Jason Petersen 'Answers For Hope' Proven LIAR and failed LOGIC
May 30 2015
It has been brought to my attention that a Jason Petersen from 'Answers For Hope' https://www.facebook.com/answersforhopeorg?fref=ts has attempted to refute TEA (The Elliott Argument). His complete and utter failure can be seen at the following website. http://answersforhope.org/response-elliott-argument/
The fact remains that THE ELLIOTT ARGUMENT has never been defeated, cannot be defeated, and continues to dismantle anyone who attempts to refute it. In the following blog, watch Jason Petersen get intellectually destroyed.
If Mr. Petersen ever changes his mind and wants to accept my live real time public debate challenge (on neutral grounds), with rules and moderators, I would be happy to destroy him. God bless -
I will now get into the destruction of Mr. Petersen and his failed rebuttal word for word. His work will be posted in // // followed by my responses in BLUE.
//This blog post is to be a response to Chad Elliott’s ‘Elliott Argument’ for the existence of God, as well as a call to Chad Elliott to repent of his sins and embrace Jesus Christ and the authority of the scriptures.//
All of my sins have been repented for, yet neither I, nor any other Christian on this planet is without error. Jesus was the only one without sin. Mr. Petersen does not know me, nor does he have any idea what I have or have not repented for. So his judgement is not a righteous judgment which makes him the one in error here. (John 7:24). You will continue to see his false accusations and failed attacks throughout this post.
//I saw an atheist there and attempted to have a sincere dialogue with him, but Elliott immediately banned both of us from the Facebook page. Now, this author bears no animosity towards Elliott for administering his own page, but what has said so far summarizes this author’s first encounter with him.//
I ban any and all people from my page who fail to follow the rules. Mr. Petersen was one of these people. It's really that simple!! I've banned over 38,000 individuals since the inception of my page, and count every single one of them as a VICTORY. This is no shock to anyone who has witnessed my process.
(https://www.facebook.com/notes/philosophy-science-and-apologetics/rule-violators-victory/486084708114079)
//My second encounter with Elliott was also in 2012. It took place on William Lane Craig’s Facebook page (Reasonable Faith). Elliott came on to the page and was pleading to Craig to start using ‘the Elliott’ argument in his debate. 1 Elliott eventually got banned for making fun of another person’s disability whilst debating them on Craig’s page.//
LIE #1 - This is an outright lie by Mr. Petersen...
1.) William Lane Craig does not have a Facebook page (that I am aware of). The Reasonable Faith FB page is not run by him nor does he post or answer any of the content on the page.
2.) I never "pleaded" with WLC to use my argument (I didn't even speak to him), as I do on many sites, I merely suggested that the admins learn the argument and begin using it to better equip themselves against atheists.
3.) I never made fun of anyone with a disability. The admin of the page couldn't understand the logic of the argument and banned me because I refused to back down to him. Then later he accused me of calling him a "Retard," which never happened, and was actually posted by a troll atheist who was pretending to be me with a fake account.
//My third encounter with Elliott was via private messaging. I observed him directly insulting and atheist and belittling him. He was also elevating himself in a Christ-like manner by bragging about his ‘debate prowess.’//
LIE #2 - Another lie by Mr. Petersen. I'm an aggressive no non-sense servant of the Lord who works with confidence and a Christ like spirit. I never belittle people (without later repentance), yet my strength is easily misconstrued by those who are unfamiliar with my movement. Me having an undefeated record and world renowned debate prowess is a fact. It is by no means an elevation of myself to a Christ like stature. Christ is my lord and savior. He is KING!! To him be all the honor and glory!! Without him there is no me, there is no argument, there are no victories, there is nothing!! Mr. Petersen apparently has an inferiority complex, which makes it difficult for him understand how well known Christians achieve success without thinking they are on a Christ like pedestal.
I then challenged Mr. Petersen "multiple times" to a live real time public debate with rules and moderators on a neutral site. He refused, and proved he was scared of tangling with me (as I expected). Most of these people online are all talk, as over the years less than 5% actually enter into a live debate with me. Mr. Petersen was no different. After he proved he was yellow and I told him I own him and thanked him for the victory, I also reminded him that if he ever changes his mind (and would like to accept my debate challenge) I would be more than happy to intellectually rape him. He is yet to accept, and I'm not holding my breath in anticipation of such a decision.
