This is my response to Chad's attempt to defeat my refutation of TEA which he posted to a Face Book page (https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Elliott-Argument-Defeated/1464406860456511) recently
Before I begin, I must point out that all of the claims I
make regarding my critiques and commentaries on Chad’s arguments have proof in
the form of dated blog entries and screen-caps.
Most of his exceedingly long response (it runs to over
10,500 words) is just a series of cut-and-paste sections from his blog and is
largely irrelevant. I’ll respond to the few bits that actually deal with my
critique.
//It has just been brought to our attention however, that
Mr. Godfrey recently submitted a formal refutation to TEA (The Elliott
Argument). //
Actually, I have written critiques of all of Chad’s
arguments which I submitted to his blog between December 2012 and May 2013. He
never responded directly to any of them, although it became obvious that he was
reading them when he referred to one of the counter arguments I posited on his
COL page without actually referencing that it was me who raised the argument; once
in response to my “yellow shirt” example of epistemological inquiry (Feb 1st
2013) and once in response to my raising of Descartes’ “cogito” (Feb 20th
2013). So needless to say, the claim that it has “just come” to his attention
is an outright lie. I wonder why it has taken Chad until now to respond to any
of them (27th March 2014).
// If he ever changes he mind and wants to accept our live
debate challenge we would be more than happy to publically dismantle him. //
I attempted only once to enter one of Chad’s “live debates” on Feb 25th 2013; he blocked me from the chat room as soon as he saw my name appear. I have a screen cap of it.
I attempted only once to enter one of Chad’s “live debates” on Feb 25th 2013; he blocked me from the chat room as soon as he saw my name appear. I have a screen cap of it.
// Apparently Mr. Godfrey has written numerous blogs, all of
which seem to be similarly fallacious in nature, so this will be our only
mention of him. //
Actually, he attempted a refutation of one of my arguments on Feb 1st 2013. Naturally he got it all wrong.
Actually, he attempted a refutation of one of my arguments on Feb 1st 2013. Naturally he got it all wrong.
//'SCPNCEU' actually has been reduced to 'SCPN' but Ill let
that slide for now, as more than likely you don't keep up on your
apologetics.//
It was still SPNCEU when I wrote the critique over a year ago. Chad likes to move the goalposts and then claim they were where he put them all along.
It was still SPNCEU when I wrote the critique over a year ago. Chad likes to move the goalposts and then claim they were where he put them all along.
// We have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that STE is not
only illogical, irrational, and incorrect, but also has no supporting
evidence.//
and
// Therefore this proves 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 occurring.//
and
// Therefore this proves 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 occurring.//
and
//It's important to note that in The Elliott Argument, STE
is defined as spacetime eternal, not space AND time eternal.//
Interesting, since this is a direct quote from your version
of the argument in 2012:
// P1: Both "Space and time are eternal, without a timeless personal mind." (STE) and "Something can come from pure nothingness and then create the entire Universe." (SCPNCEU) are illogical, irrational and have zero evidence.//
// P1: Both "Space and time are eternal, without a timeless personal mind." (STE) and "Something can come from pure nothingness and then create the entire Universe." (SCPNCEU) are illogical, irrational and have zero evidence.//
It seems the
goalposts have shifted yet again.
Apparently Chad can’t see the contradiction in claiming
first that STE (Space -Time Eternal) is “illogical, irrational, incorrect”, and
without “supporting evidence”, and then immediately claiming that space-time
must have pre-existed the Big Bang.
// just because spacetime existed prior to the expansion of
the singularity in the Big Bang model, that does not therefore mean that
spacetime was eternal in the past without true beginning.//
He seems to think this solves the problem with the argument; the assertion (without the slightest evidence to back it up) that space-time was created prior to the Big Bang. However, this begs the question of what kind of environment God existed in prior to the creation of this prior-to-the-Big-Bang space-time. In a previous discussion with Philosotroll in 2012, he makes the claim that God exists in a kind of “meta space-time” – again without the slightest shred of evidence to back it up. When Philosotroll pointed this out, Chad blocked him.
He seems to think this solves the problem with the argument; the assertion (without the slightest evidence to back it up) that space-time was created prior to the Big Bang. However, this begs the question of what kind of environment God existed in prior to the creation of this prior-to-the-Big-Bang space-time. In a previous discussion with Philosotroll in 2012, he makes the claim that God exists in a kind of “meta space-time” – again without the slightest shred of evidence to back it up. When Philosotroll pointed this out, Chad blocked him.
