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.

Chad Elliott - cheat, thief, liar.

Well; I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I just read through some of the new stuff that Elliott has added to his blog. There was quite a bit of new material on The Elliott Argument, so I started to read it; I soon realised that it was of far too high a standard to be Elliot's own work - even the writing style was significantly different from what he usually posts. So I did some online detecting. There are whole sections that he has lifted virtually word-for-word from other people's work - personal blogs, answers.com, Wikipedia; he hasn't even bothered to paraphrase most of it. He's been smart enough to credit those pieces from well-known or easily verified sources, such as scientific papers or William Lane Craig's page, which he references often; but there are great slabs which are taken directly from uncredited sources which he then passes off as his own work. He's mixed-and-matched the sentences a bit and changed a word here and there, but a random sample of sentences copied into a search engine revealed the extent of his cheating.

I'm honestly disgusted; I knew he did a bit of that - most of us have used a sentence here or there in our work without crediting the original author properly. But the extent of his cheating goes way beyond that. He's passing off a great deal of writing as his own, when it clearly comes from others, and worse, he is using that material to support, not only his fallacious and childish arguments, but the image he is trying to project of himself. He is stealing other people's hard-won success in order to bolster his ego. I sent him what is probably my final message (below); whatever shreds of respect I had for him are now completely destroyed and I simply will not waste my time on him any more.

OK, Elliott; now you've pissed me off. I really don’t mind that you bang on as if the Elliott Argument was anything other than an easily defeated and fallacious piece of nonsense; if your fragile little ego needs such a myth to make it feel better, who am I to disparage that?

But I’ve just read through some of the new pieces you’ve added since my complete deconstruction of it, (the sections on absolute zero research and so forth) and you have very clearly plagiarised almost all of it. You have added in links to SOME of the pages you got your material from, but there are whole sections you have simply lifted lock, stock, and barrel from other people’s work; answers.com, Wikipedia, you’ve even stolen slabs from other Facebook users – word-for-word. You haven’t even displayed the fractionally small level of common sense needed to unify the fonts, or to paraphrase those segments you pilfered from others with better minds than yours.

Well, Elliott; unlike you, I am a REAL academic, and if there is one thing I despise within my field, it is unbridled plagiarism of this sort.  If this were a paper you had submitted as one of my students, I would haul your sorry arse before the Academic Disciplinary Board so fast you’d get friction burns.

You are NOT an academic, Elliott; you’re not even fit to sweep the floors of a University. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable from anyone, even someone with the superficial reflection of intellect you display. I am disgusted with you. I thought you were, on some primitive level, actually attempting to improve yourself and expand your intellectual capacities; but it is now clear to me that your intent is no more than a childish and artificial attempt to make yourself appear greater than you are by stealing other people’s hard-won success and passing it off as your own.

You are not just a failure, Elliott; you are a cheating failure.

Chad and his Homophobia

This is my response to Elliott’s commentary on the supposed Biblical admonitions against homosexuality. I admit, I’m trying to provoke some response, though so far he has only referred to my posts obliquely; perhaps stirring this particular pot will get some action, as I suspect his long and very rambling condemnation of homosexual acts (he even advises no contact with Gay Christians!) indicates a barely concealed fear of latent – or perhaps NOT so latent – homosexual tendencies. No surprises there.

 So, Elliott ….. you claim that the Christian bible condemns homosexuality. For the sake of argument, I will allow that claim, although the latest biblical scholarship has questioned the translation of words such as arsenokoitai  and malakoi in 1 Corinthins 6:9 (http://btb.sagepub.com/content/34/1/17.abstract), along with interpretation of the Levitican texts and all the other “clobber passages” traditionally used to support homophobia (http://www.psa91.com/pdf/whatthebiblesays.pdf). It needs to be noted that these passages are all open to question, especially since the word “homosexual” did not exist at the time the texts were written down (it was first coined in 1892 by psychologist  Karoly Maria Benkert; http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/) , and was in fact not used in the bible at all until 1946 (http://carm.org/word-homosexual-english-bible-1946). These verses when correctly translated are a best obscure about their references to homosexual behaviour per se.

