''Infinite Regress''']] - According to Wikipedia, an ''infinite regress'' in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, and the truth of proposition Pn-1 requires the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity.

To suggest that there have been an infinite regress of past events/moments, is to suggest that we would have had to come to an end of an infinite series. An infinite series however is by definition is a series with no end. This is logically incoherent.

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

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

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

 //Also just because you prove all other available options are wrong does NOT mean you get to assume that one option that is left standing is the correct one. This is something that TEA can’t handle.//

Actually TEA can handle it because TEA doesn't make ANY CLAIMS about the existence or validity of the ONE option that is left standing!! We have proven that atheism is incorrect without making any claims about GOD or the UC option. This remains the beauty and elegance of TEA. It was designed very carefully with this specific purpose in mind and provides a way to corner atheists without allowing them to rationally respond. God/UC option is considered by ''The Elliott Argument'' to simply be an option which atheists deny or disbelieve in. The argument itself makes no positive claims about the ''existence or validity'' of this option. Once TEA is established then the reader can draw any conclusions, or make any assumptions they want about a UC option.


*It's important to point out that with any formal argumentation, all terms must be well defined or the argument holds no chance of being valid. For "The Elliott Argument" this includes the UC option. Even though "The Elliott Argument" makes no claims about the existence or validity of this option, it still must be defined, and defined in very particular way to allow the entire argument to remain sound. For example, the author could not define the "Uncreated Creator option" as a red Buick sitting in a Wall-mart parking lot, because atheists by definition do not deny or disbelieve in such an entity. Therefore the argument would completely fall apart if it were defined as such. The fact here is that "Mr. Elliott" is able to define this UC option however he chooses since he is making no claims about its validity or its existence in the argument. So long of course as it still fits with the premises of the argument itself. However, what "Mr. Elliott" could not do is make up his own definitions for fundamental terms in the argument such as "space" or "time". Why, because he is actually making claims about these things validity and existence in the argument. For example he couldn't say something with a widely accepted definition like water is illogical to drink, and then change the definition of water to mean poison. Why, because he would be making claims about the validity of water, and then changing the known definition to meet his arguments needs. Again, with the UC option however, Mr. Elliott is NOT making any claims about its existence or validity. It's only presented as an OPTION which atheists deny or disbelieve in. Nothing more. So in fact he can define this UC option however he chooses, so long as it is still true that atheists (by definition) deny or disbelieve in it. Once TEA is proven, then the reader can draw any conclusions, or make any assumptions they want about a UC option.

//To continue with our rock example lets say that the rock isn’t radioactive or covered in moss. We did some test and neither turned out anything.//

FAIL...All you did was present a false dichotomy/strawman and then show that the two options (Moss and Radioactive) were both wrong....But that doesn't mean anything as I have already proven in this blog that there are more options than the two you presented. IE. the rock could have been glowing for numerous other reasons such as - being in a fire.  TEA on the other hand does not present a false dichotomy, and if you claim it does you have to PROVE it so, or you are simply making baseless nonsensical assertions without evidence/support.

//Does that mean we get to assume Marry here is right and it was caused by god? No. You still need to prove your theory.//

I agree, you cannot assume Marry was correct in this situation because there are MORE options that the two you provided in your weak strawman and false dichotomy. Again this is not the same as TEA because the atheist will never have any more option that STE or SCPN because they have been defined to cover every possible option.

//Unless we have every single possible option and theory that ever can be created by this glowing rock and they all have been proven wrong then you might be able to say its correct. However unless it has been tested we can’t be sure thus we are going to still not accept that this is the case. //

In your failed strawman it's true that you would need to be able to prove EVERY possible option wrong before saying MARRY was correct. But even then it could be that Marry was also incorrect as the God option could be proven incorrect...If that were the case, that would leave you with nothing more than a sort of agnosticism as to why the rock was glowing. However, As it pertains to TEA, whatever option you present will ultimately fall under STE or SCPN. Therefore it will be able to be proven invalid once we break it down and make you defined it.
 


//Another problem with TEA is that we are not limited to these two options to describe the big bang. The third option of an idea that we haven’t though of is a very valid argument so really the argument in order to be correct is going to have to be this//

FAIL...Even the Big Bang falls under STE or SCPN depending on which way you decide to break it down...Now I know for sure you haven't read the official blog before writing this pathetic refutation...Let me help you out some more. Have a look champ...

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

        So then the issue becomes, was there also time prior to this expansion?? This is where Mr. Elliott readily disagrees with Hawking, and says fundamentally yes, there was time!! "The concept of time was certainly in play, and physicists such as Hawking and others can no longer postulate otherwise," he says.
2.) IN REGARDS TO TIME EXISTING PRIOR TO THE EXPANSION OF THE SINGULARITY::

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

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

Thirdly, Roger Penrose from the University of Oxford, has published a new paper saying that the circular patterns seen in the WMAP mission data on the Cosmic Microwave Background suggest that space and time perhaps did not originate at the Big Bang. 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 an increasingly rapid rate although it is much cooler than it was in its past? This seems to go against all logic and scientific theory.

