Response to Chad's "Proof of God" argument.

Couldn't resist (and it's a slow day at work); I popped back to see how Chad was doing and found a few new posts that are, if possible, even more ridiculous than the earlier ones. I've responded to the so-called "Proof" of god he has posted and will get around to the (not one, but two) posts about how eeevil-'n'-nasty Homersekshules are. Again, no great challenge here, but I live in hope that one day he will at least manage one coherent, logical argument. Response below:

Hi there, Elliott. I just thought I’d do what I promised and check in on your progress; sad to say, I’m not impressed. You don’t seem to have advanced much at all in your capability to develop and defend a logical argument. I’ve deconstructed this one for you as I see you are still constructing it, so there is a chance of giving it some kind of logical coherence. As it is, if it were a ship it would never make it out of dry-dock. This is only a brief analysis of the most obvious problems; I have broken the lesson into two sections, as it is again too long to post in one hit.

//Everyone (atheists and theists alike) must admit that either something is without beginning, or that something came from pure nothingness.//

Why? This is just a reiteration of your “Golden Question”, which is a classic false dichotomy; there is a plethora of theoretical possibilities as to how the Universe came to be, a fact which effectively discounts this assertion. I myself have presented you with at least one logically consistent, theoretically sound possibility (which you have flatly refused to address) which accounts quite effectively for the existence of the Universe without having to resort to the “God-did-it” theory.

//No reason to believe that pure nothingness have ever existed or could ever be achieved//

There is similarly no reason to believe that “pure nothingness” did NOT exist at some time, unless you have access to some physics research the rest of the world knows nothing about. Besides which, as I have pointed out to you before, there are few if any Atheists who would assert that the Universe came into existence “out of pure nothingness”; a classic Straw-man fallacy there, Elliot.

//Pure nothingness has no creative powers.//

How do you know that? What evidence can you present to support the contention? Also, see above.

//Discriminatory//

Meaning? I know this probably means something to you, but it is totally meaningless to everyone else. Why would the contention that pure nothingness is possible be “discriminatory”?

//You cannot disprove or undermine mathematical absolutes//

Again, meaning? What does this have to do with the argument? Mathematical absolutes are the very things that have successfully been used by (for example) Dr Stephen Hawking to support his contention that a god is unnecessary as an explanation for the Universe’s existence. In what way do they support your contentions? I tried to tell you before, Elliot; making these bald assertions without anything to back them up makes no sense and does NOT constitute a rational argument.

//There is no evidence to support the claim that something can come from pure nothingness.//

Again, see above; there is similarly no evidence to support the claim that a god exists or ever has.

//…whatever existed in the past without beginning must be timeless. Present our infinite regress argument and remind them that we are using all standard and formal definitions of 'Time', and that all eternal cycles such as string theory and multi-universe theory, big bang, big bounce, etc. are also covered.//

and

//…we can prove that events were happening prior to the expansion. Thus, the concept of time certainly was in play!!//

I really shouldn’t have to point this out, Elliott, but the two statements above are contradictory; if something “existed in the past” then it cannot be timeless, as the past IS A MEASUREMENT of time. The statement is ontologically meaningless. Furthermore, in the very next paragraph, you make the claim that you “…can prove that events were happening prior to the expansion”. Quite aside from the fact that, if this is the case, you are up for the Nobel Prize in Physics, the contention that events were happening prior to the expansion means that time, and therefore space, were already existent; that is elementary relativity any high-school student could figure out. If that is the case, then whatever it was that caused the expansion was a temporal agent and subject to (ergo, not the cause of) time and space per se. I know you have already tried to wiggle out of this one by inventing a kind of “meta-space-time” in which you claim your god exists, but that is just a furphy; the fact is, if you are claiming that space-time existed before the big bang, then you are admitting that your god is subject to temporality and therefore MUST have had a beginning also.

//…we know the event (the creation of the universe) must have been beyond space and time. Therefore it cannot be physical or material.//

As pointed out above, you contend earlier in your exegesis that space and time must have existed prior to the expansion, so you have just contradicted one of the key premises of your argument; in common parlance, you have just shot yourself in the foot.

//There are only two types of things that fit this description. Either abstract objects (like numbers), or some sort of intelligent mind…//

Why? Even if we ignore the glaring contradictions in your argument that I have already pointed out, there is no logical reason why something existing in such a “timeless, spaceless” state could not be some kind of natural force that is neither abstract nor sentient. If you have the mathematical and scientific research that shows otherwise, feel free to present it.

//…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 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.//

Again, why “only a free agent”? You have already stated that space-time MUST have existed prior to the expansion in order for “something” to be able to cause the Universe to begin. If that is the case, there is no logical reason to assume that there was only one element existent in that state. It is just as logical, given the conditions you are basing your contentions on, that there were two or more – perhaps an infinite number – of non-sentient, concrete elements existent prior to the expansion that could have reacted with each other in an entirely random manner. In the natural world, we have countless examples of non-sentient elements causing reactions of all kinds; physics is based on the study of just such phenomena.

//…if the cause were a non-personal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without its effect...//

As pointed out above, postulating an entity that exists outside our space-time continuum necessarily permits the postulation of any number of elements existing in the same state. There is absolutely no logical reason why the cause of the Universe could not be the interaction of two or more such elements.

As you see, Elliott, this argument is simply not strong enough to withstand even a brief assault. You really MUST try to learn more about formal logical argument, physics, scientific method, and philosophy. I will do my best to educate you on such matters, but I simply do not have the time to do more than expose the basic flaws, as I have done here. I suggest attending a community college or some other such institution where you can get in some serious study time on these subjects; otherwise, you will continue to be the butt of the jokes about you that are currently flooding the internet.