|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Chad AK Elliott is one of the internet's most infamous douche bag apologetic creatard that is the Dunning-Kruger Effect and has the largest Illusory Superiority ego. He needs to be put in his place, but he will never be able to see how fucked he really is. Well, that is where this comes in to play. All the information you need is below and there will be details that no other person should have, but are Public Record! A lot of it is just jumbled together because he is not easy to really nail down!
| | This moron isn't worth our time. I'd advise deleting this article as the stupid is currently burning my eyes |
| | |
|
| |
| == School, Football & Rapping ==
| |
| | |
| This is where I will put the info on his fail life, rap career and football failures
| |
| | |
| == Not So Personal Info ==
| |
| | |
| {{center|[[Image:chadshouse.jpg|frame|none|]]}}
| |
| | |
| Anybody can find this information if you just look! :)
| |
| | |
| == Pseudotheology ==
| |
| | |
| This is where I will put his mind.
| |
| | |
| == Horse Sex ==
| |
| | |
| <center><youtube>UYAqb9rlo-g</youtube></center>
| |
| | |
| Chad seems to talk a lot of about the moral issues involved with having your daughter fuck a horse. He had another video, but for some reason it was misplaced! I think it was uploaded to Facebook (If I find it, I will post a link here) By the way he goes on about it, we have to wonder whether or not he really has a secret desire to either fuck a horse or be fucked by one.
| |
| | |
| == Pseudophilosophy Videos ==
| |
| | |
| This is where I am going to put his Atheist Killa Videos. Usage <nowiki><center><youtube>id</youtube></center></nowiki>
| |
| | |
| == OWND Videos ==
| |
| | |
| This is where I will put his videos where he claims victory. Usage <nowiki><center><youtube>id</youtube></center></nowiki>
| |
| | |
| == Refutation Videos ==
| |
| | |
| This is where I am going to put videos that own Chad. Usage <nowiki><center><youtube>id</youtube></center></nowiki>
| |
| | |
| == AK Meme's ==
| |
| {|style="background-color: #728776; width: 60%; -moz-border-radius: .5em; -webkit-border-radius: .5em; border-radius: .5em; margin: .5em auto; -icab-border-radius: .5em; -o-border-radius: .5em;"
| |
| |style="text-align: center;"|
| |
| {|style="background-color: #4f6458; -moz-border-radius: .5em; -webkit-border-radius: .5em; border-radius: .5em; width: 100%;" cellspacing=5
| |
| |style="padding:10px;"|[[File:Nocopyright.png|75px]]
| |
| |style="color: #d8e4cf; font-family: trebuchet ms;"|All images are [[copyright|<span style="color: #99aca2;">public domain</span>]]
| |
| <div style="text-align:left;">These images are public domain, and therefore, free use. In countries where these are not applicable, this owner of these images has lost copyright, and thus permits [[you]] to use, modify, distribute, or in any way use these images, as applicable by law.</div>
| |
| |}
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| {{center|[[Image:GayChad.jpg|300px|thumb|none|]][[Image:Chadcrow.jpg|300px|thumb|none|]][[Image:Hungchad.jpg|300px|thumb|none]][[Image:brokebackchad.jpg|300px|thumb|none|]]}}
| |
| | |
| == Resources ==
| |
| | |
| List of websites that refute chad
| |
| | |
| {{info| All {{Bigred|REDLINKS}} are intentional so leave them alone you fucking autist.}}
| |
| | |
| {{Center|{{Bigred|'''BELOW IS WHAT THE FUCKSTICK TRIED TO GET ON WIKIPEDIA'''}}}}
| |
| | |
| {| align="center" class="boilerplate" id="pd" style="background-color:#FF9999; border:2px solid #000000;width: 80%; padding: 0px; text-align:center;" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
| |
| | bgcolor="#000000" | [[File:Facepalm.jpg|120px]]
| |
| | <div style="text-decoration:blink"><font style="color: red; font-weight: bold;"><big><big><big>WARNING! FACEPALM IMMINENT!</big></big></big></font></div><br />This article may cause you to [[Facepalm|facepalm]], because '''It was written by a WIGGER'''. Feel free to '''LULZ & dismantle it on the talk page'''.<br />
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| = '''The Elliott Argument''' =
| |
| | |