//I offered to allow him to come on my show to debate me. He initially accepted, but when I indicated that I can follow through with it, he said that I would first have to debate him in a live-text chat room (moderated by Chad himself).//
LIE #3 - Yet another lie!! Not only is this guy a coward, he is quite possibly the most dishonest self proclaimed Christian on the internet. What a joke!! None of my debates are moderated by me. They take place in a live neutral setting with strict rules and moderators chosen by my opponent. I would be more than happy to debate Mr. Petersen live on his show (even though it's not neutral as he can cut me off at any time), right after he accepts MY CHALLENGE. You see Mr. Petersen, you don't get to run from the challenge I've had up for the last 8 years because you're scared, and then go try to create your own challenge. Thats not how things work bubba. My challenge was made to you first. Debate me on my terms and then I will be happy to debate you on yours.
//My fourth and final encounter with Elliott was on Jason Lisle’s Facebook page. I saw him, once again, attempting to convince someone (this time, Jason Lisle) to allow him (Chad Elliott) to teach Jason Lisle how to use ‘The Elliott Argument.’ Elliott then proclaimed that a book is coming out soon. The idea of a person that has not accepted Christ possibly instructing a body of believers en masse is concerning.//
Like I do with many prominent Christians, this particular day I was attempting to speak to Mr. Jason Lisle (and have a conversation with him about (TEA))
LIE #4 - Again Mr. Petersen was seen making the claim that I have not accepted Christ. This is not only a lie, but it's a sin, and quite frankly a very disturbing fact that he goes against scripture and falsely condemns people whom he does not know. Baseless nonsensical assertions from Mr. Petersen that continue to go unfounded and have zero support. Not to mention he is completely losing site of the argument with failed attempts at Ad-Hom attacks. Mr. Petersen apparently is incapable of focusing on the merit of the argument and would rather shift the debate to me defending against his multiple lies. That makes sense considering TEA cannot and will not ever be defeated.
//I asked Elliott if he was held accountable to a local Church or body of believers. Elliott’s response was frightening. He claimed that God told him to abstain from going to Church because the Church is corrupt and compromising.//
Lie #5 - Yet another lie. How many lies can this pathetic excuse for a Christian tell??! This is just becoming comical now. The church as a whole is not corrupt or compromising you genius!! The church "I had been attending" turned out that way. This guys brain works about as good as my Grandmas hip. Mr. Petersen apparently can't do anything but lie and try to manipulate the context of his conversations. Which I might add he fails miserably at time and time again. LOL
//Elliott is supposed to be a ‘Christian apologist.’ That being said, why would Elliott claim that God told him something that is in direct contradiction with passages such as Hebrew 10:35, Ephesians 5:25-27, 1 Timothy 3:14-15, etc. Surely, God does not lie (Titus 1:2), and if God told him such a thing, would it not make God a liar?//
1.) There is no bible verse (including Hebrew 10:35, Ephesians 5:25-27, 1 Timothy 3:14-15) which prohibit God from calling one of his children to leave a corrupt church and go into the world with his/her work.
2.) God is not a liar (Titus 1:2), but God does not say it is wrong to come out from under a corrupt church and spread the word. Again Mr. Petersen's logic and understanding of scripture is not only flawed, but pathetic and underwhelming.
//After all, the Holy Spirit guided the writers of the scriptures as they penned the Word of God. We are clearly told to use the scriptures as a tool of correction (2 Timothy 3:16-17).//
That is correct, but again (as I have already stated) the scripture does not prohibit God from calling one of his children from coming out from under a corrupt church.
//Elliott’s claim of revelation concerning not going to Church clearly fails this test. It should be, if not already before, evident that Elliott is not a Christian apologist nor is he a Christian.//
More failed logic, and ungodly false condemnation. Being called by God to leave a corrupt church and spread his word is neither evidence of a non-Christian nor evidence of non-Christian apologist. This poor fellow fails at every turn.
LIE #6 - I am certainly a Christian as well as a Christian apologist. He does not know me, nor has he witness which book I read or what God I pray to. Mr. Petersen remains nothing more than a dishonest coward, scared of live debate, and unworthy of any further attention.
//Elliott’s claim of revelation concerning not going to Church clearly fails this test. It should be, if not already before, evident that Elliott is not a Christian apologist nor is he a Christian. Rather, he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing that outwardly professes belief in Christ, but in actuality does not believe in Christ.//
1.) It doesn't fail any test because (as previously stated) God does not forbid coming out from under a corrupt church.
2.) LIE #7 - Mr. Petersen has falsely accused me of being a wolf in sheep's clothing, saying I have not accepted Jesus Christ, that I am trying to elevate myself to a Christ like stature, that I am not a Christian, and now that I don't even believe in Jesus. LOL. All unfounded baseless assertions with zero evidence. Mr. Petersen would not only get intellectually humiliated by me in a live real time public debate on my formal apologetic work, but he is also a rampant sinner and has no regard for his false accusations. He is so blind that he is unable to repent due to his overwhelming inferiority complex. I have never witnessed a man so lost that he relies on false accusations just to present a rebuttal to my work. (1 Peter 3:16, Exodus 20:16, Deuteronomy 19:18-19, 1 Peter 2:1-12, etc.) Pathetic!!
