Crushing Gazoo PT2 (Last)

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 include the James Webb Telescope, the COBE explore, The Singularity Model, The 1st and 2nd law of Thermodynamics, The BGV, The Doppler Effect, The measured abundance of light elements inside out universe, Microwave radiation background, The Hubble Law, Inflation, The observable universe, etc. The list is exhausting. All the current reputable science proves that Spacetime IS NOT eternal in the past but had a finite beginning and spacetime boundary.

Please explain exactly how any of this is laughable and absurd. Recall that you said, “We have logically and EMPIRICALLY proven that god exists….” Does this statement not fall under the category of ‘laughable and absurd’ by your own standards? 

Again, we HAVE logically and EMPIRICALLY proven that god exists. How? By the logical and empirically backed claims in premise 1 and premise 2 of the argument. If you can't refute either one of the premises, which you cannot, then the only laughable thing around here is you, as you have to live with the conclusion you so desperately are trying to deny. 

Additionally, you said that T.E.A. uses empirical evidence in the premises, and yet you criticized me for asking for empirical evidence for the existence of God. Do you not see anything laughable and absurd about this?

What you are not realizing here is that I criticized you for your inability to understand what refutation of a formal logically deductive syllogism would look like. As mention previously in Part 1, you don't get to jump to the conclusion of an argument and then try to refute that conclusion. Thats not how logic work buddy. The conclusion is reached by the truth claims being made in the premises of the argument...and the premises use BOTH empirical and logical evidence as support!! So no there is nothing laughable here other than your inability to properly diagnose an argument or submit anything that even half what resembles a proper refutation. You asking for empirical evidence of god, when the empirical evidence for god is provided in the premises which LEAD to the conclusion is what is laughable. Because it shows you are not even properly diagnosing what you are reading.

Yes, you do use the objective principles of logic to support your claims. Congratulations, this makes your argument valid. But the issue at hand is trying to determine the soundness of your position. 

Again maybe you are having problems reading or your forgot your glasses. Im not sure which one, but The Elliott Argument uses not only the objective principles of logic to support its claims, but ALSO uses all the verifiable, reputable, observable science, as well as human experience to support it. Those logically and EMPIRICALLY supported claims in (P1 and P2) lead to the conclusion that atheism is incorrect. Now I would like to point out another failure on your behalf, and it may be simply because you have never studied philosophy or theology at a high level so Im not going to hold it against you. With that being said, let me help you understand something. A sound argument is one which is not only valid, but ALSO has true premises. Both premises have been proven true (with the objective principles of logic, science, mathematics, and empirical evidence). Therefore the argument is not only valid but it is also sound. It may be beneficial here to teach you what a logically deductive syllogism is because the sad fact here is I highly doubt (based on your responses) that you have any idea what it is. 

 A syllogism is a deductive argument where the conclusion logically follows the truth of two or more premises. If both premises are true and the argument is sound then you have to live with the conclusion. So its irrelevant if you don’t like the conclusion, we are not here to debate the conclusion of the argument. We are only here to debate the premises of the argument because we only have the burden of proof to prove the truth claims being made in P1 and P2. If someone cannot refute either of the premises (which you cannot and have not even tried to) and the conclusions logically follows, then you have to live with the conclusion.

So again, This argument is not only valid but it is also sound. And remember Mr. Gazoo, When you create an argument you have to construct one that is not only valid but also sound! The reason is because a valid argument can still have a false conclusions. And we don’t want that. A sound argument is one that is not only valid but one that also has true premises.

For example: If I said, All toasters are made of gold, All items made of gold are time-travel devices, Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices. That argument is valid, but it’s not sound. Hope this helps you and your misconceptions. Moving on.

Take SCPN as an example. If there were ever a case when PURE nothing existed, then I would agree with your argument. However, the concept of pure nothingness is philosophically and scientifically challenging. Many philosophers and scientists argue that pure nothingness may be impossible or incoherent as a concept. Many modern scientists, including astrophysicists, particle physicists, and cosmologists believe the universe appears to have always contained something. Thus, the origin of existence remains one of the deepest mysteries in science and philosophy.