| :'''The Elliott Argument''' ...presupposes that [[atheists]] in fact only have two options for the existence of the [[universe]], and that it is logically impossible to present a third option. Both of these supposed ''options'' are claimed by the author to be irrational, illogical, and have no evidence. They are presented throughout the [[argument|formal argument]] as well defined acronyms. The first one being ''STE'' which stands for [[Space time|''Space Time]] [[Eternal|''Eternal'']], and the second being ''SCPNCEU'', which represents the thought that ''Something can come from PURE [[nothingness]] and then create entire universe(s).'' According to '''The Elliott Argument''', ''STE'' is irrational and illogical for a number of reasons. The first based upon the ''alleged'' impossibility of an [[infinite regress]] of past events. The claim is then made by the author, that there is absolutely [[evidence|no evidence]] that ''space and time themselves'' are in fact eternal in the past. The second acronym, ''SCPNCEU'', is also ''claimed to be'' irrational and illogical by the author for many reasons. The most common claim made by the author here is that the acronym (SCPNCEU) in fact defies mathematical absolutes, the law of [[cause and effect]], known philosophical truths, and is in itself an inherently flawed concept. ''The author also makes the claim'' that there is in fact no known [[evidence]] that something can come from 'pure' [[nothingness]] and then that something create/or be responsible for creating entire universe(s), and that there is no evidence PURE nothingness can ever be achieved.
| |
| | |
| == Historical Background ==
| |
| | |
| :'''The Elliott Argument''' is a formal argument developed in 2010 by Christian apologist '''Chad A. Elliott''' (known as the Atheist Killa or AK ). The claim made by the author is that '''The Elliott Argument''' was founded on human logic, philosophical understanding, research, observation, and current scientific evidence. Thus the argument ''would not'' be able to be defeated until new scientific evidence and/or human understanding presents itself. '''The Elliott Argument''' has somewhat of an antagonistic conclusion and has been a fiery topic on the ''atheism vs creationism'' debating scene. It has taken the internet by storm and has been the topic of numerous blogs, social media pages, youtube accounts, videos, and formal online debates. It is claimed by Mr. Elliott that the argument ''makes no claims about the existence or validity of God'', but rather is designed to show that atheists only two options are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence, and therefore would be a flawed position. ''Mr. Elliott'' notes [[William Lane Craig]], [[Alvin Plantinga]], [[Thomas Aquinas]], [[Al-Ghazali]] and other promonent [[Christian apologists]] as his inspiration for developing this argument. Mr. Elliott also claims that his argument has never been defeated.
| |
| | |
| == The Formal Argument ==
| |
| | |
| :'''P1''' - Both ''STE'' and ''SCPNCEU'' are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence.
| |
| | |
| :'''P2''' - If you deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated Creator'' option as the cause of the universe, then your only two options are ''STE'' and ''SCPNCEU''.
| |
| | |
| :'''P3''' - ''Atheists'' deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated Creator'' option as the cause of the universe.
| |
| | |
| :'''T''' - ''Atheists'' are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence.
| |
| | |
| == Content Definitions ==
| |
| | |
| :'''[[Eternal]]''' - Eternity (or forever) is defined as ''endless time'' according to wikipedia, while [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eternity freedictionary.com defines Eternity] as ''time without beginning or end''. However, as it pertains to '''The Elliott Argument''' and the acronym ''STE'', the word ''eternal'' is ONLY in reference to ''past'' eternity, or ''time without beginning''. It makes no claims or reference to ''time ending'' or the future state of time.
| |
| | |
| | |
| :'''Uncreated Creator''' - A spaceless, timeless, supernatural, immaterial, all powerful, all knowing, personal mind. This is considered by '''The Elliott Argument''' to simply be an ''option'' which atheists deny or disbelieve in. It is claimed by the author that the argument itself makes no claims about the ''existence or validity'' of this option. Mr. Elliott has a two different youtube videos where he explains this topic. The first is titled "3 Choice Logic" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Etwger1s3A) and the second is titled "The Elliott Argument Makes No Claims About The Existence or Validity of God or the UC Option" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJfEWuI82D8)
| |
| | |
| | |
| :'''[[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 infite series however is by definition is a series with no end. This is logically incoherant says Timothy Mccabe ( [http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=424 thegodcontention index 4] ) and other known philosophers such as [[Al-Ghazali]] who wrote, "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 infintite 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 [[Beginning|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."