//Elliott identifies himself as a philosopher, theologian, and apologist. Typically, the title of ‘apologist’ is given by the Church. This does not mean that if one cannot defend the faith if they are not designated as an apologist by the Church, after all, one of the duties of a Christian is clearly to defend the faith.//
Lie #8 - Another LIE. To be an apologist you do NOT have to be appointed by any church. Come on bubba, are you really this stupid or just playing with us??
//Now, anyone can be a philosopher, but the question is, ‘Is Chad Elliott a ‘good’ philosopher? Soon, we shall find out.//
LOL... Well coward, yes...YES we will find out!! haha. Since you were too scared to accept my live real time public debate challenge on neutral grounds, I will just have to intellectually rape you here. You submitted your formal WRITTEN refutation (which I will deal with further down) and I must say it was BY FAR the most weak, feeble, miserable, elementary trash any one has ever submitted to me. So for that I thank you. It literally took me less than 15 minutes to annihilate you. You truly are a JOKE and your logic is even more pathetic than your false accusations and lies. CLOWN!!
// Elliott, he is not a theologian. A theologian is typically defined as someone that is an expert in theology. Elliott, unfortunately, has shown that he is not only a terrible theologian (by claiming a revelation from God that contradicts the scriptures), but he is also not even a believer.//
LIE #9 - Ahhhh how cute...Yet ANOTHER false accusation with no support... Now I'm not even a believer in Christ...LOL. I wonder what else he knows about me that he possibly couldn't know? Assumptions make an ass out of you Mr. Petersen!! :) HEEEE HAAAAA (Donkey)
//Elliott also has named his argument, ‘The Elliott Argument’ after himself. Elliott wants to clam that he is giving glory to God, but if so, why is it that Elliott named the argument after himself? Surely, there are better names for the argument that would at least give some description of what the argument is about.//
I'm a Christian and Everyone who knows me knows I give God all the honor and Glory. This is not up for debate. Without Him there is no me, there is no argument, there are no victories, there is nothing. I have already explained this to you bubba. The fact that I named it The Elliott Argument is not to Glorify myself, rather it was to incorporate a catchy acronym (TEA). For example, "Have you heard the new argument TEA?" It makes people think twice, and if you can get them to think twice, its quite possible you can get them to listen. You wouldn't know about marketing though, as you are still begging to get 1,000 likes on your FB page. SMH!! This is probably why TEA has taken the apologetics world by storm with well over 900,000 views, while you remain to be a worthless zero who has contributed nothing substantial to the field of apologetics or philosophy.
//Since Elliott is trying to establish the proposition ‘God exists’ as a proposition that the argument gives knowledge of, Elliott will have to give an explanation of how his worldview can account for knowledge. If Elliott cannot account for logic, then his entire argument is nothing more than a collection of arbitrary assertions. Elliott’s argument cannot get off the ground.//
1.) If my worldview were inconsistent with my argument, it would NOT invalidate the argument, rather it would just prove that my worldview is inconsistent. For example, I could be a complete lunatic who believes logic doesn't exist, that unicorns live under my bed, and that I float to work on a magic carpet each day. I could also believe (and maintaing) that my argument is 100% false, that God was killed by aliens, and that atheism is the one true position. However, none of things matter, as they would not invalidate the argument itself. An argument is sound and valid despite any of the authors beliefs about it. It is also true that an arguments soundness and validity are not dependent on any of the authors positions.
In other words, my personal beliefs, positions, and stances are completely irrelevant to the soundness and validity of any formal deductive argument which I create.
That being said, it's important to note that: If my worldview didn't match up with the logic of my argument, it may be true that I could not adequately defend it (the argument), but it wouldn't be true that the argument itself was therefore flawed.
2.) What Mr. Petersen fails to understand is that my worldview "IS "in fact consistent with TEA, and the rest of my apologetic work!! I believe in God and believe that God is responsible for human logic. Simple!! Furthermore, it's worth noting that I am not required to go to scripture for support of my argument as TEA makes no claims about scripture. Nor does it rely on any Christian Doctrine to be proven sound.
//It (TEA) is not logically consistent because Elliott has not shown how he can be justified in thinking that the laws of logic and rules of inference holds.//
As I have already explained...
1.) Let me try to get this through Mr. Petersen's thick skull one more time. Even if "I" were not justified in believing the laws of logic or rules of inference hold true (based on my worldview), that would not invalidate TEA. TEA would still stand on its own merit independent of anyones worldview, beliefs, societal evolution, or time frame. This includes me as the author. You see, an argument is true regardless of if it is consistent or not consistent with the beliefs of its author. Imagine a crazy person who one day writes down the greatest argument of all time. The truth of that argument exists despite the author being able to understand it, defend it, explain it, or justify it. In simple terms, the author and the argument are mutually exclusive. Mr. Petersen is such a intellectual midget he cannot figure this out.