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


//P1- If you deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated Creator'' option as having any causal influence in the origin of the Universe, then you have two known options at this time and a unknown amount at this time

P2- All options known or unknown that don’t use god are wrong

P3- Atheists deny god exists

C- Atheism is wrong //

 
FAIL - P1 is not true because if you deny the UC option you only have 2 options...STE and SCPN...No other options can exist because of the way the two acronyms have been defined. So saying an unknown amount exist at this time is FALSE!!

For example let us look at something like [[Multi-Universe Theory/[[String Theory]] - If these theories are simply eternal cycles (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 space'', and also there would certainly be events occurring. Mr. Elliott claims that 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. (http://youtu.be/tOGFWYHHMqc) There is also another type of Multi-Universe theory where some mechanism randomly spits out an infinite number of universes all with different properties. The question then becomes is that 'mechanism' eternal in the past or did it begin to exist at some point? If its 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.


 
//Now there is a way they defend from this by saying these two options are defined so broadly that all other possible options are in these categories. This level of assumption is quite bold but no one has any proof of that. Unless you have a time machine and saw every possible explanation of how the big bang happened then you are committing the argument from ignorance. //

 
Fail...First of all I already destroyed your logic as it pertains to the BB theory...Secondly You don't need a time machine. All you need it logic and the law of non-contradiction...Let me show you (again)...Read S L O W L Y champ!!!!..Do we need to prove these are the only two options??? Well, technically we 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 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 SCPNCEU. 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, but good luck!!

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

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

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


It quickly becomes apparent that this is very different than providing someone with only two illogical options and making them pick. As it pertains to the refrigerator analogy, you can picture it like this:: Originally atheists had another refrigerator to select their drinks from. All on their own they decided that they would only drink from one refrigerator which had only two deadly drinks. Not very smart!! So in fact "atheists" are the ones that did it to themselves. "The Elliott Argument" is just pointing out the fact that these kind of people have chosen an irrational stance and decided to put themselves in a horrible bind.

So in conclusion to this rebuttal we learn that "The Elliott Argument" is not irrational and illogical nor is it self refuting for all the reasons previously mentioned. Giving someone two flawed options and telling them they have to pick, is a flawed unsound argument. Luckily "The Elliott Argument" does not do this. "The Elliott Argument" assumes a person is actually presented with three options, and it's their own doing if they wish to deny or disbelieve in one. In this case essentially denying #3 and leaving themselves with #1 and #2 (Gasoline and Bleach.)
1. It’s impossible that a 3rd option for atheists EVER be presented. In ten million years, atheists only two options will still be STE and SCPN. If you claim a false dichotomy you have to prove it otherwise you are just making baseless assertions.


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

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

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



//Another response to this is that I don’t know is a valid answer to the big bang. Well unfortunately for anyone who believes this it is a perfectly valid answer. The fact is scientists have no idea how the big bang happened at this point in time.//

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)

THREE FUN FACTS

1. It’s impossible that a 3rd option for atheists EVER be presented. In ten million years, atheists only two options will still be STE and SCPN. If you claim a false dichotomy you have to prove it otherwise you are just making baseless assertions.


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

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

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

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

More:

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

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

Examples:

1.) If you ask a child which one of his parents is taller, and he says IDK, he simply doesn't know which is taller, but he hasn't presented a NEW option. It's still either his mother is taller, his father is taller, or they're the same height. Simply saying 'IDK' does nothing except show that you in fact don't know something. It doesn't present a new option.

2.) Imagine I showed you that there are only two drinks in my refrigerator. You then argue that there are more options than the two I have presented. I say prove it. You say that a third option is 'I DONT KNOW'.  Besides being completely illogical and obviously irrational and absurd, the words 'I DONT KNOW' in no way offer a third option, nor do they prove that a third option in fact exists.

If you have 2 choices, saying IDK does not create a third. 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 material or physical. So logically they CANNOT PRODUCE NEW OPTIONS for the existence of our Universe.

And finally don't forget that the big bang also falls under STE or SCPN once I force you to break it down!!

//This is the god of the gaps argument. Trying to put god into areas that scientists don’t have a full understanding yet. //

FAIL...As we have already explained, TEA makes no claims about GODs existence or validity. If you are trying to defeat the argument you're barking up the wrong tree. TEA doesn't put God into areas that scientists cant understand, TEA shows atheists forever only have 2 options for the existence of the Universe and both will eternally be incorrect. 