| |
| | |
| | |
| :[[Time|'''Time''']] - Time according to ''Wikipedia'', is a dimension in which [[events]] can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of ''events'' and the intervals between them. According to ''Freedictionary.com'' Time is "a nonspatial continuum in which ''events'' occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future." The key word here is [[events]]. The concept of ''time'' by definition is essentially a measurement of ''events''. Simply put, if there are no ''events'' then there is no time. However, ''Mr. Elliott'' reminds us, "it is important for one to remember that concious observers need not be present for the concept of ''time'' to still be in play. For example if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to witness it does that mean that time stopped? Clearly not. There was a ''before'' (tree standing), and an ''after'' (tree down) which proves [[events]] were occuring and time was still passing."
| |
| | |
| | |
| :'''Pure [[Nothingness]]''' - Literal non-being. No space, time, energy, matter, laws, constants, structure, life, minds, etc. The concept of pure literal nothingness. In mathematics this concept can be represented as [[zero]]. Philosopher [[William Lane Craig]] is noted as saying such things as, "from nothing, nothing comes. It is as certain as anything in philosophy and that no rational person sincerely doubts it." ([http://www.reasonablefaith.org/causal-premiss-of-the-kalam-argument Reasonable Faith Website-Causal-premiss of the KCA)]). ''Craig'' also is 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) ''Mr. Elliott'' also makes the claims that pure nothingness is an illogical concept which we can never achieved. It is noted in [http://marxistphilosophy.org/nothing2.htm (Excerpts from F. V. Konstantinov, ed., Philosophical Encyclopedia, Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia Publishers, 1963, vol. 4, pp. 78-9)] that "nothingness is pure non-being and impossible abstract emptiness." The claim is that [[nothing comes from nothing|from pure nothingness, pure nothing comes.]] (Latin: ex nihilo nihil fit) is a philosophical expression of a thesis first argued by [[Parmenides]]. It is associated with [[ancient Greek]] cosmology, 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 [[De Rerum Natura]] (eng. title [[On the Nature of Things]])
| |
| : "Principium cuius hinc nobis exordia sumet, nullam rem e nihilo gigni divinitus umquam."[1]
| |
|
| |
| :English translation:
| |
| :["But only nature's aspect and her law, which, teaching us, hath this exordium:
| |
| :Nothing from nothing ever yet was born."[2]]
| |
| | |
| | |
| :Similarly, many other noted philosophers such as [[William Lane Craig]], [[John Philoponus]], [[Al-Kindi]], [[Saadia Gaon]], [[Al-Ghazali]], and [[St. Bonaventure]] stand behind the claim that "Everything that ''begins to exist'' has a cause."
| |
| | |
| :This is directly in line with [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz|Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's]] [[principle of sufficient reason]]. Leibniz argues (Russell, Bertrand, A History of Western Philosophy. New York, Simon and Schuster, 1945, p. 568, and Cassirer, Ernst Kant’s Life and thought. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981,pp. 73) 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." This rests on his premise that the actual world is the best possible world, as such we can account for everything in it as being there for a specific reason. But the universe as a whole, requires a further reason for existence, and that reason for Leibniz is God.
| |
| | |
| | |
| :[Thomas Aquinas]] put it like this is [http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/cosmological_aquinas.htm The Second Way - Causation of Existence]. "Common sense observation tells us that ''no object creates itself''. In other words, some previous object had to create it." [[Thomas Aquinas|Aquinas]] believed that ultimately there must have been an ''Uncaused First Cause'' (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument 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 didn't ''create'' himself nor did he ''begin'' to exist.
| |
| | |
| :And finally [[William Lane Craig]] makes 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 the magician pulls the rabbit out of the hat at least you have the magician. Nobody sincerly believes something can pop into being uncaused out of nothing." And he goes on to ask, "if something could come from nothing, then it's inexplicaple why everything or anything doesnt come from nothing. For example why don't bicycles, or root beer just pop into being uncaused out of nothing? There can't be anything about nothingness that ''favors universes'', because nothingness has ''no'' properties. So what makes nothingness so descrimitory, that only universes are allowed to pop into being from nothingness? Nothingness cannot be constrained by anything because there is nothing to be contrained." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrFwGvWlJnc time frame 25:54-30:05)
| |
| | |
| | |
| :'''SCPNCEU''' - Acronym used in '''The Elliott Argument''' which stands for "Something can come from ''PURE Nothingness'' and then create entire universe(s)."