2.) Any clear, rational thinking mind can see that a believer in God (me), would be justified in believing that the laws of logic and inference hold true. Without God for example, the atheist may believe human logic is not a necessary foundational truth. They may argue that it's simply the product of evolution or societal pressures. However, a believer in God 'is' certainly justified in taking the position that God is the creator and provider of human logic/knowledge. Also, scripture is irrelevant to this point, as ANY THEIST can make this claim, not just Christians.
//Elliott’s claims that he can demonstrate (produce knowledge) that God exists stands in stark contrast to the doctrines set forth in the scriptures. As such, his apologetic methodology stands in stark opposition to the propositions that are taught in the Bible.//
LIE #10 - This is an yet another absolute lie from Mr. Petersen. How many lies have we counted now from Mr. Petersen? At least 10 if i'm not mistaken. There is absolutely and unequivocally no doctrine set forth in scripture which states one cannot demonstrate or produce knowledge that God exists.
One is able to obtain knowledge because God has allowed it so. The same way logic exists because of God. So my belief in God is what provided me the ability and knowledge to prove his existence. Therefore God is the one who ultimately allows me to defend and justify this argument. However, one must remember that even if I were unable to defend this argument, didn't understand this argument, or my worldview was inconsistent with its content, it would not invalidate it's truth!! Logic 101 you pathetic dishonest waste on society!! Go beg for some more likes because the AK is tired of intellectually destroying your failed reasoning skills. You're a joke, and now I am done with you!! Nice try....lol
Footnotes:
//1. Elliott is known to go to prominent Christian apologists pages and ask/tell the apologist to start using his argument.//
That is correct MRS. Petersen. Every theist in the world should learn how to utilize TEA, as it cannot be defeated and remains one of the most impactful apologetic arguments of ALL TIME!! If you weren't such a coward, or you didn't have the logic of a school boy, you might understand this. This argument has been around less than 8 years and already has nearly 1 million views. Can you imagine in 500 years how many views it will have and how many apologists will be using it? All of them!! And you will still be a worthless, lying, dishonest, nothing with failed logic!! haha
//2. I was recovering from surgery at the time I was messaging Elliott.//
Ummmm....Who cares??! I was drinking lemonade when I wrote this 15 minute response and swiftly destroyed the trash Mrs. Petersen submitted.
//3. ‘The Elliott Argument: Official,’ <http://theatheistkilla.blogspot.com/.../the-elliott...>//
Yes!! Read it!! Learn it!! Utilize it!! Love it!!
//4. “I have proven that atheism is an incorrect and untenable position without making any claims about GOD.” Elliott later claims the argument can be ‘flipped’ to prove that God exists. So much for not making any claims about God.//
THE "ORIGINAL VERSION" OF TEA MAKES NO CLAIMS ABOUT GOD. THE TEA FLIP HOWEVER IS A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT AND DOES MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT GODS EXISTENCE. APPARENTLY THIS INDIVIDUAL WASN'T BRIGHT ENOUGH TO DIFFERENTIATE THE TWO.
//5. ‘STE’ stands for ‘space-time eternal.’ In essence, this position entails that both space and time has always existed. ‘SCPN’ stands for ‘something can come from pure nothingness.’//
This is a generic definition and is not a thorough or valid representation of the actual acronyms. Lets chalk tis up to more dishonesty from this failed nobody.
//6. The Bible proclaims that God is the king of all things (1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Corinthians 8:6).//
THAT IS CORRECT. GOD IS THE KING OF ALL KINGS!!
**SO IN THE END, WE SEE THAT HIS ENTIRE REBUTTAL WAS NOTHING MORE THAN BASELESS UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS SUPPORTED BY POOR LOGIC, LIES, AND A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO GET MY ATTENTION. YET ANOTHER VICTORY AND PROOF TEA CANNOT BE DEFEATED!!! IF MR. PETERSEN EVER WANTS TO ACCEPT MY DEBATE CHALLENGE OR TURN INTO A MAN AND QUIT RUNNING, I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DISMANTLE HIM IN LIVE REAL TIME, ON A NEUTRAL SETTING, WITH STRICT RULES, AND MODERATORS OF HIS CHOICE.**
NICE TRY BUBBA! LOL...BET YOU THIS COWARD NEVER ACCEPTS!!! OF COURSE HE WONT BECAUSE I WOULD HUMILIATE HIM!! DAMN THAT WAS TOO EASY!! OFF TO BED NOW....THAT WAS BORING. GOD BLESS - WHOS NEXT??
