Another failure for Chad

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 1^st 2013) and once in response to my raising of Descartes’ “cogito” (Feb 20^th 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 (27^th 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 25^th 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 1^st 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.

// 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

//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.//

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.

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.

// 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.

// 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.”

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.//

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.

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.

Chad cheats again

Chad has posted more information his his TEA blog; this time about the WMAP research that indicates that time may have existed before the expansion of the Universe. Chad has deliberately edited the original material to hide the fact that it implies a cyclic cosmos with Universes sequentially coming into being.

From Elliot’s blog:-

Roger Penrose from the University of Oxford, has published a new paper saying that the circular patterns seen in the WMAP mission data on the Cosmic Microwave Background suggest that space and time perhaps did not originate at the Big Bang. His paper also refutes the idea of inflation, a widely accepted theory of a period of very rapid expansion immediately following the Big Bang. Penrose says that inflation cannot account for the very low entropy state in which the universe was thought to have been created.

From the original article:-

One of the great physicists of our time, Roger Penrose from the University of Oxford, has published a new paper saying that the circular patterns seen in the WMAP mission data on the Cosmic Microwave Background suggest that space and time perhaps did not originate at the Big Bang but that our universe continually cycles through a series of “aeons,” and we have an eternal, cyclical cosmos. His paper also refutes the idea of inflation, a widely accepted theory of a period of very rapid expansion immediately following the Big Bang.

Penrose says that inflation cannot account for the very low entropy state in which the universe was thought to have been created.

http://www.universetoday.com/79750/penrose-wmap-shows-evidence-of-%E2%80%98activity%E2%80%99-before-big-bang/

As you see, Elliott has edited the material (italicised in the original text) to remove any reference to a cyclic model of multiple universes, a theory he specifically refutes. The man is an unconscionable liar.

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.

“The Pious Man is Humble before God” - but nowhere else.

Is it just me, or does anyone else have a problem with the “humility” touted by monotheism? I’ve seen this sort of stuff all over the internet; about how all the problems of the world boil down to humanity’s “arrogance” and how everything would be just peachy if we all simply admitted our “lowly” status and submitted to the will of the almighty (fill in name here).

The contention is that humanity is “arrogant” because we have failed to acknowledge (fill in name here) as our creator and He (why is it always “He”?) is so pissed off about this that he is making our lives miserable – or allowing us to make our own lives miserable, which amounts to the same thing for an omnipotent, omniscient being, a factor which the God Squad never seem to grasp (thank you Epicurus).

My point is, why is it “arrogant” for people to refuse to believe in an all-powerful deity that has remained steadfastly invisible in any meaningful or verifiable way for all of human history, but not arrogant to assume that such a deity would focus its entire attention upon us?

I mean, don’t the God Squad get it? They believe that there exists an immortal, eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing being which has existed forever (if that term has any meaning), that yet bends all its attention and will upon us – humanity. They believe that this inconceivably powerful being created the entire Universe and everything in it expressly and solely for the purpose of giving the human species a place to live. They believe that this being focusses its attention so completely on our species and ours alone that it actually cares what we do, what we think, and who we have sex with.

Some of them even think that this being is so enraptured with humanity that He manifested Himself on Earth as His own son in order to offer Himself as a blood sacrifice to Himself so that He could forgive humanity for the sins He allowed us to commit in the first place – they consider this to make perfect sense.

As if that is not enough, the God Squad further believe that they are members of a select group – actually, a range of groups, all of which disagree with each other – with whom (fill in name here) has a special and personal relationship; that this group is so special to (fill in name here) that they and they alone will be taken into His presence on Judgement Day or its equivalent, while everyone else is consigned to (check one):

• burn for all eternity in a Lake of Fire
• suffer the Second Death
• be cast into the Eternal Darkness
• all of the above.

They also think that they and they alone are the ones who know “The Truth”, are the “Keepers of the Flame”, are the “Soldiers of The Lord” and so forth, and that (fill in name here) takes the time to speak directly to them on a daily basis. Somehow, they consider that this truly astonishing level of self-aggrandisement is, in fact, a sign of their self-effacement.

Can these people honestly not see how perverse and distorted their world-view is? What degree of twisted logic must it take to perceive what is clearly the highest level of egotism as abject humility? What is worse, they have the infernal (and I use the term advisedly) gall to claim that those who do not so believe are the ones who are “arrogant”. These people must have egos the size of Jupiter to think that any such deity, even if such existed, would give a small, brown rodent’s rectum about them, their thoughts, or their peccadillos. It would be funny, if the consequences of this distorted and self-centred belief system were not so devastatingly serious.  They have managed, by a combination of good luck and clever politicking, to spread this psychological distortion of reality all over the planet, and even though the power of their institutions is finally waning, the effects on humanity have been and still are deadly serious.

Personally, I can’t wait until the last of them has gone to “meet their maker”; if He actually exists, I wonder what He will make of them?

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 :)