Major Fail Gazoo! First of all, it is true that essentially all of the reputable cosmologists, particle physicists, astrophysicists, and modern scientists agree that SCPN is incorrect, incoherent, and untenable. The reason they all agree with me, is not just because of the objective principles of logic however, but also because of the empirical (observation and experiential) evidence. Let me explain what I mean. One of the reasons we know SCPN is incorrect is because our experience and the observational data proves it. PN cannot have properties. Therefore it cannot have properties of restraint. Therefore it would not be able to be able to restrain itself. Thus, if it could create ANYTHING, it would be able to create EVERYTHING at every possible moment, in every possible void, dimension, universe, multiverse, etc. But this is not what we observe. This is not what we experience. You don't see cans of root bear, bicycles, and flashlights popping into being every second in your bedroom. So because you dont experience or observe this phenomenon we can conclude that based on the definition of EMPIRICAL, the empirical evidence proves SCPN incorrect. So its not just the objective principles of logic. Its many things, including the empirical (observational and experiential) data as well! So the claim is this....PN would not be able to be partial to say only creating universes, but then would have some properties or be able to restrain itself from creating bicycles. These topics may be hard for you to track because I know you are not a high level philosopher but hopefully you are trying your best.

So, how is it the case that you are convinced that there was ever a state of pure nothingness? What did all the modern leading scientists overlook? I suggest that you are forced to hold the position that pure nothingness was indeed a thing because that is one of the pillars of T.E.A. You accept this as fact and claim it as being empirical evidence in spite of the fact that it has never shown up in any peer-reviewed scientific literature.

First of all Mr. Gazoo, you are beginning to embarrass yourself and show you are completely out of your league. I don't believe that there was ever a state of PN, nor do I believe that PN can ever be achieved!!....So your question is nonsensical. I am honestly not sure where you ever got the idea that PN being a thing is a pillar of T.E.A.?! Its not!! The Elliott Argument says SCPN is incorrect, it never says PN necessarily existed. This seriously makes me laugh just having to explain this to you, as I realized I have now yet again wasted a great deal of my time responding to someone who doesn't even grasp T.E.A. or its claims at a foundational level. SMH!! Also Mr. Gazoo, Modern scientists didn't overlook anything about PN, because for one, PN isn't anything to look at, see, or overlook. They wouldn't even know if they found it to begin with, because it is not a 'thing'. But, as mentioned before Gazoo, myself and the modern scientists are all in agreement over this issue. SCPN is incorrect, incoherent, and untenable!! Last it is very hard to get something peer reviewed. However, even you Gazoo are not stupid enough to believe that just because something is yet to be peer reviewed that it must necessarily be incorrect. If that were the case, all of the things that did get peer reviewed and panned out, would have had to actually incorrect before getting reviewed. That of course is absurd! I would also like to point out what has been peer reviewed,  (not mine) but the reputable scientists empirical evidence which proves SCPN incorrect (which is my exact same claim and I agree with). Therefore it is sorta like I have been peer reviewed on their behalf, as my conclusions are the same as theirs in regards to PN!! :)

Pure Nothingness - The concept of literal non-being. No space, time, energy, matter, laws, constants, principles, structure, physics, life, supernatural beings, Gods, minds, quantum vacuums, virtual particles, etc. Also, SCPN includes any option where an atheist suggests a random abstract concept could be the cause of the universe, but then refuses to define it, or defines it as Pure Nothingness. Example - having no properties, no causal power, no dimensions, no mind, no volition, no space, no time, no matter, no energy, etc. This is still SCPN. Just because you give nothingness a name, that doesn’t therefore make it “something.” Philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig is noted as saying, "From nothing, nothing comes. It is as certain as anything in philosophy and that which no rational person sincerely doubts." We will get into a lot more of Dr. Craig’s work throughout the course of this book, but as it pertains to this particular topic, Craig has also been quoted as saying, "It is impossible that nothing exists, and that there is no possible world in which nothing exists."