| |
| | |
| :'''STE''' - Acronym used in '''The Elliott Argument''' which stands for "Space and Time Eternal". It is claimed by the author that this definition is designed to be used in the ''broadest sense''. Meaning not just space and time in our universe, but also any other proposed universes or deminsions where there would be space and time."
| |
| | |
| == Only for Atheists ==
| |
| | |
| :The author, ''Mr. Elliott'', claims that '''The Elliott Argument''' is only to be used against [[atheists]] and that is ''not'' designed to be used against [[agnostics]]. He also claims that his argument is ''not'' designed for anyone who denies reality, or believes our [[physical universe]] may not be real, but is actually some kind of elaborate [[dream]] or [[matrix]].
| |
| | |
| == The Golden Question ==
| |
| | |
| :''The Golden Question'' is a spin off of '''The Elliott Argument.''' It's a question with a series of steps that is designed to ultimately lead to resolution and one proving their honesty. ''Mr. Elliott'' makes all atheists (who attempt to join his creationist website) answer this question before they are allowed to comment, post, or have any dialog with him on his page. He claims that he hates dishonesty, and that the Golden Question (GQ) forces atheists to either prove their honesty, or be immediately banned from his page. ''Mr. Elliott'' brags about banning over 20,000 atheists since the inception of his page. He frequently claims each one of these bans are victories (on top of his formal debates), and further proof that he cannot be defeated since atheists would rather rule violate than address his question. The Golden Question goes like this...
| |
| | |
| :'''STEP 1''' - Are you a Type A or Type B atheist?
| |
| | |
| :('''Type A''' is an '''SCPNCEU''' type atheist. Someone who believes "something can come from ''pure nothingness'' and then create entire universe(s)").
| |
| | |
| :('''Type B''' is an '''STE''' type atheist. Someone who believes "space and time are eternal")
| |
| | |
| | |
| :''Mr. Elliott'' says that the atheist must make sure they do one of the following to ''complete step 1''.
| |
| | |
| :1.) Tell us if they are a Type A or Type B atheist.
| |
| | |
| :'''OR'''
| |
| | |
| :2.) Say ''I dont know'' or ''Neither.'' In which case ''they must admit'' that atheists in fact have only these two options for the existence of the universe, or present a third option.
| |
| | |
| | |
| :'''Steps 2, 3 and 4''' begin once the atheist had made it past step 1. These follow up steps frequently are about logic, rational, and evidence.
| |
| | |
| :'''The Final Step''' to the process come when ''Mr. Elliott'' forces the atheist to summarize all their admissions on his page wall, and admit that '''The Elliott Argument''', as of today, stands.
| |
| | |
| == Common Rebuttals and Objections ==
| |
| | |
| :[[Special pleading|'''Special Pleading Fallacy''']] - ''Atheists'' sometimes claim that '''The Elliott Argument''' is special pleading for the existence of God. However, this rebutal is usually shot down fairly quickly by ''Mr. Elliott'' as he likes to point ou that neither the [[conclusion]] nor [[premises]] make any outright claims about the existence or validity of [[God]] (or a UC option.). ''Mr. Elliott'' claims that UC option is only presented as an ''option'' which ''atheists'' deny or disbelieve in. Nothing more. Also some ''atheists'' will claim that God falls under STE or SCPNCEU. ''Mr. Elliott'' generally responds in the following ways. 1.) God does ''not'' fall under '''STE''' because God by definition is ''spaceless'' and ''timeless''. Thus making the UC option (God), virtually the polar opposite of the STE acronym. 2.) God is ''not'' '''SCPNCEU''' because God ''does not'' ''come from'' anywhere. Therefore it would be an incoherent statement to claim God ''comes from'' pure nothingness and then creates entire universes. Also, God is an all powerful all knowing personal mind/creator. He is not Pure Nothingness or literal non-being. It's common for the atheist to then try and make the jump to, well if God is not pure nothingness, then he must create from pure nothingness. ''Mr. Elliott'' says this is ''not true''. "It is important to remember that nothing can exist outside the presence of God. This is to imply that everything which exists (which God created), was [[supernaturally]] ''manifested'' from [[within]] God (who is ''not'' pure nothingness). For example, something like energy didn't exist eternally inside of God in its current [[naturalistic]] form, but rather what ''was required'' to bring the energy into existence, existed ''timelessly'' inside of God who is supernatural, all knowing, all powerful, and [[omnipresent]]."