It has been brought to my attention that a Jason Petersen from 'Answers For Hope' https://www.facebook.com/answersforhopeorg?fref=ts has attempted to refute TEA (The Elliott Argument). His complete and utter failure can be seen at the following website. http://answersforhope.org/response-elliott-argument/
The fact remains that THE ELLIOTT ARGUMENT has never been defeated, cannot be defeated, and continues to dismantle anyone who attempts to refute it. In the following blog, watch Jason Petersen get intellectually destroyed.
If Mr. Petersen ever changes his mind and wants to accept my live real time public debate challenge (on neutral grounds), with rules and moderators, I would be happy to destroy him. God bless -
I will now get into the destruction of Mr. Petersen and his failed rebuttal word for word. His work will be posted in // // followed by my responses in BLUE.
//This blog post is to be a response to Chad Elliott’s ‘Elliott Argument’ for the existence of God, as well as a call to Chad Elliott to repent of his sins and embrace Jesus Christ and the authority of the scriptures.//
All of my sins have been repented for, yet neither I, nor any other Christian on this planet is without error. Jesus was the only one without sin. Mr. Petersen does not know me, nor does he have any idea what I have or have not repented for. So his judgement is not a righteous judgment which makes him the one in error here. (John 7:24). You will continue to see his false accusations and failed attacks throughout this post.
//I saw an atheist there and attempted to have a sincere dialogue with him, but Elliott immediately banned both of us from the Facebook page. Now, this author bears no animosity towards Elliott for administering his own page, but what has said so far summarizes this author’s first encounter with him.//
I ban any and all people from my page who fail to follow the rules. Mr. Petersen was one of these people. It's really that simple!! I've banned over 38,000 individuals since the inception of my page, and count every single one of them as a VICTORY. This is no shock to anyone who has witnessed my process.
(https://www.facebook.com/notes/philosophy-science-and-apologetics/rule-violators-victory/486084708114079)
//My second encounter with Elliott was also in 2012. It took place on William Lane Craig’s Facebook page (Reasonable Faith). Elliott came on to the page and was pleading to Craig to start using ‘the Elliott’ argument in his debate. 1 Elliott eventually got banned for making fun of another person’s disability whilst debating them on Craig’s page.//
LIE #1 - This is an outright lie by Mr. Petersen...
1.) William Lane Craig does not have a Facebook page (that I am aware of). The Reasonable Faith FB page is not run by him nor does he post or answer any of the content on the page.
2.) I never "pleaded" with WLC to use my argument (I didn't even speak to him), as I do on many sites, I merely suggested that the admins learn the argument and begin using it to better equip themselves against atheists.
3.) I never made fun of anyone with a disability. The admin of the page couldn't understand the logic of the argument and banned me because I refused to back down to him. Then later he accused me of calling him a "Retard," which never happened, and was actually posted by a troll atheist who was pretending to be me with a fake account.
//My third encounter with Elliott was via private messaging. I observed him directly insulting and atheist and belittling him. He was also elevating himself in a Christ-like manner by bragging about his ‘debate prowess.’//
LIE #2 - Another lie by Mr. Petersen. I'm an aggressive no non-sense servant of the Lord who works with confidence and a Christ like spirit. I never belittle people (without later repentance), yet my strength is easily misconstrued by those who are unfamiliar with my movement. Me having an undefeated record and world renowned debate prowess is a fact. It is by no means an elevation of myself to a Christ like stature. Christ is my lord and savior. He is KING!! To him be all the honor and glory!! Without him there is no me, there is no argument, there are no victories, there is nothing!! Mr. Petersen apparently has an inferiority complex, which makes it difficult for him understand how well known Christians achieve success without thinking they are on a Christ like pedestal.
I then challenged Mr. Petersen "multiple times" to a live real time public debate with rules and moderators on a neutral site. He refused, and proved he was scared of tangling with me (as I expected). Most of these people online are all talk, as over the years less than 5% actually enter into a live debate with me. Mr. Petersen was no different. After he proved he was yellow and I told him I own him and thanked him for the victory, I also reminded him that if he ever changes his mind (and would like to accept my debate challenge) I would be more than happy to intellectually rape him. He is yet to accept, and I'm not holding my breath in anticipation of such a decision.
//I offered to allow him to come on my show to debate me. He initially accepted, but when I indicated that I can follow through with it, he said that I would first have to debate him in a live-text chat room (moderated by Chad himself).//
LIE #3 - Yet another lie!! Not only is this guy a coward, he is quite possibly the most dishonest self proclaimed Christian on the internet. What a joke!! None of my debates are moderated by me. They take place in a live neutral setting with strict rules and moderators chosen by my opponent. I would be more than happy to debate Mr. Petersen live on his show (even though it's not neutral as he can cut me off at any time), right after he accepts MY CHALLENGE. You see Mr. Petersen, you don't get to run from the challenge I've had up for the last 8 years because you're scared, and then go try to create your own challenge. Thats not how things work bubba. My challenge was made to you first. Debate me on my terms and then I will be happy to debate you on yours.
