Elliott - Lesson 6 – The Elliott Argument.

I wasn't planning to address Elliott's main argument until later, but as he has used it to support some of his later arguments, I decided to take care of it now. This is not an in-depth de-construction, but then the argument itself does not warrant one.

Elliott; I will now unpack and defeat The Elliott Argument. This is in order to remove support from those other arguments which rely upon it. Again, due to space constraints, I will split this lesson into two parts.

P1 - Both ''STE'' and ''SCPNCEU'' are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence.

With regard to your STE postulate, you appear to have shot yourself in the foot. In your exegesis, you state that, “[t]ime was existing prior to the expansion of the singularity or no change could have occurred…”

Einstein’s SR theory postulates that space and time are a continuum, and experimental and observational evidence strongly supports this contention. According to your statement quoted above, space (or space/time) must have existed prior to the Big Bang. How, then, can you make the claim that STE (Space-Time Eternal) is “irrational, illogical, and [has] no evidence”, when your own theory requires it to be so? Let me remind you that, in your own exegesis of the argument, you state that STE “is designed to be used in the ''broadest sense''. Meaning not just space-time in our universe, but also any other proposed universes, voids or deminsions (sic).” This immediately undermines your own argument, in that space/time MUST have existed prior to the Big Bang (and therefore MUST be eternal) if your theory is correct.

You second postulate, SCPNCEU, is not a model that is accepted in any cosmological theory of the beginning of the Universe that I am aware of (if you know of any such theory, please present the paper), nor do I know of any Atheists who ascribe to such an idea. It seems that you have created this model yourself and attributed it to Atheism and Atheists generally without any evidence that it can be so ascribed. This is a classic straw-man argument and is therefore entirely without merit. The obvious and most honest answer a non-theist can give is “I don’t know” when asked about the ultimate origin of the Universe, which is perfectly valid and represents a “third option”. This effectively demolishes premise 1 of this argument, however I will expose further problems with it in the second part of this lesson.

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''.

As noted above, the two options you claim are the only ones available to anyone who denies the existence of an “Uncreated Creator” who caused the Universe to exist are both unavailable in support of your argument, in that the first (STE) is required to support your own theory (which means that you must accept that either space/time IS eternal in the past, or that your own theory is “illogical, irrational and without evidence”), while the second is a straw-man fallacy.

Furthermore, you state in your exegesis that the Elliott Argument “makes no claims about the ''existence or validity'' of [the Uncreated Creator] option”. On the basis of P2, this claim is entirely disingenuous; while the argument makes no explicit claim to support the UC option, by (falsely) asserting that there are only two other options besides this that could be taken and that both are actually invald, it very clearly implicitly supports that option to the exclusion of all others. Attempting to claim in light of this that it lends no support to the UC option is thus quite simply fallacious – it’s dishonest.

There is also a valid third option which violates none of the conditions you have set; this is that the Universe came into being as a result of completely natural, non-sentient phenomena which exist outside of our space-time continuum. This option violates neither the STE nor the SCPNCEU options (even though I have shown both to be unavailable to support your argument) and still provides an option which does not require an “Uncreated Creator” in the form of an intelligent, sentient being – AKA God. This effectively demolishes P2.

P3 - ''Atheists'' deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated Creator'' option as the cause of the universe.

This one I have no argument with, but as I have now demolished both P1 and P2, that is irrelevant.

T - ''Atheists'' are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence

Without P1 and P2, this conclusion cannot be supported. The Elliott Argument is defeated. QED.

Elliott – Lesson 5 – The Hide and Seek Argument.

P1: Mathematicians say the odds of an event occuring, with a probability less than 1:10^50, is very close to zero.

P2: Someone who blindly accepts an event occured, with a probability less than 1:10^100, is denying an obvious truth.

P3: The odds of our universe being life permitting, without a creator, has a probability less than 1:10^200.

P4: Atheists blindly accept our universe became life permitting without a creator.

T:  Atheists are denying an obvious truth

Elliott; this one is easily dealt with. Essentially, you’re just rehashing the “fine-tuned” argument. The probability of you being born as the individual you are is 1:10^102,685,000; far, far smaller than the odds of the Universe spontaneously coming in to existence the way it is. And yet, here you are. As you say, very close to zero is NOT zero. Thus, the possibility of a non-zero-probability event occurring always exists, and as you can see from the probability of your own existence, such non-zero events DO occur; in the case of the human race, some 7 billion times just at the present moment.