The Bible is much more clear about the issue of sex outside marriage. The verses listed below make it quite clear that such practices constitute “fornication” or “sexual immorality”, which is specifically condemned, as are the children of those unions. It is my understanding, from those who have followed your exploits of FaceBook, that you are not married to the woman with whom you have produced children. Thus, by your own words, you and your children are condemned to Hell.

Fortunately for you (and them), the Christian bible is nothing more than a book of mythology written by Bronze- and Iron-age goat-herders who believed the earth was flat. It has exactly as much authority as the Chronicles of Narnia and frankly is a far less interesting book to read (and yes, I have read both cover to cover). I’m afraid that, unless you can unequivocally prove the existence of the God you happen to believe in (or any God for that matter) to the exclusion of all others, using the Christian bible to support your contentions is about as useful as spitting into the wind.

Deuteronomy 23:2

A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD. (KJV)

Sorry, Elliott, but it looks like your children (and their children’s children’s children’s etc. children) are going to burn.

1 Corinthians 7:1-2

1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman. (KJV)

2 Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. (KJV)

Fornication is sex outside of marriage.

1 Corinthians 7:9

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn in passion. (KJV)

1 Corinthians 7:28

28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned. (KJV)

Ephesians 5:3

3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints (KJV)

Hebrews 13:4

4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. (KJV)

1 Corinthians 6:9

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind…(KJV)

I repeat; fornication is sex outside of marriage. You are condemned by the very same verse you are using to condemn homosexuals; MAJOR FAIL there, Elliott. Try again.

(On “Proof of God” post)

I've just demolished all that BS you posted about the eeeeevills of homosexuality; I've also shown that your own sexual immorality condemns you AND you children to Hell according to your own "Holy" book.

I just want to add that pretending I don't post here by ignoring my comments doesn't constitute a victory; it just means you're wimping out.

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.

Addendum: Chad's (failed) attempt to re-work the Suicide Argument.

Elliott had a go at re-working the Suicide Argument in order to make it ‘airtight’; I just hope he doesn’t try to float it anywhere! I had to offer one last lesson before I withdraw into Academia. Here’s the argument itself and my very brief breakdown of its primary flaws.

The Suicide Argument 

P1: Atheists have to accept that all moral values are subjective

P2: If all moral values are subjective, then no action is objectively wrong

P3: If no action is objectively wrong, then abolishing atheism all together (sic) is not objectively wrong

C: Atheism is self-defeating

Well, Elliott; this will be my last foray into your strange, sad little world for a while; my formal study period begins today, so I will be far too busy earning my PhD to be bothered shooting one silly little fish in his tiny barrel. I do hope you've gained something from these lessons; it appears so, as you have been modifying your arguments somewhat. 

I'm sorry I never got around to a proper breakdown of the Suicide Argument, as I said I would; I just had lots of better things to do and it slipped my mind. I see you've been tweaking at it; unfortunately, it's not particularly successful. Your re-working of the Suicide Argument is a valiant attempt to clean up a pretty messy trash-pile, and to a small extent it succeeds; the error you noticed (or maybe you should just ‘fess up to having it pointed out to you) has been dealt with.

Unfortunately, you are still left with P1’s attempt to force a false dichotomy on Atheists.

P1: Atheists have to accept that all moral values are subjective.

 It is simply NOT TRUE that Atheists “have to accept that all moral values are subjective”. Atheists could use a range of potential origins for an objective morality that are logically sound but that do not require a god:

1. Programming by aliens (one of your favorites there)
2. Imprinting from an alternate reality (multiple universe theory there – I know you don’t like that one, but it IS logically possible)
3. The non-deistic, impersonal, natural force that spontaneously caused this Universe (the third option you refuse to acknowledge, even though it does not violate either of the “illogical” alternatives you offer to the deistic theory in the Elliott Argument) imprinted a survival modality on the fabric of space-time which we perceive as an objective moral code.

I could go on, but the list is pretty much endless.