//My fourth and final encounter with Elliott was on Jason Lisle’s Facebook page. I saw him, once again, attempting to convince someone (this time, Jason Lisle) to allow him (Chad Elliott) to teach Jason Lisle how to use ‘The Elliott Argument.’ Elliott then proclaimed that a book is coming out soon. The idea of a person that has not accepted Christ possibly instructing a body of believers en masse is concerning.//
Like I do with many prominent Christians, this particular day I was attempting to speak to Mr. Jason Lisle (and have a conversation with him about (TEA))
LIE #4 - Again Mr. Petersen was seen making the claim that I have not accepted Christ. This is not only a lie, but it's a sin, and quite frankly a very disturbing fact that he goes against scripture and falsely condemns people whom he does not know. Baseless nonsensical assertions from Mr. Petersen that continue to go unfounded and have zero support. Not to mention he is completely losing site of the argument with failed attempts at Ad-Hom attacks. Mr. Petersen apparently is incapable of focusing on the merit of the argument and would rather shift the debate to me defending against his multiple lies. That makes sense considering TEA cannot and will not ever be defeated.
//I asked Elliott if he was held accountable to a local Church or body of believers. Elliott’s response was frightening. He claimed that God told him to abstain from going to Church because the Church is corrupt and compromising.//
Lie #5 - Yet another lie. How many lies can this pathetic excuse for a Christian tell??! This is just becoming comical now. The church as a whole is not corrupt or compromising you genius!! The church "I had been attending" turned out that way. This guys brain works about as good as my Grandmas hip. Mr. Petersen apparently can't do anything but lie and try to manipulate the context of his conversations. Which I might add he fails miserably at time and time again. LOL
//Elliott is supposed to be a ‘Christian apologist.’ That being said, why would Elliott claim that God told him something that is in direct contradiction with passages such as Hebrew 10:35, Ephesians 5:25-27, 1 Timothy 3:14-15, etc. Surely, God does not lie (Titus 1:2), and if God told him such a thing, would it not make God a liar?//
1.) There is no bible verse (including Hebrew 10:35, Ephesians 5:25-27, 1 Timothy 3:14-15) which prohibit God from calling one of his children to leave a corrupt church and go into the world with his/her work.
2.) God is not a liar (Titus 1:2), but God does not say it is wrong to come out from under a corrupt church and spread the word. Again Mr. Petersen's logic and understanding of scripture is not only flawed, but pathetic and underwhelming.
//After all, the Holy Spirit guided the writers of the scriptures as they penned the Word of God. We are clearly told to use the scriptures as a tool of correction (2 Timothy 3:16-17).//
That is correct, but again (as I have already stated) the scripture does not prohibit God from calling one of his children from coming out from under a corrupt church.
//Elliott’s claim of revelation concerning not going to Church clearly fails this test. It should be, if not already before, evident that Elliott is not a Christian apologist nor is he a Christian.//
More failed logic, and ungodly false condemnation. Being called by God to leave a corrupt church and spread his word is neither evidence of a non-Christian nor evidence of non-Christian apologist. This poor fellow fails at every turn.
LIE #6 - I am certainly a Christian as well as a Christian apologist. He does not know me, nor has he witness which book I read or what God I pray to. Mr. Petersen remains nothing more than a dishonest coward, scared of live debate, and unworthy of any further attention.
//Elliott’s claim of revelation concerning not going to Church clearly fails this test. It should be, if not already before, evident that Elliott is not a Christian apologist nor is he a Christian. Rather, he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing that outwardly professes belief in Christ, but in actuality does not believe in Christ.//
1.) It doesn't fail any test because (as previously stated) God does not forbid coming out from under a corrupt church.
2.) LIE #7 - Mr. Petersen has falsely accused me of being a wolf in sheep's clothing, saying I have not accepted Jesus Christ, that I am trying to elevate myself to a Christ like stature, that I am not a Christian, and now that I don't even believe in Jesus. LOL. All unfounded baseless assertions with zero evidence. Mr. Petersen would not only get intellectually humiliated by me in a live real time public debate on my formal apologetic work, but he is also a rampant sinner and has no regard for his false accusations. He is so blind that he is unable to repent due to his overwhelming inferiority complex. I have never witnessed a man so lost that he relies on false accusations just to present a rebuttal to my work. (1 Peter 3:16, Exodus 20:16, Deuteronomy 19:18-19, 1 Peter 2:1-12, etc.) Pathetic!!