| |
| | |
| | |
| :[[False Dichotomy|'''False Dichotomy''']] - A common objection from atheists is 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, the author says that because of the way the two acronyms are defined, that it's logically impossible to ever present a third option for the existence of the universe. "There will never be a third option for atheists. The only thing that might change in the future is that one of these options may be shown to have evidence or somehow be proven rational or logical." ''Mr. Elliott'' frequently says, "Asserting a false dichotomy is not the same as proving one."
| |
| | |
| | |
| :[[Big Bang Theory|'''Big Bang Theory''']] – 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 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 prove this reasoning 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 spacetime curvature, which is at the center of a [[black hole]]. 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( http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html). At big-bang-theory.com they say, (http://www.big-bang-theory.com) "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. There in fact was no space or time prior to this event. This is well documented in 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 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 seem to unsettle this line of logic. '''#1.)''' How can a singularity ( or super condensed energy 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 would not exist. This proves that space ''did exist'' prior to the expansion of the singularity." '''#2.)''' How can energy or moving particles (such as in the singularity) exist without any events occurring, or in a completely frozen state. Without any change in temperature, no increase in potential, no transferring, no movement, no motion, nothing? The claim by the author is that ''they cannot'', and therefore this would prove that not only did space exist prior to the expansion of the singularity, but also that the concept of ''time was in play'' because '''events''' were in fact occuring. '''#3.)''' In regards to ''Spacetime Curvature'' in a [[Gravitational singularity]], Wikipedia says, "More generally, a spacetime is considered ''singular'' if it is geodesically incomplete, meaning that 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 though we cannot determine the ''motion'', we know that concious observers need not be present for the concept of time to still be in play. If events are occuring, which they were, then you cannot claim time did not exist." The question then becomes, where did the singularity and spacetime come from? 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 '''SCPNCEU'''.
| |
| | |
| | |
| :'''Important to note''': The space and time which existed prior to the expansion of the singularity, ''was'' casually connected to the existence of our universe.
| |
| | |
| | |
| :[[B-theory of time|'''B Theory of time''']] - '''The Elliott Argument''' welcomes proponents of both the ''A-theory of time'' and ''B-theory of time''. The author makes the claim that the B-theory of time, or ''static time'', falls under '''STE''' if eternal in the past. Therefore presents no available evidence for such a position. It is also claimed by ''Mr. Elliott'' that the B-theory of time is irrational and illogical because it is self refuting. The following is a summary from [http://www.amazon.com/Time-Eternity-Exploring-Gods-Relationship/dp/1581342411 Time and Eternity Exploring Gods relationship to Time] (pg. 199) by [[William Lane Craig]]. "Static Time, or the B-theory of time requires us to believe that our experience of change in the external world as well as within our own minds is wholly illusory. Both tenets are required to be believed if one wishes to hold to static time. However, If our changing experiences are themselves illusions, then we are experiencing a Changing illusion, which is objective and leads to a vicious infinite regress. For example, if that change is an illusion, then something's causing that illusion, and that illusion, and that illusion. Therefore, the static theory of time is self-contradictory."