As I have just shown that P1 is NOT TRUE – and if you know logical argumentation as well as you claim – you will realise that this makes P1 unsound.

P2 and P3 are both logically sound as far as they go, but as they rely entirely on the soundness of P1, they fail because it fails.

The conclusion is also something of an aberration; it doesn't actually follow from the premises. It’s unfortunately typical of your form of argument structure that you seem to dream up a ‘conclusion’ and then write premises that you think support it. MAJOR FAIL there, Elliott.

Once again, you have presented an ‘argument’ which is actually not one; in order to reach the conclusion as written, you would have to introduce at least one and probably more branches to the argument, which would probably make it far too complex and convoluted to hold up. You will have to do a lot more work on this one to get it even close to being a sound argument, I’m afraid, but keep up the effort. If nothing else, you are giving a lot of people on the internet some great laughs.

So long, ‘champ’; I’ll pop in and see how you’re doing from time to time.

Banned within moments!

Elliott had a Q&A about the Suicide argument on tinychat today; this is what happened as soon as he saw my name appear.

I posted to his blog straight away; no response, of course.

Elliott; really, 'champ'! Fancy banning your own teacher within moments of my appearing on your tinychat page - and this after you have repeatedly claimed you would debate anyone who was prepared to turn up and challenge you. Do I really frighten you that much? I guess so :)
Too bad, 'champ'; I was looking forward to taking you on in the real world. Guess I'll just have to wait until you man up enough to appear on debate.org - although I'm not sure any of us will live that long.
Take it easy, 'champ'.

Elliott shoots himself in the foot

I know, I know - I should just let this little fish go and get on with other things. But it's hard to resist when he makes himself such an easy target. Another poke at the turtle.

Elliott; I thought I’d continue to be a thorn in your side for a while longer – at least until my formal study begins in early March. I think the constant irritation will do you good, not to mention continuing to show everyone your real, gutless nature (I post all these comments on my own blog and Face Book page for the entire world to see).

I lifted this from your Face Book page:

“Creationism and the Origin of Life ·

Tuesday at 1:11am ·

Post your name as a COMMENT on this thread if you think you can prove there are more options for atheists than the two ive(sic) defined.

LIKE this comment if you agree and understand logically its(sic) impossible for there ever to be a third option other than these two because of the way they have been defined.

IGNORE this comment if you are too scared to find real truth and enjoy hidng(sic) in your ignorance.”

 

Essentially, this is you actually proving that you are “too scared” to take me on; I have repeatedly posted my COMMENTs to your blog with my name attached and you have IGNOREd them all, except for completely (and I suspect deliberately) misinterpreting the “yellow shirt” analogy, and mentioning the Descartes dictum (without citing him as the source – more evidence of your ignorance of Academic conventions) in another argument without mentioning where you heard of it – namely, from me.

So; by your own definition, as outlined above, you have IGNOREd my COMMENTs – and in this case I have ample proof, not simply a Face Book visitor count.

Thus, you are shown by your own hand to be “too scared to find real truth and [to] enjoy hidng(sic) in your ignorance”. You haven’t even mentioned how “owned” I am in a YouTube video; thus I can safely assume that you have no answer to the refutations of your arguments I presented here – as I knew you would not.

Congratulations in once again comprehensively shooting yourself in the foot.

I have also repeatedly challenged you to a debate – a real one, rather than one of your “live” chats on tiny.url. I will ONLY debate you (or anyone else for that matter) in a completely neutral forum where neither of us has any control over the environment, where the moderator is completely neutral and knows the rules of debating, and where neither of us can close the debate down – as you frequently do by citing “rule violations” and leaving the room. Debate.org is it, ‘champ’; if you’re not up to it, just say so and I’ll stop harassing you.

P.S. just in case you don’t know, the (sic) I have included in the above copy of your post is from “sic erat scriptum”, Latin for “thus was it written”; it indicates that the grammatical and spelling errors are from the original text.