//Elliott identifies himself as a philosopher, theologian, and apologist. Typically, the title of ‘apologist’ is given by the Church. This does not mean that if one cannot defend the faith if they are not designated as an apologist by the Church, after all, one of the duties of a Christian is clearly to defend the faith.//
Lie #8 - Another LIE. To be an apologist you do NOT have to be appointed by any church. Come on bubba, are you really this stupid or just playing with us??
//Now, anyone can be a philosopher, but the question is, ‘Is Chad Elliott a ‘good’ philosopher? Soon, we shall find out.//
LOL... Well coward, yes...YES we will find out!! haha. Since you were too scared to accept my live real time public debate challenge on neutral grounds, I will just have to intellectually rape you here. You submitted your formal WRITTEN refutation (which I will deal with further down) and I must say it was BY FAR the most weak, feeble, miserable, elementary trash any one has ever submitted to me. So for that I thank you. It literally took me less than 15 minutes to annihilate you. You truly are a JOKE and your logic is even more pathetic than your false accusations and lies. CLOWN!!
// Elliott, he is not a theologian. A theologian is typically defined as someone that is an expert in theology. Elliott, unfortunately, has shown that he is not only a terrible theologian (by claiming a revelation from God that contradicts the scriptures), but he is also not even a believer.//
LIE #9 - Ahhhh how cute...Yet ANOTHER false accusation with no support... Now I'm not even a believer in Christ...LOL. I wonder what else he knows about me that he possibly couldn't know? Assumptions make an ass out of you Mr. Petersen!! :) HEEEE HAAAAA (Donkey)
//Elliott also has named his argument, ‘The Elliott Argument’ after himself. Elliott wants to clam that he is giving glory to God, but if so, why is it that Elliott named the argument after himself? Surely, there are better names for the argument that would at least give some description of what the argument is about.//
I'm a Christian and Everyone who knows me knows I give God all the honor and Glory. This is not up for debate. Without Him there is no me, there is no argument, there are no victories, there is nothing. I have already explained this to you bubba. The fact that I named it The Elliott Argument is not to Glorify myself, rather it was to incorporate a catchy acronym (TEA). For example, "Have you heard the new argument TEA?" It makes people think twice, and if you can get them to think twice, its quite possible you can get them to listen. You wouldn't know about marketing though, as you are still begging to get 1,000 likes on your FB page. SMH!! This is probably why TEA has taken the apologetics world by storm with well over 900,000 views, while you remain to be a worthless zero who has contributed nothing substantial to the field of apologetics or philosophy.
//Since Elliott is trying to establish the proposition ‘God exists’ as a proposition that the argument gives knowledge of, Elliott will have to give an explanation of how his worldview can account for knowledge. If Elliott cannot account for logic, then his entire argument is nothing more than a collection of arbitrary assertions. Elliott’s argument cannot get off the ground.//
1.) If my worldview were inconsistent with my argument, it would NOT invalidate the argument, rather it would just prove that my worldview is inconsistent. For example, I could be a complete lunatic who believes logic doesn't exist, that unicorns live under my bed, and that I float to work on a magic carpet each day. I could also believe (and maintaing) that my argument is 100% false, that God was killed by aliens, and that atheism is the one true position. However, none of things matter, as they would not invalidate the argument itself. An argument is sound and valid despite any of the authors beliefs about it. It is also true that an arguments soundness and validity are not dependent on any of the authors positions.
In other words, my personal beliefs, positions, and stances are completely irrelevant to the soundness and validity of any formal deductive argument which I create.
That being said, it's important to note that: If my worldview didn't match up with the logic of my argument, it may be true that I could not adequately defend it (the argument), but it wouldn't be true that the argument itself was therefore flawed.
2.) What Mr. Petersen fails to understand is that my worldview "IS "in fact consistent with TEA, and the rest of my apologetic work!! I believe in God and believe that God is responsible for human logic. Simple!! Furthermore, it's worth noting that I am not required to go to scripture for support of my argument as TEA makes no claims about scripture. Nor does it rely on any Christian Doctrine to be proven sound.
//It (TEA) is not logically consistent because Elliott has not shown how he can be justified in thinking that the laws of logic and rules of inference holds.//
As I have already explained...
1.) Let me try to get this through Mr. Petersen's thick skull one more time. Even if "I" were not justified in believing the laws of logic or rules of inference hold true (based on my worldview), that would not invalidate TEA. TEA would still stand on its own merit independent of anyones worldview, beliefs, societal evolution, or time frame. This includes me as the author. You see, an argument is true regardless of if it is consistent or not consistent with the beliefs of its author. Imagine a crazy person who one day writes down the greatest argument of all time. The truth of that argument exists despite the author being able to understand it, defend it, explain it, or justify it. In simple terms, the author and the argument are mutually exclusive. Mr. Petersen is such a intellectual midget he cannot figure this out.