(http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/What_is_Nothing_.mp3)

(http://www.reasonablefaith.org/causal-premiss-of-the-kalam-argument - Reasonable Faith Website. Causal premise of the KCA)

Pure Nothingness is an illogical concept which can never be achieved. It remains an impossible abstract emptiness and concept that doesn’t exist anywhere in reality. Ex nihilo nihil fitis the philosophical expression of a thesis first argued by the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Parmenides of Elea. It means, out of nothing, nothing is produced: Nothing comes from nothing. It is associated with other ancient Greek cosmologies, such as presented not just in the opus of Homer and Hesiod, but also in virtually every philosophical system. The Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius expressed this principle in his first book of On the Nature of Things: “But only nature's aspect and her law, which, teaching us, hath this exordium: Nothing from nothing ever yet was born." 

Similarly, many other noted philosophers such as John Philoponus, Al-Kindi Saadia Gaon, and Saint Bonaventure (just to name a few), stand firmly behind the claim that "Everything which begins to exist has a cause." This is directly in line with the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz principle of sufficient reason. Leibniz (Early Enlightenment period philosopher) argues that "Everything in the world is contingent that it may or may not have existed. Something will not exist unless there is a reason for its existence. The PSR (Principle of Sufficient Reason) states that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground. Leibniz believed that the PSR rules out the possibility that some things might happen for no reason or just because. For example, if someone is standing, there must be a sufficient reason for them to be standing rather than sitting or lying down. Leibniz also used the PSR to argue for the existence of God. He believed that if nothing existed other than the things we find in the world, there would be no explanation for why they exist. He believed that the ultimate sufficient reason in each case is God's free choice. In simple terms the principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause. The modern formulation of the principle is usually ascribed to Leibniz, but he in fact was not the originator. 

 

The idea was conceived of and utilized by various philosophers who preceded him, including Parmenides, Anaximander, Plato, Archimedes, Aristotle, Cicero, Avicenna, Thomas Aquinas, and Spinoza. One often pointed to is in Anselm of Canterbury: his phrase quia Deus nihil sine ratione facit (because God does nothing without reason) and the formulation of the Ontological Argument for the existence of God. A clearer connection however is with the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. The principle can also be seen in William of Ockham, as well as post-Kantian philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer who elaborated on the principle, and used it as the foundation for his system. Many philosophers associate the PSR with Ex nihilo nihil fit (Nothing comes from nothing). William Hamilton (famous Scottish metaphysical philosopher) even identified the laws of inference modus ponens with the "Law of Sufficient Reason, or of Reason and Consequent" and modus tollens with its contrapositive expression. One of my favorite philosophers of all time (Thomas Aquinas) once famously said, "Common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself.” In other words, nothing ever comes into being uncaused. 

(http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/cosmological_aquinas.htm The Second Way- Causation of Existence) 

 

Thomas Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an ‘Uncaused First Cause' (God) who began the chain of existence for all things. He asked his opponents to follow the argument this way:

1. There exists things that are caused (created) by other things. 

2. Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself). 

3. There cannot be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist. 

4. Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called God. 

Important Note: God was not created. God did not create himself.  Nor did God begin to exist at some point. This is why we call God the U.C. or Uncreated Creator. God is eternal in the past (without true beginning) yet is spaceless and timeless prior to creating the universe. At which point space and time begin to exist and are given their necessary starting point.

Finally, we see Dr. Craig making a mockery of anyone believing something can come from pure nothingness when he says, "Believing that something can come from nothing is literally worse than believing in magic. I mean think about it, when a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat at least there’s a magician and a hat. Nobody sincerely believes something can pop into being uncaused out of nothing. 

[(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrFwGvWlJnc) - time frame 25:54-30:05)]

More from the book:

Why is SCPN incorrect:

Like STE, the second atheist option, SCPN, is easily shown to be invalid for a myriad of reasons. It too is not only incorrect and untenable, but also irrational and illogical. The following is a short list of ways to destroy anyone attempting to make the case that something could in fact come from Pure Nothingness.