| |
| | |
| | |
| :'''[[Quantum Vacuum|Quantum Vacuum]] and [[Virtual particles|Virtual Particles]]''' – Many people try to make the claim ''virtual particles'' may be evidence that something can come from nothingness. The fact here is that virtual particles do not come from ''pure nothingness'', are not known to have the capability to create entire universe(s), and therefore do not provide valid evidence for '''SCPNCEU'''. "Virtual particles exist in what is known as the ''Quantum Vacuum'', which is a sea of fluctuating energy, endowed with a structure and a rich physical reality that is governed by physical laws. It emphatically ''NOT'' pure nothingness", says Mr. Elliott and [[William Lane Craig]] on [http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/cosmos172.htm Origins and Design 17:2]
| |
| | |
| | |
| :[[First Law of Thermodynamics|'''First Law of Thermodynamics''']] – Some opponents of '''The Elliott Argument''' may try to bring up the ''First Law of Thermodynamics'' as apparent evidence for '''STE'''. ''The First Law of Thermodynamics'' basically states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, the line of reasoning would follow that if energy exists, and it cannot be created or destroyed, that it must be eternal. The problem then becomes, anyone presenting the 1st law as evidence must also consider what the 2nd law says. [[Second law of thermodynamics|''The Second Law of Thermodynamics'']] states that everything was once at zero [[entropy]], and like a wind up clock, everything is slowly ''winding down''. All of the ''useable energy'' is being used up, and there will eventually come a point where there is none left. The problem here is obvious. The universe (spacetime) therefore ''cannot be'' eternal, because if it was, then all the useable energy would have long since been used up and there would be none remaining. But, ''we see that we still have useable energy today.'' Astronomer [[Robert Jastrow]], who is currently serving as the director of the Mount Wilson Observatory (in his book In God and the Astronomers), explains that there are “Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, and the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a beginning” (1978, p. 111). More on Jastrows thoughts regarding this topic can be seen at [http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=310 apologetics press].
| |
| | |
| | |
| :'''Multi-Universe Theory/[[String Theory]]''' - ''Mr. Elliott'' claims every proposed option will in fact fall under one of his two provided categories. Opponents of this argument frequently bring up Multi-Universe or String Theory as proposed new third options. Elliott's response is that if these theories are simply eternal cycles (of universe creating universe, creating universe, creating universe, without beginning) that thus would 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 occuring. ''Mr. Elliott'' also claims that the very act of 'universe creating universe' is also evidence of events occuring, and that all the universes ''would be casually connected'' if responsible for creating one another.
| |
| | |
| | |
| :'''The Elliott Argument disproves the existence of [[God]]''' - Many times atheists will claim that if '''The Elliott Argument''' is in fact sound and valid, which the author claims, that it also disproves the existence of God. ''Mr. Elliott'' makes the case that this cannot be so for the mere fact that God (the UC option) does ''not'' fall under the definition of either '''STE''' or '''SCPNCEU'''. ''Mr. Elliott'' claims that God does not fall under '''STE''' because God is considered by many christians to be spaceless and timeless. Dr. Craig talks in depth about this fact on his reasonable faith website. To read more about it you can click on the following link.... http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-the-cause-of-the-universe-an-uncaused-personal-creator-of-the-universe. Also God does not fall under '''SCPNCEU''' because God by definition is not pure nothingness, but rather an all powerful all knowing personal mind. You can read some scriptures about this definition on About Christianity (http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/qt/biblefactsgod.htm). Thus God (The UC option) would not be literal non-being or Pure Nothingness.
| |
| | |
| | |
| :'''Revision of the [[Kalam Cosmological Argument]] (KCA)''' - '''The Elliott Argument''' is fairly new compared to many other apologetic arguments and some have interpreted it to be a similar, or a re-worked version of the [[Kalam Cosmological Argument]]. ''Mr. Elliott'' likes to bring up 4 main points which he feels differeciates his argument from the KCA. '''#1.)''' The arguments have a completely different stucture. '''#2)''' The arguments have completely different premises. '''#3.)''' '''The Elliott Argument''' makes the claim that atheism is irrational illogical and has no evidence, without making any claims about the existence or validity of God. While the KCA on the other hand is designed to prove a God must exist. '''#4)''' The arguments have two completely different conclusions.
| |
| | |
| | |
| :'''IDK or Neither''' - When the atheist realizes that both of his options are irrational and illogical, often times they will try to back out of the equation by saying they dont know which acronym they fall under, or make the claim that they are neither. ''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 its logically impossible for a new option to ever present itself, but rather the only thing that might change is that one of the provided options may become logical and have evidence to support it.
| |
| | |
| | |
| == Notes ==
| |
| | |
| :It's claimed by the author that '''The Elliott Argument''' has never been defeated and that in over 100 formal online debates it remains unrefuted and virtually unchallenged. ''Mr. Elliott'' has an open debate challenge for any atheist in the world that can be seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4DtnkBxCI4)
| |