Have a nice day :)

Elliott takes on Descartes

This appeared on his “Circus Argument” after I used Descartes’ dictum to refute his contention that Atheists can’t be sure they exist. No mention of ‘Peter Godfrey’ this time, so he can pretend he thought of it himself. My response (posted to his blog) is below.

[[I think, therefore I am. So atheists can know something. If only that one thing. So P2 is no longer accurate.]] - This rebuttal is a complete failure. Just because you can think doesn't mean you really exist. Matter a fact, the atheist cant even be sure he is thinking at all. As we have already talked about, the atheist cannot accept an objective reality. This means they cannot be sure that their brains and thoughts are really theirs. They cannot be sure that they aren't pre-programmed visions of an alien. They cannot be sure that their thoughts are not dreams of a butterfly. They cannot be sure of anything.  They have no foundation. So it is a true statement that atheists cannot know anything and P2 stands. One must remember that without objective reality you are really are lost. 

Elliott; I see you've made a vain (and foolish) attempt to refute the Descartes objection I raised in response to your Objective Reality Argument (why didn't you do it there?). It fails, of course (as do all your arguments) because, even if our thoughts ARE those of a butterfly (or imposed on us by Aliens etc, etc) that STILL means we effectively exist as discrete entities.

In fact, your argument above does more to support the contention that so-called "Objective Reality" is insecure, as your list of alternate possibilities clearly demonstrates. If we are pre-programmed visions of an alien, we must be real in order to BE programmed, therefore we exist; if we are dreams of butterfly, we are the butterfly and therefore we exist.

You can't get around it, Elliott. I'd be happy to debate you on this at debate.org. I'm still waiting for you to grow some balls and take on the challenge - but I won't be holding my breath.

By the way; I checked out your "Origin of Life" Face Book page - do you seriously assume that everyone who ignores you is too scared to take you on and therefore count that as a "victory"? What a sad, pathetic little man you must be if that's what you have to do to pretend to some kind of relevance in the world.

I'm starting to feel sorry for you.

Elliott has (tacitly) acknowleged my tutoring

Yes; it's true! Elliott has stated on his Face Book page, "Creationism and the Origin of Life", that he is taking time off to further his studies; this is EXACTLY what I suggested he do in my last post, as well as earlier in the lesson series. I sent him the message below via the blog, so that he knows how happy I am to have assisted his education.

Elliott; I’m truly touched. An associate has just sent me a screen-cap of your Face Book page “Creationism and the Origin of Life”, in which you have stated you are taking time off to concentrate on your studies. I’m so happy that you have elected to follow my advice and extend your knowledge of the fields of philosophy and apologetics (I’m assuming those are the areas you are focusing on).

It is always gratifying to a teacher when a student demonstrates that they have gained insight into the field of study covered in a course and have chosen to go further. I am happy that my lessons have had such a positive influence on your life, and I will be glad to offer advice and further constructive criticism if and when you feel the need to request it.

By the way; the challenge to a REAL debate, as opposed to those "live debate" chats you have on tiny.url, still stands. I know you won't ever do it (WAY too challenging for you), but I'll keep pressing you. You'll never be taken seriously by the academic community until you learn to play by the rules.

Elliott – Lesson 9 – Objective Reality argument

Objective Reality Argument

P1: if you can never accept an objective reality, then you have to accept that you may not be real

P2: if you have to accept that you may not be real, then you can never know if anything you say is true.

P3: atheists can never accept an objective reality.

T:  atheists can never know if anything they say is true

Elliott: I probably should have addressed this argument before I took apart the “Circus Argument”, as you have obviously used this one to support one of your premises there. However, the order in which I took them on was dictated more by the order in which I read them than anything else. Frankly, this one presents no challenge as it is one of your weakest arguments; it fails at the first premise. Its logical structure is OK, though personally I find it too wordy (you could do some editing with most of your arguments), but the whole argument hinges in the soundness of the first premise, which can very quickly and easily be shown to be false.

The structure of the argument is:

P1: A ⊂ B

P2: B ⊂ C

P3: X = A

C:  X = C

All that needs to be done here is to show that P1 is unsound to make the whole argument fail.