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.
//Tune in next time as we cover why premises 2 and 3 are incorrect.//

We'll be waiting to destroy that as well.



The following is an update where 'Anti Illogic' further tries to disprove TEA. Again his statements will be in //BLUE// and my responses in BLACK. God Bless -

//Now lets talk about those two premises that I mentioned last time. For a quick recap this is what the argument is

P1- If you deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated Creator'' option as having any causal influence in the origin of the Universe, then your only two options are space and time are eternal or something can come out of pure nothingness//
 
Fail. This is an invalid representation of TEA as he uses an incorrect definition of STE. Can we all stand up and say STRAW-MAN! LOL
 

//P2- Space and time are not eternal//
 
Fail, again this is an incorrect definition of STE and also a misrepresentation of the actual argument.

//P3- Nothing can come out of pure nothingness//

That is true, but this it's not PREMISE 3 of TEA! LOL at this straw-man clown.

//P4- Atheists deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated Creator'' option as having any causal influence in the origin of the Universe.//

Correct. They do! :)


//C- Atheism is incorrect //

Correct. It is


//Now I want to talk about the ideas of premise 2 and 3 here and really buckle down and explain why they fail on this level. //
 
Straw-man. He misrepresented both P2 and P3 and is now going to try and knock it down. He failed by using false definitions and also by not presenting the real premises. The real P2 reads as follows, 'If you deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated Creator'' option as having any causal influence in the origin of the Universe, then your only two options are ''STE'' and ''SCPN''....While P3 reads 'Atheists deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated Creator'' option as having any causal influence in the origin of the Universe.'


//Now here is the major flaw with both of these premises. //
 
Fail. There is no flaw. The only flaw is that you have created a weak straw-man and misrepresented the REAL argument.
 
//The user of the argument need sto prove that these are incorrect. I can already here the words “But they have been unproven!”. //
 
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."
 
 
//Alright if they are then prove it they are wrong.//
 
Easy...We can disprove both STE an SCPN....We do so using science, evidence, math, logic, reason, and philosophy. In the official blog we go into exhaustive detail on how to disprove both of these concepts.
 
 //Before you go do that let me take my time and prove that you can’t disprove one of these arguments.//

Fail...It's quite easy to disprove both STE and SCPN. Watch as I destroy your next comments :)


//Lets take “Nothing can come out of pure nothingness” and try to prove this statement.//
 
Easy...
We recommend the following 8 points in refuting anyone who attempts to make a stand for SCPN...
A. We have absolutely no reason to believe that PN has ever existed in the past or that it could ever be achieved.
B. PN has no creative powers. This means PN cannot create or be the cause of anything.
C. PN cannot be Discriminatory - If something can come from PN then everything can.
D. Certain mathematical absolutes cannot be undermined. 0+0 always equals 0.
E. There is NO EVIDENCE, scientific or otherwise, which supports the claim that something can in fact come from PN. All the evidence points to the contrary view.

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

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

H. PN has no limiting boundaries, so not only would everything be able to come from PN (c), but it would be able to do so ALL the time!!
//Step 1 is to find some pure nothingness//
As we have just explained to you, this is one of the reasons that SCPN fails. There is no reason to believe that Pure nothingness has ever existed.  There is no possible scenario, scientific evidence, or philosophical understanding which could arise in the future that would prove SCPN to be correct. Pure nothingness cannot be tested for, and even if we did find something which ‘appears’ to pop into being uncaused from PN, we cannot be sure that it has. Moreover, we would still be stuck with all inherent problems of accepting Pure Nothingness hypothesis. These can NEVER change.

//Step 2 is to watch what pure nothingness does//
We know that if something DID come from PURE nothingness, then everything could. But through observational science and evidence we see that this does not occur. Also PN has no limiting boundaries, so not only would everything be able to come from PN (c), but it would be able to do so ALL the time!!

//Step 3 understand what pure nothingness does//
As we have explained...We know that if something DID come from PURE nothingness, then everything could. But through observational science and evidence we see that this does not occur. Also PN has no limiting boundaries, so not only would everything be able to come from PN (c), but it would be able to do so ALL the time!! There is no reason to believe that Pure nothingness has ever existed.  There is no possible scenario, scientific evidence, or philosophical understanding which could arise in the future that would prove SCPN to be correct. Pure nothingness cannot be tested for, and even if we did find something which ‘appears’ to pop into being uncaused from PN, we cannot be sure that it has. Moreover, we would still be stuck with all inherent problems of accepting Pure Nothingness hypothesis. These can NEVER change. Moreover, if something came from PN it would break the law of cause and effect and the law of uniformity.