Hawking’s research shows clearly that the present state of the Universe could have developed from a range of different initial states, without the need for a “designer”. This dramatically reduces the chances of the Universe we inhabit displaying just those qualities needed for life to exist without the need for a designer to control or create them. (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=347).

(http://aminotes.tumblr.com/post/1053188069/stephen-hawking-on-the-universes-origin)

Furthermore, there is no way to know whether or not this Universe is a singular event, or one of an infinite series. Since space/time as we understand it cannot exist without a Universe such as our own, the possible existence of such a scenario does not violate the infinite regress problem.

Once again, you are allowing your own emotional responses to Atheism to get in the way of rational debate. Atheists do not “blindly” accept the existence of such a possibility precisely because credible evidence DOES exist to support it; far more, in fact, than exists to support the theory that a Deity was involved in the Univers's creation. You really MUST learn to formulate your arguments more precisely and to support them more effectively; I managed to demolish this one in only a few minutes, and I am not even formally trained in mathematics (though I do have formal education in logic). You need to do more research, especially when traversing fields of knowledge with which you are unfamiliar.

Let It Be Known ....

On Jan 24^th 2013, on his “Atheism is a Religion” blog, Chad Elliott posted:-

"As illustrated above, for anything you disbelieve in, you must also believe that that thing does not exist. There is no possible example that an atheist, or anyone else for that matter, can present, which would provide evidence to the contrary. Why? Because it's a logically impossible task. If you disbelieve something exists, then you believe that that something does not exist. In other words. If you disbelieve (A) exists, then you believe (A) does not exist. This is basic logic and proves once and for all that atheism is in fact a belief system. It's the belief that a God does not exist.

I will take this entire post down if someone can provide me an example to the contrary."

To which, on Jan 27^th 2013, I responded:

“… do you believe that I am wearing a yellow shirt? To put the question more technically, do you believe the proposition "Peter is wearing a yellow shirt at this moment" is true? It's a simple question where the meanings of all the terms are relatively straightforward, so there shouldn't be any issue with comprehension. There are lots of people wearing yellow shirts every day, so there is no issue with logical or physical impossibility.

However, you really have no way of knowing what I am wearing right now. I might not even be wearing a shirt, never mind a yellow one. There's just no reasonable basis for you to believe that I am wearing a yellow shirt. You can believe that it's possible that I'm wearing a yellow shirt, and you might reasonably believe that I sometimes wear a yellow shirt, but you shouldn't believe that I am wearing one right now. You also know that I dislike the colour yellow.

By the same token, though, you also shouldn't believe that the proposition "Peter is wearing a yellow shirt" is false. Your ignorance of what I am wearing should prevent you from denying this proposition the same way it prevents you from affirming it. As you can see, not believing that this proposition is true isn't the same as believing the proposition is not true: not affirming that I am wearing a yellow shirt doesn't entail denying that I am wearing a yellow shirt. (adapted from Austin Cline)

As I have now provided you with a logical example of how a lack of belief in something does not entail a positive belief in its antithesis – in other words, proof that disbelief in the existence of God is NOT the same a believing God does not exist – I assume you will honour your pledge – “I will take this entire post down if someone can provide me an example to the contrary” – and take down this page…”

I gave him 24 hours to remove the post; he hasn't.

So – this is the notification (Official) that Chad Elliott has been totally and completely owned by me and doesn't have the guts to admit it.

Chad Elliott owned

"As illustrated above, for anything you disbelieve in, you must also believe that that thing does not exist. There is no possible example that an atheist, or anyone else for that matter, can present, which would provide evidence to the contrary. Why? Because it's a logically impossible task. If you disbelieve something exists, then you believe that that something does not exist. In other words. If you disbelieve (A) exists, then you believe (A) does not exist. This is basic logic and proves once and for all that atheism is in fact a belief system. It's the belief that a God does not exist.

I will take this entire post down if someone can provide me an example to the contrary."

The quote above is from the Chidiot's "Atheism is a religion" blog. Recently, I posted a comment to the blog which logically proves this statement to be false (see Lesson 3 - section 2). So far, he has not honoured his pledge to take down the post - no surprises there - nor has he responded to any of the posts I have made.