P1: if you can never accept an objective reality, then you have to accept that you may not be real

P1 flies directly in the face of Renee Descartes “Cogito ergo sum” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum); if you want to take on the entire Modernist project, be my guest, but I don’t like your chances. Descartes demonstrated quite clearly with his now famous maxim that uncertainty regarding an objective reality is no barrier to having a certainty that you exist. Your qualification with the word “may” might give you a very narrow possibility of escape, but it would take some extremely fancy footwork to pull it off, and personally I can’t see how you would manage.

To put it bluntly, how could the enquirer in the situation above possibly conclude that they were not real if they were thinking that thought? Unless they actually exist, there is no possibility of the thought being manifested; therefore, they MUST necessarily exist. If you wish to debate this point, you will have to travel down the same path as Kierkegaard with respect to the existence of the “I”, in which case you will undermine your own contention outlined in the exegesis that Christians have a stronger hold on objective reality than atheists. – unless you want to argue that Christians do not possess an identity.

P1 is clearly shown to be unsound

P2, P3 and the conclusion are totally dependent on P1 being sound; thus, having completely demolished the first premise, the entire argument falls – and the Circus Argument, which uses this argument to support one of its premises, also falls.

QED.

Well, that’s it, Elliott. I have now exposed the flaws and fallacies in all of the arguments you have posted here. I hope you realise that I have only done so in order to stimulate you to do some real study of philosophy, logical structure, and critical thinking. These subjects were the ones that inspired my interest in philosophy as an undergraduate, which led to my furthering my studies in that field and now, have led me to undertake a PhD, which I am beginning in a few weeks. If you apply yourself to your studies, you will be amazed at how far it can take you.

I’ll be watching, Elliott.

Elliott – Lesson 8 – The Kardi Argument

This is the second-to-last lesson in this series; I have based them on the arguments Elliot has posted on his blog - 9 in all. I understand that he has a few more that he mentions on one of his Face Book pages (I think he gives them the title "The 11 Pillars of Truth"), but I am only addressing the ones he has posted on the blog itself.

The Kardi Argument

P1: life is not eternal in the past

P2: life cannot come from non-life on it's own without a designer

C : life is designed

“Structure: the "kardi argument" is a deductive 3 part syllogism which includes two 2 premises and a conclusion. We feel that the argument is sound and valid and in order for one to defeat the arguments conclusion they would have to defeat one of the premises.”

Elliott; this one has already been dealt with quite effectively by others, but I’ll reiterate their observations as you may not have seen their commentary (I know you tend to delete comments before you read them on your Face Book sites).

The problem with this argument lies in the second premise, in which you presuppose the conclusion of your own argument. This is a classic example of “begging the question”, or more formally the fallacy of circular reasoning.

This can be more easily seen if we unpack the second premise to make the semantics more clear. It is evident that the phrase “Life cannot come from non-life, on its own & without a designer” is semantically identical to “All life is designed”. As soon as we do this, the problem with the argument becomes evident. Essentially the argument becomes:

P1 Life is not eternal in the past

P2 All life is designed

C: Life is designed

Clearly, this is not a valid argument. Once again, what you need to do here is develop an argument that logically supports your contention that life is designed, either by appealing to complexity or through some other means. All of the material you have supplied in the exegesis of this argument can work as a defence of the contention that some elements of life are irreducibly complex, but they do NOT support this argument as either valid or sound; that is a matter of logical construction, not supportive evidence. This is an error you make in many of your exegeses; you assume that factual evidence in support of a contention means logical support of an argument’s structure, when this is emphatically NOT the case.

Of course, many “arguments from design” have significant problems, but there are some good examples around in the literature which are quite robust; you should look at the work of Michael Behe and Jonathan Sarfati with regard to this, though Behe is on record as saying that the levels of complexity he discusses do not necessarily rule out evolutionary development, and Sarfati is a young-Earth Creationist, so I’m not sure how either of them would sit with your own theories. Keep working on this problem and I’m pretty sure you could develop an argument that does not turn back on itself as this one does.

