RESPONSE TO GAZOO THE ATHEIST

 

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 regular spacetime and cannot be determined by ‘where’ or ‘when’”. Another common definition of spacetime is, “A place in the universe where our laws of physics simply break down.” 

In the book we use the most common and widely accepted definition of the singularity, and then proceed to thoroughly dismantle it. We do agree however that there are numerous other definitions of a singularity, including but not limited to the ones Mr. Gazoo just mentioned. However, The Elliott Argument has proven that no matter what definition of the singularity an atheist attempts to submit, ALL of them at a foundational level fall under either STE or SCPN. Also Mr. Gazoo, puts in Quotes "being no longer part or the regular spacetime and cannot be determined by 'where' or 'when." Another being "a place in the universe where our laws of physics simply break down." My confusion is that both of these actually are mentioned in the book, and perhaps Mr. Gazoo overlooked them or still has the original (Volume 1) of Atheism Refuted. 

Secondly, I would also like to remind Gazoo that this is nothing more than another example of a UCNPC. (Uncreated Non-Personal Cause). The reason is because no matter how you want to define it, the singularity did not have a personal mind nor the ability to withhold intention. So this option is actually very easy to refute. How? If you remember from other sections in the book, only a free agent (mind) can account for the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause.  If the cause of the universe were an impersonal (mindless), beginningless, uncreated non-personal 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 free agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time, without any antecedent determining conditions. You see, if the cause were a non-personal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without its effect? Because again, if the cause were permanently present, then its effect would be permanently present as well. But Since God (the U.C.) is the uncaused first cause, He is self-directed and self-motivated, so He acted volitionally and had the ability to withhold intention. If the cause were not personal it would not be capable of self-directed, self-motivated, volitional action nor would it be able to withhold intention. Preventing it from being the first cause as it would fall under STE or SCPN depending on how your opponent wishes to break it down. And if something else caused the expansion of the singularity (meaning it didn’t cause itself to expand) in the Big Bang Model, then we will focus our attention on that cause and break it down to STE or SCPN.  

This is patently false and simply poor logic on Mr. Gazoos part. I actually am surprised that he would even make this claim, because he generally comes off as somewhat smart fellow. Let us help him understand. Time is defined as a measurement of events, and is defined in its broadest sense. This includes not just physical events, but also hypothetical events, metaphysical, immaterial, and theoretical events as well. (The formal definition can be found in the book). Now with that being said, Particles mixing and mingling prior to the expansion would certainly be considered events. Therefore the concept of time WOULD BE IN PLAY! So despite what Mr. Gazoo claims here, we in fact are sure it is the case!!

The book appears to be most effective to those who are uncomfortable with the notion that there is no creator and are unsettled with the ideas of modern religions. The author is using a novel approach to deductively prove the existence of a creator God by refuting atheism. I applaud that approach because he avoids any and all complications inherent to faith-based beliefs. 

Thank you, and you are correct here. The Elliott Argument has done something no one has even been able to successfully accomplish. And that is, prove the existence of God, without making any claims about the existence of God in either one of its premises. If atheism is incorrect (which this argument has shown), then Theism is correct due to the law of excluded middle. Once people begin to understand the argument, the claims, and the formal definitions, this argument will go down as the greatest philosophical argument ever created. 

However, using a philosophical a prior argument for the existence of God is not without problems. The main problem with trying to prove that something exists a prior is that it is an attempt to prove something is more than just a concept using nothing but concepts. In other words, demonstrating that something exists requires you to work with more than just abstractions. You have to point to something empirical for it to be convincing.

This is another shocking error in the logic of Mr. Gazoo that I was not anticipating. Apparently he doesn't know the definition of proof or evidence. Let me copy and paste a section out of the book which he may have missed. [Proof is evidence or argumentation which helps to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. The formal definition in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary reads as follows. The cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact. The process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. Something that induces certainty or establishes validity. The quality or state of having been tested or tried. T.E.A. just so happens to fit every single one of these points. T.E.A. compels acceptance of the mind from a truth which is derived from the formal principles of logic. T.E.A. establishes the validity of a statement in accordance with said principles. Unless you can refute T.E.A. (which you cannot), then it obviously induces certainty. Lastly, the truth claims made in T.E.A., which lead to the soundness of its conclusions, have been tried, tested, and cannot be denied. Thus, we can determine, if T.E.A. is a sound argument, then it most certainly is PROOF that God exists!! Before I leave this section, I would also like to remind people about the definition of evidence and what evidence really is. Evidence is formally defined as - an outward sign and something that furnishes truth. As we have just noted, T.E.A. is certainly proof of Gods existence, and proof that atheism is untenable. However, what about the premises? Can the premises in the argument be considered evidence? Well, the premises are considered truth claims. It’s the evidence that we provide which substantiates these claims. The evidence is an outward sign that furnishes the truth so we can then prove our claims. So, the bottom line here is this. T.E.A. uses evidence to support its claims, and the evidence is what leads to the premises being proven, as well as the conclusions of the argument. As for Scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis, although scientists also use evidence in other ways, such as when applying theories to practical problems. Such evidence is expected to be empirical and interpretable in accordance with the scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of the scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls. Evidence in general means information, facts or data supporting (or contradicting) a claim, assumption, or hypothesis. In fact, anything might count as a form of evidence if it’s judged to be valid, reliable and relevant.]

Secondly, I would like to respond to the notion that something must be empirical for it to be convincing. This is not only subjective, but also laughable and absurd. Before we get into why that is, let us remember the formal definition of Empirical is defined as - Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. The Elliott Argument uses not only the objective principles of logic to support its claims, but ALSO uses all the verifiable, reputable, observable science, and 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 and that god therefore must necessarily exists! What Gazoo is doing is he's asking for empirical evidence that God exists. But again that is the conclusion which is reached by the evidence. You dont get to try to jump to the conclusion of an argument and try to argue against it. Thats not how logic works. You have to try to defeat one or both of the premises which LEAD TO the soundness of the conclusion. The empirical evidence is what leads to the conclusion. So for him to then ask for empirical evidence of that conclusion simply shows a lack of understanding on his part. Let me repeat that slowly one more time. We have logically and empirically proven that god exists with the truth claims in the premises! Both premises use not only the objective principles of logic to help us reach the conclusion of TEA, but also both premises use empirical evidence as well. Now with all that being said I would like to remind viewers of how insane it would be to claim that only empirical evidence should be convincing. For example there is even a list added into the book of things that science cannot account for but which are all accepted as true. Here is a short list from the text, but also a quick google search can prove this as well -

1.  Logic and mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic and math so trying to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.

 

22.  Metaphysical truths such as, there are minds other than my own, the external word is real, or the past was not created 5 minutes ago with an appearance of age, etc. These are all rational beliefs that cannot be scientifically proven.

 

33.  Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method. For example, it can’t prove whether the Nazi’s scientists in Germany did anything evil as opposed to what the scientists in Western democracies did.

 

44.  Aesthetic judgements cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful like the good cannot be scientifically proven.

 

55.  Science itself cannot be justified using the scientific method. Why? Because science is permeated with unprovable assumptions. For example, in the Special Theory of Relativity the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one-way direction between any two points (A and B). But this simply cannot be proven, we just have to assume it’s true in order in order to hold to the theory.

Conclusion - I would like to thank Gazoo for his reaching out me, and his views on The Elliott Argument. I hope this helps answer some of his questions and clear up his misconceptions. I look forward to engaging with him on live stream - If he ever has the time :) Thanks buddy