Yesterday, I gave him 24 hours notice that I would begin publicising his failure to do so; let's see what happens :)

Elliot Lesson 4 - The J-Bone Argument

The formal argument:

P1: Something cannot come from PURE Nothingness

P2: Space and time cannot be eternal in the past

P3: Material things require space and time to exist.

T: The universe was created by a spaceless, timeless, immaterial creator.

Elliott; this one is just nonsense – it’s not even a proper argument, just a series of disconnected statements. Essentially, what you here is of the form:

A, B, C, therefore D.

None of the premises are connected to each other and they in no way support the conclusion. There’s no logical structure or progression here; it’s a definite fail as an argument form.

What you need to do here is set up a series of sub-arguments that support the premises you have and thus lead to the conclusion; you will need to create at least one sub-argument for each premise in this case, possibly more than one. A bald statement like “something cannot come from pure nothingness” is not a premise in the context above unless you can create a scaffold that supports it, or make it part of a sub-argument that leads to the ultimate conclusion. You should also reconsider the use of words like “something” and “pure nothingness”; “something” is far too woolly and “pure nothingness” can easily be challenged in terms of the definition of “pure” just for starters. For example (this is just off the top of my head here) P1 could read “X (defined here as the condition of being) cannot arise from ~X (a state of non-being)” or more formally ~X ⊅ X. You would then need to establish the Universe as having the condition of “being”; U (the Universe) has the condition X or more formally, U ⊆ X. You would then have to establish that the state of “being” is a necessary condition for the Universe’s existence, or U ≡ X. You could then conclude that U ⊅ ~X. This would then read: -

P1. ~X ⊅X

P2. U ⊆ X

P3. U≡ X

∴ ~X ⊅ U

This conclusion would become P1 in your argument above; in regular speech it would read as “the Universe cannot arise from a state of non-being”.

This site is pretty good (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/index.html); it starts with the basics, so you might want to skip ahead at some point. With relation to the “argument” above I suggest you look at this page: http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/diagram.html. It deals with diagramming arguments; I found this technique useful in my undergraduate years when I knew very little about logical argument.

You should also familiarise yourself with formal logical symbolism as used in my example above; the Lander site is good for this as well, and Wikipedia has a brief list of the most commonly used symbols.

Elliott Lesson 3 - "Atheism is a religion"

Elliott; lesson 3. Here is my analysis of your assertion that Atheism is a religion; I begin with a recap of your arguments. Because of the restrictions on words on the reply tabs, I have broken the lesson into 4 sections (Addenda - I did so on his blog, but this is the entire text)

P1: Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause nature and purpose of the universe

P2: Atheism is a set of beliefs stemming from 'God is not the cause nature and purpose of the universe'

T: Atheism is a religion

P1: Religion is a specific set of fundamental beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons

P2: Atheism is a specific set of fundamental beliefs and practices, stemming from the belief 'there is no God', which is agreed upon by a number of persons (other atheists)

T: Atheism is a religion

P1: Religion is a body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices

P2: Atheism is a body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices, stemming from the belief 'there is no god'

T: Atheism is a religion

You then make these two assertions:

“Atheism: The denial or disbelief that any god exists. (The BELIEF that there is no god)

Atheist: A person who freely chooses to deny or disbelieve a god exists. (A person who freely chooses to BELIEVE that NO god exists.)”

You base this on your assertion that: “… for anything you disbelieve in, you must also believe that that thing does not exist.”

First (1), I will show that your definitions of Atheism are all countered by both the same sources you cite in your exegesis regarding definitions of the word “religion”, and also by other highly credible sources. I will also show that those sources you have cited define “disbelief” in a manner which supports my assertion that your definition of the word is incorrect. I will then (2) give you a logical example of how your assertion that “… for anything you disbelieve in, you must also believe that that thing does not exist.” is a false assertion.(contd section 2)

1) I assert that all these arguments fail on P2; the assertion that Atheism is a belief or set of beliefs that “there is no God”. Atheism is not a belief, but a lack of belief by definition.

a·the·ism/ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/  [ey-thee-iz-uhm] (dictionary.com)

noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. (this is the ONLY example in the sources you cite where Atheism is defined as a “belief”; it is contradicted immediately by the second definition.)