A. We have no scientific grounds or evidence to believe that PN (Pure Nothingness) has ever existed or could ever be achieved, let alone reason to believe that it could produce anything.  Our everyday experience, as well as our observational data, confirm that believing things could pop into being uncaused is not a justifiable position.  Every day of our lives, every human being on planet Earth witnesses’ things coming into existence because of a cause. Science is the systematic study of structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation. None of which can be applied to PN. Not only that, but we also have scientific evidence to the contrary of any suggested PN hypothesis. We always observe things which begin to exist arising from a cause. 

B. PN has no creative powers.  How do we know this?  We know this because (by definition) literal non-being cannot have properties. If it had properties, it would no longer be pure nothingness. It would be something with properties. This means that PN has no power, creative or otherwise. Something with no creative powers cannot create, nor produce anything.

C.  As mentioned above, PN cannot have laws, properties, or binding constructs. This means that it also cannot be discriminatory. It also would not have properties of restraint. If it were discriminatory, or could restrain itself, then by definition it would no longer be PN. It would be something with discriminatory properties. Now we must note that since it cannot be discriminatory, if something could come from PN, then everything could. Why? Because it couldn’t stop itself from creating A and not B. For Example, PN cannot be partial to only creating universes, but not bicycles, flashlights, baseball hats, cans of Pepsi, etc. So if PN could create universes, it would also necessarily create every possible thing, at every possible moment, in every possible void, universe, multiverse, dimension, etc. But this is not what we observe. You don’t see bicycles and cans of Pepsi popping into being all of your bedroom. Furthermore, if PN could create universes, then there wouldn’t have been anything that could have stopped it from creating a universe destroyer (some law or other universe that destroys our Universe as soon as it begins to exist). Moreover, everything that ever existed (or is yet to come into existence) would have existed right (at the same moment) when our universe came into being. PN cannot have properties which would allow it to only throw things into existence every 30 minutes, every 30 seconds, or even every 2 seconds on some restricted specific timeline. As a restriction and restraint would be a property. So essentially at the moment our universe began to exist, PN would have also created the Empire State Building, Lamborghinis, Airplanes, Cell Phones, Laptops, Fishing Poles, Music, Artwork, the Great Pyramid, etc. It would create every possible thing, all at once, but then also (as insane as this sounds) continue to create more of these things every moment (because PN wouldn’t have properties to make itself stop creating)!! In other words, the assumption that SCPN could be true is laughable and leads to wild absurdities.

D.   You cannot disprove or undermine certain mathematical absolutes. They are constant, immutable, and unchanging. They are not relative or subjective. They do not evolve or get better or worse. For example, 0+0=0. Every time!! 1+3=4. Every time!! Nothing plus nothing always equals nothing. Every time! This is the language of the universe in mathematical form.  Occasionally you may hear an atheist say that even though 0+0=0 every time, +1-1=0. The reason they are attempting to bring this evidence to the table is to show that the net sum of the energy in our universe is Zero. Meaning all the positive energy in our universe is exactly canceled out by the amount of negative energy. Essentially the atheist is attempting to show is that if you have a positive and a negative they cancel each other out and the total net sum becomes zero.  This is true, but the problem is, the equation (+1-1=0) is not a valid representation of a PN Hypothesis. In a PN hypothesis you don't get a -1 or a +1 to add into your formula. You only get zeros, and 0+0 can never produce a positive. Nothing plus more nothingness always equals nothing. Nothing begets more nothingness. Have you ever thought about why 0+0 always equals zero? It’s because the equation is a mathematical absolute which cannot be broken. Let me point out that the zeros in this equation represent the concept of pure literal non-being (which has been previously defined). Mathematical absolutes then are further proof that any “SCPN” hypothetical is inherently flawed. 

So why pick zero as the representation? Well, for two reasons.  First, mathematicians define zero as being 'nothing or without any'.  This would be a valid representation of literal non-being. The statement, "I have a zero balance in my bank account," would clearly indicate that there was no money at all in my account. Secondly, zero is constant and unchanging, the same way Pure Nothingness is. Nothing begets more nothingness. Nothing breads more nothingness. From nothing, nothing comes. This is exactly what one sees from the mathematical absolute zero plus zero. In such an equation one can never arrive at anything other than zero. It is unchanging. Zero plus zero never produces a positive, the same way Pure Nothingness can never produce anything other than more literal non-being. Therefore, we find this mathematical absolute a clear analogy and reference to represent our concept of SCPN.