// So without pure nothingness we have no idea of its properties or what it does. //
Fail...We do know a few the things about Pure nothingness. One of which is that by definition is cannot have PROPERTIES. By definition it cannot be ANYTHING...Its pure literal non-being. If it had properties it wouldn't be PN. You lose...And let me remind you.
A. We have absolutely no reason to believe that PN has ever existed in the past or that it could ever be achieved.
B. PN has no creative powers. This means PN cannot create or be the cause of anything.
C. PN cannot be Discriminatory - If something can come from PN then everything can.
D. Certain mathematical absolutes cannot be undermined. 0+0 always equals 0.
E. There is NO EVIDENCE, scientific or otherwise, which supports the claim that something can in fact come from PN. All the evidence points to the contrary view.

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

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

H. PN has no limiting boundaries, so not only would everything be able to come from PN (c), but it would be able to do so ALL the time!!


//So what does Chad say about this?

“A. We have absolutely no reason to believe that PN has ever existed in the past or that it could ever be achieved.”

Chad what proof do you have of this that is scientific? None of that philosophical reasons I want full proof that this is the case and not just an assertion.//
 
Its not an assertion, its an absolute SCIENTIFIC fact! There is no reason for anyone to believe that Pure Nothingness has ever existed. If you disagree please provide any scientific evidence that suggests Pure Nothingness has ever existed in the past or could ever be achieved. Good luck! Ill be waiting champ! ;)
 

//“B. PN has no creative powers. This means PN cannot create or be the cause of anything.”

We have no idea of the properties of pure nothingness. To claim anything about pure nothingness is an argument from ignorance. //
As it was explained to you previously, PN cannot have properties. By definition it is literal non-being. Are you really this dense or are you just playing? Because we know what PN is, we can reasonably make numerous claim about it, and also present the contrary evidence to such a hypothesis. You lose (again). So I remind you. Because PN is literal non-being, it goes without saying that it cannot have creative powers. Because having power do something is SOMETHING, therefor it would no longer be PN! :)

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

This has the same problem as B we don’t know what absolute nothingness does and making any claim is an argument from ignorance. //
Fail. See comments above. Also please note that because PN is literal non-being that means it could not have discriminatory properties. As having discriminatory properties would be SOMETHING, and thus it would not fall under the definition of PN.

//“D. Certain mathematical absolutes cannot be undermined. 0+0 always equals 0.”

Considering these mathematical ideas work in our universe where absolute nothingness cannot exist in then I agree. The problem is we have no idea of pure nothingness’s properties as far as we know then yes it could be 0 but we again have no idea. //
LOL...At first I thought he was joking, but apparently he really is this STUPID. Pure nothingness cannot have properties or it would not be pure nothingness. LOL. Furthermore there is no reason to believe that mathematical absolutes can be undermined in any universe, void, or dimension. If you have evidence to the contrary Id love to see it.

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

There is no evidence for or against what absolute nothingness can do Chad. We have no observed what it can do in any way. What you just did was a massive argument from ignorance. //
Again, I stand by the claim that There is NO EVIDENCE, scientific or otherwise, which supports the claim that something can in fact come from PN. If you can disprove this statement please present your evidence. I love science! :)....Also I stand by the claim that all the evidence points to the contrary view of PN as we have observational science at play every moment of every day.

//“F. It would break the law of cause and effect.”

As far as we know about absolute nothingness it could cause the universe to be created. Saying that absolute nothingness can’t do anything when we have no observations on what absolute nothingness does is a big argument from ignorance here Chad . //
FAIL...If something came from PN, it would break the law of cause and effect because PN is literal non-being. Thus there would be an effect with no cause. We know that this law cannot be broken. To assume it could is a baseless nonsensical assertion without evidence. Furthermore we have already explain to you how we can make the claim we make about PN. Your ignorance is apparently limitless! Do you still think PN can have properties? LOL

//“G. It would break the law of uniformity”

Refer to my last comment. //
Refer to all my comments! :)

//“H. PN has no limiting boundaries, so not only would everything be able to come from PN (c), but it would be able to do so ALL the time!!”

Argument from ignorance Chad. We have no idea what absolute nothingness does. Asserting it does anything or nothing is an argument from ignorance. //
We know that by definition PN is literal non-being. Something that is PN cannot have boundaries. If it did, it wouldn't be PN! LOL AT YOU. We don't need to observe PN to understand this champ! Damn you're dumb!


//Chad your argument really needs to get some real logic into it as it lacks anything that I would even call logic.//
 
It was nice destroying your work and humiliating your futile attempts to disprove me.

Before I go, look at this winner try to say PN could have properties and that it could be discriminatory...bwahahaha










 
 
God bless
WHOS NEXT??!! #undefeated!!



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Elliott Argument (Official)

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

Chad Elliott The Atheist Killa