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t)

a·the·ist  ( th - st) n. (the free dictionary) One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved

(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist)

dis·be·lief  (dsb-lf) n.

Refusal or reluctance to believe.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief)

Atheism (Merriam-Webster)

2

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)

dis·be·lief noun \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\

: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief)

[noncount] : a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real

 (http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/disbelief)

As you can see, the only one of your sources that agrees with your definition of Atheism is Dictionary.com, and even then only in the first instance; it actually contradicts itself in the second instance, a fact that I have pointed out to its administrators. ALL the other credible sources you cite define Atheism as a lack of positive belief in the existence of a deity, rather than a positive belief in the non-existence of a deity. I have ignored Wikipedia as it is unreliable academically and I do not understand what you mean by typing the word “into 'Google' “, as all that does is bring up a variety of sites relating to the search parameters.

Furthermore, this from Encyclopaedia Britiannica: "Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons...: for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent… ." ("Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism.)

And this from The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition.”

("Atheism". In Donald M. Borchert.The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 359)

And this from the Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:

"As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of "atheism" is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. ...an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology."

("Atheism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis.1998)

And finally, this from the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism. The tribal gods of the early inhabitants of Palestine are of little or no philosophical interest. They were essentially finite beings, and the god of one tribe or collection of tribes was regarded as good in that it enabled victory in war against tribes with less powerful gods. Similarly the Greek and Roman gods were more like mythical heroes and heroines than like the omnipotent, omniscient and good God postulated in mediaeval and modern philosophy. As the Romans used the word, ‘atheist’ could be used to refer to theists of another religion, notably the Christians, and so merely to signify disbelief in their own mythical heroes.

(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ revised Aug 2011)

Based on these definitions (which are written and accepted by academic philosophers worldwide), your contention that ‘Atheism is a religion’ is false. Therefore, P2 in all three arguments can be shown to be untrue; ergo, Atheism is not a “belief” in the non-existence of God/gods but a specific lack of belief – a disbelief – in the existence of a deity. You are an atheist with respect to all other gods besides the one you believe in and I challenge you to prove otherwise. By showing that P2 is untrue, the arguments are rendered unsound.

If you wish to continue to assert that Atheism is a religion, you will have to show (not simply assert without proof) that all of the above publications and institutions are wrong in their definition of Atheism. Good luck with that.

2) Logically speaking, mere disbelief in the truth of a proposition cannot be treated as equivalent to the belief that the proposition is false and that the opposite is true. For example, do you believe that I am wearing a yellow shirt? To put the question more technically, do you believe the proposition "Peter is wearing a yellow shirt at this moment" is true? It's a simple question where the meanings of all the terms are relatively straightforward, so there shouldn't be any issue with comprehension. There are lots of people wearing yellow shirts every day, so there is no issue with logical or physical impossibility.

However, you really have no way of knowing what I am wearing right now. I might not even be wearing a shirt, never mind a yellow one. There's just no reasonable basis for you to believe that I am wearing a yellow shirt. You can believe that it's possible that I'm wearing a yellow shirt, and you might reasonably believe that I sometimes wear a yellow shirt, but you shouldn't believe that I am wearing one right now. You also know that I dislike the colour yellow.

By the same token, though, you also shouldn't believe that the proposition "Peter is wearing a yellow shirt" is false. Your ignorance of what I am wearing should prevent you from denying this proposition the same way it prevents you from affirming it. As you can see, not believing that this proposition is true isn't the same as believing the proposition is not true: not affirming that I am wearing a yellow shirt doesn't entail denying that I am wearing a yellow shirt. (adapted from Austin Cline, http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/DisbeliefDenial.htm).

As I have now provided you with a logical example of how a lack of belief in something does not entail a positive belief in its antithesis – in other words, proof that disbelief in the existence of God is NOT the same a believing God does not exist – I assume you will honour your pledge – “I will take this entire post down if someone can provide me an example to the contrary” – and take down this page, although, frankly, I don’t credit you with the intellectual honesty to do so.

Furthermore, I’m STILL waiting for your response to my challenge to a debate on debate.org, and for you to present your Elliott Argument (or any of your arguments for that matter) to philpapers.org. I won’t be holding my breath, though.