2.) Any clear, rational thinking mind can see that a believer in God (me), would be justified in believing that the laws of logic and inference hold true. Without God for example, the atheist may believe human logic is not a necessary foundational truth. They may argue that it's simply the product of evolution or societal pressures. However, a believer in God 'is' certainly justified in taking the position that God is the creator and provider of human logic/knowledge. Also, scripture is irrelevant to this point, as ANY THEIST can make this claim, not just Christians.
//Elliott’s claims that he can demonstrate (produce knowledge) that God exists stands in stark contrast to the doctrines set forth in the scriptures. As such, his apologetic methodology stands in stark opposition to the propositions that are taught in the Bible.//
LIE #10 - This is an yet another absolute lie from Mr. Petersen. How many lies have we counted now from Mr. Petersen? At least 10 if i'm not mistaken. There is absolutely and unequivocally no doctrine set forth in scripture which states one cannot demonstrate or produce knowledge that God exists.
One is able to obtain knowledge because God has allowed it so. The same way logic exists because of God. So my belief in God is what provided me the ability and knowledge to prove his existence. Therefore God is the one who ultimately allows me to defend and justify this argument. However, one must remember that even if I were unable to defend this argument, didn't understand this argument, or my worldview was inconsistent with its content, it would not invalidate it's truth!! Logic 101 you pathetic dishonest waste on society!! Go beg for some more likes because the AK is tired of intellectually destroying your failed reasoning skills. You're a joke, and now I am done with you!! Nice try....lol
Footnotes:
//1. Elliott is known to go to prominent Christian apologists pages and ask/tell the apologist to start using his argument.//
That is correct MRS. Petersen. Every theist in the world should learn how to utilize TEA, as it cannot be defeated and remains one of the most impactful apologetic arguments of ALL TIME!! If you weren't such a coward, or you didn't have the logic of a school boy, you might understand this. This argument has been around less than 8 years and already has nearly 1 million views. Can you imagine in 500 years how many views it will have and how many apologists will be using it? All of them!! And you will still be a worthless, lying, dishonest, nothing with failed logic!! haha
//2. I was recovering from surgery at the time I was messaging Elliott.//
Ummmm....Who cares??! I was drinking lemonade when I wrote this 15 minute response and swiftly destroyed the trash Mrs. Petersen submitted.
//3. ‘The Elliott Argument: Official,’ <http://theatheistkilla.blogspot.com/.../the-elliott...>//
Yes!! Read it!! Learn it!! Utilize it!! Love it!!
//4. “I have proven that atheism is an incorrect and untenable position without making any claims about GOD.” Elliott later claims the argument can be ‘flipped’ to prove that God exists. So much for not making any claims about God.//
THE "ORIGINAL VERSION" OF TEA MAKES NO CLAIMS ABOUT GOD. THE TEA FLIP HOWEVER IS A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT AND DOES MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT GODS EXISTENCE. APPARENTLY THIS INDIVIDUAL WASN'T BRIGHT ENOUGH TO DIFFERENTIATE THE TWO.
//5. ‘STE’ stands for ‘space-time eternal.’ In essence, this position entails that both space and time has always existed. ‘SCPN’ stands for ‘something can come from pure nothingness.’//
This is a generic definition and is not a thorough or valid representation of the actual acronyms. Lets chalk tis up to more dishonesty from this failed nobody.
//6. The Bible proclaims that God is the king of all things (1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Corinthians 8:6).//
THAT IS CORRECT. GOD IS THE KING OF ALL KINGS!!
**SO IN THE END, WE SEE THAT HIS ENTIRE REBUTTAL WAS NOTHING MORE THAN BASELESS UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS SUPPORTED BY POOR LOGIC, LIES, AND A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO GET MY ATTENTION. YET ANOTHER VICTORY AND PROOF TEA CANNOT BE DEFEATED!!! IF MR. PETERSEN EVER WANTS TO ACCEPT MY DEBATE CHALLENGE OR TURN INTO A MAN AND QUIT RUNNING, I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DISMANTLE HIM IN LIVE REAL TIME, ON A NEUTRAL SETTING, WITH STRICT RULES, AND MODERATORS OF HIS CHOICE.**
NICE TRY BUBBA! LOL...BET YOU THIS COWARD NEVER ACCEPTS!!! OF COURSE HE WONT BECAUSE I WOULD HUMILIATE HIM!! DAMN THAT WAS TOO EASY!! OFF TO BED NOW....THAT WAS BORING. GOD BLESS - WHOS NEXT??
Comments
Post a Comment