Regarding my identification of SPCNCEU as a straw man
fallacy, he says:
//...It's not a strawman because even though we agree that
SCPN is irrational illogical, incorrect, and has no evidence, it still remains
an OPTION for atheists. Not a good one I agree, but still an option//
What Chad fails to acknowledge is that few if any atheists actually hold to the idea that the universe came from “Pure Nothingness”. Thus, it DOES qualify as a straw man fallacy, since Elliott contends that they do in blatant disregard of this fact. He creates the argument in order to knock it down.
What Chad fails to acknowledge is that few if any atheists actually hold to the idea that the universe came from “Pure Nothingness”. Thus, it DOES qualify as a straw man fallacy, since Elliott contends that they do in blatant disregard of this fact. He creates the argument in order to knock it down.
// So you think the words 'I DONT KNOW' could be responsible
for the existence of our Universe?? Do ya huh, Mr. Godfrey?? LOL!!//
And here we have a classic example of Chad deliberately failing to understand the meaning of a statement made by an opponent. What I contended was that the admission of a lack of knowledge by an atheist of how the universe came to exist is a valid answer to the question. His assertion is that I am claiming the actual words “I DON’T KNOW” brought the universe into being. Another straw man fallacy, this time tinged with his grade-school form of personal expression.
And here we have a classic example of Chad deliberately failing to understand the meaning of a statement made by an opponent. What I contended was that the admission of a lack of knowledge by an atheist of how the universe came to exist is a valid answer to the question. His assertion is that I am claiming the actual words “I DON’T KNOW” brought the universe into being. Another straw man fallacy, this time tinged with his grade-school form of personal expression.
// 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.//
This is actually a misquote; here is the full sentence
without the period incorrectly placed:
“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 invalid, 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.”
“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 invalid, 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.”
And chad’s response to the
“quote” he has manufactured:
//FAIL...We have not 'falsely' asserted that atheists only
have two options. Rather it remains to be an absolute fact that atheists only
have two options.//
I should be obvious by now that he has failed to establish his contention as fact.
// The same is true with the acronyms STE an SCPN. I give
the correct definitions to my opponent, appeal to human logic and the law of
non-contradiction, and then challenge them to prove that some other option
could logically exist.//
Actually, I provided a third option in the very response he is attempting to refute here; namely that the universe could have come to exist through a completely natural, non-sentient phenomenon or series of phenomena that exist outside out space-time. As can be seen, this falls under neither STE (since it does not exist in our space-time) nor SPCN (since the universe does not emerge from “Pure nothingness”. This is Chad’s response:
// Simply saying it can be a natural, non-sentient phenomena which exists outside of space-time is nothing more than a baseless assertion.//
Actually, I provided a third option in the very response he is attempting to refute here; namely that the universe could have come to exist through a completely natural, non-sentient phenomenon or series of phenomena that exist outside out space-time. As can be seen, this falls under neither STE (since it does not exist in our space-time) nor SPCN (since the universe does not emerge from “Pure nothingness”. This is Chad’s response:
// Simply saying it can be a natural, non-sentient phenomena which exists outside of space-time is nothing more than a baseless assertion.//
This is nonsense, of course. Chad has absolutely no basis to
make such a claim and I challenge him to show how the argument is flawed.
// This is where we would challenge our opponent to prove
that a non-personal cause (UCNPC), could also in fact be space-less, timeless,
immaterial, and unchanging.//
The opposite of course is also the case; I can just as easily challenge Chad to prove that a non-personal cause of the universe cannot be “space-less, timeless, immaterial, and unchanging” – whatever that means.
As usual, Chad’s “defence” of his “undefeatable argument” cannot withstand even the most basic scrutiny.
The opposite of course is also the case; I can just as easily challenge Chad to prove that a non-personal cause of the universe cannot be “space-less, timeless, immaterial, and unchanging” – whatever that means.
As usual, Chad’s “defence” of his “undefeatable argument” cannot withstand even the most basic scrutiny.
Chalk up another fail to the AK.
I was angry at Chad for a while after discovering that he
was a major plagiariser of other people’s work and was entirely comfortable
with misrepresenting facts concerning scientific discoveries to support his botched
argument (see entry from 20th Apr 2014).
However, after
reading up on his history, I’ve realised that his behaviour is directly attributable
to his failure to achieve the greatness he once saw as inevitable. I have been
down that path; on the cusp of seriously big success, only to see it vanish due
to some bad luck and bad decisions. Fortunately, I found another path just as
fulfilling (although less glamorous). Chad, obviously, did not.
Now I just feel sorry for him.