Elliot Lesson 2 - "The Circus Argument"

Lesson 2 – The Circus Argument

Elliott – I’ve decided to apply lesson 2 to this argument, as it is obviously a new one and can still be modified.

First, I will address the first two Premises; ergo:

P1: If you have to accept you could be wrong about everything you think you know, then you have to admit you can't know anything //Atheists cannot know anything because they cannot accept an objective reality.//

P2: Atheists have to accept they could be wrong about everything they think they know

The problem here is the use of the words “have to accept”; it is factually incorrect that Atheists have to accept such a position. There is a great deal of philosophical and scientific literature which suggests strongly that a ‘real’ reality exists, of which our perceptions reveal only a small amount; the fact that animals and other, non-cognitive living things react to “reality” as we do is strong evidence to suggest that there is something “out there”. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that this “reality”, whatever it may consist of, contains any god, never mind the Christian deity. To quote Professor Alex Rosenberg, noted philosopher of science and author of 14 books:

The most important thing to know about reality is that science understands it well enough to rule out god, and almost everything else that provides wiggle room for theism and mystery mongering. …. Treating the illusions that rise to consciousness as symptoms, instead of guides to meaning and value, is crucial to enjoying life. It’s not easy, but taking science seriously is the first step, despite the difficulty consciousness puts in the way of understanding it. (http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=4209)

This argument fails in its first two premises in that you have not established the logical necessity of Atheism having to accept the position you claim it does. This invalidates both Premises 1 & 2 and makes the argument unsound. You are basing your definition of Atheists and Atheism generally on your own assumptions about it, which can easily be shown to be incorrect; this is true for all your arguments and is a major flaw. As (I presume) you know, if a premise can be shown to be untrue, the argument fails.

P3: Atheists have to admit the (sic) can't know anything

There are other religious philosophies which postulate a “reality” in which humanity exists, yet that do not premise the existence of a god that created it. The Buddhist religion is an example of this. This exposes a fatal flaw in Premise 3, in that Buddhists, most of whom are atheists by definition, can and do make claim to knowing a great deal about the true nature of reality. You would need at the very least to show that their claims are invalid or logically inconsistent to make P3 viable.

I won’t go on with P4, as the problems with the rest of the argument make it pointless.

You might try modifying the wording of the premises to say (for example) in P3 that Atheists cannot know anything “with certainty”; that would make objections to the argument easier to counter, though you still have the problem of making it a necessary condition.

Elliott lesson 1 - "The Suicide Argument"

What can I say; I couldn't stay away from Elliott's blog. He's put up some even more idiotic arguments about various things, so, in a spirit of charity for which he is entirely unworthy (and because I'm often bored on the weekends) I've decided to present him with a series of lessons in logic, reason, and philosophical debate relating specifically to his arguments. These are based solely on my own knowledge of philosophy, which I admit is not comprehensive, but it's really only for fun; I'm sure he dismisses my comments - though I am equally sure his ego will not allow him to ignore them. Here's lesson 1:

The Suicide Argument – Lesson 1

P1: Atheists have to accept moral values are subjective

P2: If moral values are subjective, then every action is accepted by someone

P3: If every action is accepted by someone, then every action is accepted

P4: If every action is accepted, then there is no right or wrong

P5: If there is no right or wrong, then abolishing atheism all together is not wrong

T: Atheism is self defeating

Elliott – I’ve decided that, since I know you read these comments and I’m usually pretty bored on the weekends, I’m going to try to educate you in matters of philosophical debate by offering informed (I majored in Philosophy as an undergraduate with an A average and was offered Honours) criticism of your arguments in terms of both content and structure as and when I can.

For this one, this is just on an initial reading. You have failed to include any reference to context in relation to morality; this is vital in discussions of ethics as contextuality makes all the difference – for example, “killing babies is always wrong” can be shown to be contextually incorrect. This is most significant in relation to P2-4. Any first-year Philosophy student would have no trouble pulling this argument apart on that basis alone.

Furthermore, you have not made a convincing argument that morality is necessarily objective, which immediately undermines the first premise and therefore the entire argument. I’m afraid William Lane Craig’s contentions on this matter are very weak; I would strongly suggest you ditch them altogether. I would suggest either Kant or John Henry Newman as stronger authorities, although their arguments are not without their own problems.

I’ll work on it a little more and give a more thorough analysis at a later time.