 E. If something could come from PN it would undermine many philosophical truths and present numerous contradictions. For example, it would be completely counter intuitive to The Law of Causality. Also, it would not just turn logic and reason on end, but also render the entire discipline of science completely useless. Imagine if things really did pop into being randomly ‘uncaused’ and not from anywhere or anything. This absurd notion would leave us unable to make sense of the world or our surroundings. Moreover, a mindless, mechanically operating cause, cannot exist eternally in the past without its effect also existing eternally. Only a free agent can account for the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause. If the cause of the universe were an impersonal (mindless), mechanically operating cause, then the cause could never exist without its effect. For if the sufficient condition of the effect is given, then the effect must be given as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless, but for its effect to begin in time, is for the cause to be a PERSONAL agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time, without any antecedent determining conditions. A fun question to ask is, why didn’t PN create the universe sooner rather than later since change cannot occur without time. Remember here that time is defined as a measurement of events. We will dive more deeply into this later in the book.

F. No respectable thinker/mathematician/scientist/ theologian or philosopher accepts a true SCPN hypothesis. Not even one!! And there’s good reason for this. It’s intellectual suicide. At this point you may hear someone bring up the name Lawrence Krauss and his book ‘A Universe from Nothing’. One small problem. In his book Krauss doesn’t attempt to show that universes can pop into being from Pure Nothingness. Rather what he does is he hijacks the term nothingness and tries to change its definition to include the quantum vacuum and virtual particles. Which I might add is a very dishonest and disingenuous tactic to mislead people into thinking universes can come from Pure Nothingness. They cannot. This is another reason that we use the term Pure Nothingness (literal non-being) in The Elliott Argument to avoid any confusion.

G. There is no possible scenario, scientific evidence, or philosophical understanding which could arise in the future that would prove SCPN correct. Why is this so? The reason is that PN cannot be tested for (because you can't find it, it has no properties, you wouldn’t know if you found it because it wouldn’t look like anything, etc.), and even if we did find something which ‘appears’ to pop into being uncaused from PN, we couldn’t be certain that it has. Moreover, we would still be stuck with all the inherent problems of accepting a pure nothingness hypothesis that we’ve already covered. These can NEVER change. For that reason, SCPN is forever doomed and will never be proven valid.

H. Ask your opponent to please provide a step-by-step process (starting with ‘only Pure Nothingness’) of how the universe with spacetime, matter, laws, constants, and energy all came into being. This will undoubtably be a fun demonstration and point out the glaring absurdities in their position. If your opponent proposes that at some moment only PN existed, and then material things like matter came from that PN, they are going to have to prove this claim possible. PN cannot produce matter or material objects. Also, even if you thought you found pure nothingness to test it, you wouldn’t be sure because pure nothingness doesn’t look like anything and couldn’t be measured.

I. If someone ever suggests that things could somehow exist inside of Pure Nothingness, simply remind them that Pure Nothingness is defined as literal non-being. From this, one can deduce that Pure Nothingness is not a place. And since it’s not a place, then it’s not a place where something can exist. If it was a place, then it wouldn’t be Pure Nothingness. Rather it would be a place where something can exist. Moreover, this would just push the question back as we would shift our focus and begin to ask about the origin of things and events that exist there.

CONCLUSION: Much like The Part 1 Response to Mr. Gazoo, I have yet again put the light on his inability to understand not just TEA, but also grasp theology at any high level. Moreover, I would like to point out that he never even attempted to refute the argument or either one of the premises. Nor did he respond to all direct responses given to him in Part 1. In conclusion, this was yet another laughable, failed attempt, by an atheist attempting to produce anything resembling a rebuttal to TEA....As it failed miserably. Atheists, please try better!! This is seriously embarrassing now.