Addenda: there is also something of a problem with P1, although it is slightly more obscure. P1 states that “Life is not eternal in the past”. The problem here is that, if this premise is true in all possible worlds (an argument easy to make since you do not specify which ‘past’ you are referring to), you have essentially stated that God cannot be alive – or at least cannot have been alive eternally in the past and therefore cannot be the God defined in the Christian tradition. I understand that you have claimed that your arguments do not necessarily support the UC option (and therefore do not support the Christian theory of God), but I’m pretty sure you did not intend to kill Him off in this manner. You need to modify the premise to reflect this.

Elliott - Lesson 7 - The Peachtree argument

Hi there, Elliott; sorry if I’ve been less than regular with these classes, but I’ve been asked to undertake a PhD this year and there’s quite a lot of work to do leading up to it. I’ll be formally starting the research in early March, so I’ll do my best to deal with the three other arguments on this blog before then.

I’m starting with the Peachtree Argument because it is the easiest to deconstruct, although I could probably do a more thorough analysis of its problems if I had more time; I’ll see if I can get around to that later. This one is pretty brief, but I don’t feel the argument warrants much more attention at this stage.

The formal argument:

1- if you are given two options (one of which is correct), and you purposely select the option which is irrational illogical and has no evidence, then you are intentionally being dishonest

2- if you are intentionally being dishonest, then you are a liar

3- atheists are given two options (one of which is correct), yet they purposely select the option that is irrational illogical and has no evidence.

T- atheists are liars

This argument displays the classic fallacy of the false premise. It is based on the contention that the Elliott Argument is sound, when in fact that argument has been shown to be unsound for a variety of reasons (see lesson 6). Since that is the case, both premise 1 and 3 fail on that basis.

It is also a clear ad-hominem directed towards atheists, which in itself is a logical fallacy.

This sort of device may make you feel superior Elliott, but it simply exposes the weakness of your general position, as well as the fact that you are to some degree aware of that weakness; if you really felt sure of your standpoint you would have no need to use the disparaging language you use to describe your opponents.

Frankly, it’s a bit pathetic to have to resort to this kind of thing. I strongly suggest you ditch this one altogether; it just makes you look like a childish little boy calling all the other kids in the playground nasty names. Hardly the image you need to project if you want to be taken seriously as an apologist.

Proof!!

So ... Elliott DOES read my posts to his blog, even though he never responded to one until now.

Here's the evidence:

From Creationism and the Origin of Life retrieved 2/2/13

http://www.facebook.com/CreationismandtheOriginofLife?fref=ts

Creationism and the Origin of Life

Thursday

"Some clown atheist (pgodfrey) posted the following question on the ATHEISM IS A RELIGION Blog...

//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" ?//
For some reason, I think the illogical, nonsensical atheist trash had thought he found an 'aha or gotcha moment.' LMFAO...Unfortunately for him, let me yell out the word...FAIL!!!!!! The answer to this question is simple...I would not take a position on if PETER is wearing a yellow shirt or not...Because I simply wouldn't know either way....SO I would be an agnostic on the matter...However, "atheists" on the other hand, DO take a position on wether or not God exists....They BELIEVE, as defined by their stance, that NO God exists!!...That is there position!!...Once they take such a position then I can prove that atheism is in fact a religion....#Defeating atheism fun and easy...Get a clue pgodfrey...you're a clown!!! One of your atheist buddies should slap you lol"

I've fired it straight back to him with corrections to his misinterpretation AND informed that, as I now KNOW he reads my posts, the lessons will be continuing.

He's either completely misunderstood the content and nature of the post he refers to, or (and this is more likely, given his prior behaviour) he has deliberately misrepresented it in order to make it look like an argument he can win; the two lines he has quoted from a post that was more than two pages long indicates that he had to scour the text to find something he could respond to without making himself look like the loser.

Needless to say, he has banned me from his Face Book page, so that I cannot respond. "Defeating Atheism is fun and easy" - if you put your hands over you ears and go "LA, LA, LA, LA" as loud as you can so you cant hear them and close your eyes so you can't see them.

This should be fun :) 

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.