TheAK

PART 2: After crushing Mr. Gazoo in his original failed response to TEA, he has now submitted a new response, which will also be thoroughly vaporized. Thanks for trying your best Gazoo but you have done nothing more than embarrass yourself. My intent was not to imply that everything must be empirical for it to be convincing. Most would agree, however, that something as important as the existence of a creator God would indeed have to include empirical evidence if it is to be believed. And yes, being convinced of a proposition is personal and, therefore, completely subjective.  As I explained to you before in extensive detail , TEA uses not just the objective principles of logic to support its claims, but ALSO uses empirical evidence (as well as all the current reputable science to prove P1 and P2.) The soundness and validity of the conclusion is reached in the truth claims made in these two premises! Thus we are covered on both logical and empirical grounds. Some quick examples of this

  THE FOLLOWING IS A QUICK RESPONSE TO AN OLDER GENTLEMAN ON TIKTOK WHO GOES BY THE NAME OF 'GAZOO'. HE RECENTLY EMAILED ME A LIST OF WHAT HE FELT WERE COMMON REBUTTALS TO THE ELLIOTT ARGUMENT. UNFORTUNATELY GAZOO DOESN'T HAVE THE TIME TO DEBATE LIVE OR JOIN LIVE DISCUSSIONS FOR ANY EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. BECAUSE OF THIS I TOLD HIM I WOULD TAKE THE TIME AND RESPOND TO EACH OF HIS POINTS IN THIS BLOG. ENJOY - The Big Bang section is one of the most interesting and intriguing topics in the book. This is the part of the book where the rubber meets the road, and it is broken down into easily digestible morsels. However, that is not to say it is not without some problems.  For example, the author uses the widely defined term ‘singularity’ as “A super condensed, extremely hot/energetic state, where the first particles were allowed to mix and mingle….” But there are other acceptable definitions of a singularity in the scientific discord, such as, “Being no longer part of the reg