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.