The Instigator
Chad_Ellliot
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

The elliot Arguement is the most powerful arguement of all time, it can never be defeated.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Illegalcombatant
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,534 times Debate No: 28611
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

Chad_Ellliot

Pro

The Elliott Argument ...Presupposes that atheists in fact only have two options for the existence of the universe, and that it is logically impossible to present a third option. Both of these supposed options are claimed to be irrational, illogical, and have no evidence. They are presented throughout The Elliott Argument as acronyms. The first one being STE(Space and Time Eternal), and the second being SCPNCEU (Something can come from PURE nothingness and then create entire universe(s)). According to The Elliott Argument,STE is irrational and illogical for a number of reasons. The first based upon the alleged impossibility of an infinite regress of past events. The claim is also made that there is absolutely no evidence that space and time themselves are in fact eternal in the past. The second option, SCPNCEU, is also said to be irrational and illogical by the author for many reasons. The most common defense is that this acronym (SCPNCEU) in fact defies mathematical absolutes, the law of cause and effect, and known philosophical truths. It is also said by the author that there is no known evidence that something in fact can come from 'pure' nothingness and then that something create/or be responsible for creating entire universe(s).

The Elliott Argument is a formal argument developed in 2010 by Christian apologist Chad A. Elliott (known as the Atheist Killa or AK ). The claim is that The Elliott Argumentwas founded on human logic, philosophical understanding, research, observation, and current scientific evidence. Thus would not be able to be defeated until new scientific evidence and/or human understanding presents itself. The Elliott Argument has somewhat of an antagonistic conclusion and has been a fiery topic on the atheism vs creationism debating scene. This argument makes no claims about the existence or validity of God, but rather is designed to show that atheism itself is irrational, and illogical, and therefore a flawed position. Mr. Elliott notes William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Thomas Aquinas, and other promonent Christian apologists as his inspiration for developing this argument.
[edit]The basic argument
P1 - Both STE and SCPNCEU are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence.
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.
P3 - Atheists deny or disbelieve in an Uncreated Creator option as the cause of the universe.
T - Atheists are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence.
[edit]Content Definitions
Eternal - In regards to The Elliott Argument and STE, the word eternal is in reference to past eternity. It makes no claims about the future.
Uncreated Creator - A spaceless, timeless, supernatural, immaterial, all powerful, all knowing, personal mind.
Time - Time is a dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them. Time is essentially a measurement of events. Simply put, if there is no space and no events, then there is no time. However, it is important for one to remember that concious observers need not be present for the concept of time to still be in play. For example if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to witness it does that mean that time stopped? Clearly not. There was a before (tree standing), and an after (tree down) which proves events were occuring and time
Pure Nothingness - Literal non-being. No space, time, energy, matter, laws, constants, structure, life, minds, etc. Literal Nothingness. In mathematics this concept can be represented as zero.
SCPNCEU - Something can come from PURE nothingness and then create entire universe(s).
STE - Space and Time Eternal in the broadest sense. Meaning not just space and time in our universe but other universes/ deminsions as well.
[edit]Common Rebuttals and objections
Special Pleading Fallacy - The opposition may claim that The Elliott Argument is special pleading for the existence of God. However this rebutal is usually shot down fairly quickly as neither the conclusion nor premises make any outright claims about the existence or validity of God (or a UC option.). The UC option is only presented as an option which atheists deny or disbelieve in.
False Dichotomy - The opposition may try to make the claim that there are in fact more options than the two presented in the argument, thus providing evidence of a false dichotomy. However, the author makes the claim that because of the way the two acronyms are defined that"s its logically impossible to ever present a third option for the existence of the universe.
Big Bang Theory " Proponents of the Big Bang Theory may claim they are perfectly justified in holding to their position. The author of The Elliott Argument is known to immediately bring up the singularity to prove this is invalid reasoning. The singularity in the Big Bang Model is defined by most physicists as super condensed and extremely hot / volatile pin point of energy. Proponents of this theory will claim that all space and time were products of this singularities expansion, and there in fact was no space or time prior to this event. However, Mr. Elliott asks two fundamental questions which seem to destroy this line of logic. #1.) How can a singularity (super condensed energy) exist without having the potential to exist (space)? #2.) How can energy exist without any events occurring, or in a completely frozen state. I.E. no change in temperature, no increase in potential, no transferring, no movement, etc" The question then becomes, where did this singularity and this space and time come from? Did they come from pure nothingness on their own, or are they eternal in the past? Essentially bringing us back to the claim that atheists in fact only have two options for the existence of the universe.
B Theory of time - The Elliott Argument welcomes proponents of both the A-theory of time and B-theory of time. The author makes the claim that the B-theory of time falls underSTE if eternal in the past, and therefore presents no available evidence for such a position. It is also claimed by Mr. Elliott that the B-theory is irrational and illogical because it is self refuting. The following is a summary from Time and Eternity Exploring Gods relationship to Time (pg. 199) by William Lane Craig. "Static Time, or the B-theory of time requires us to believe that our experience of change in the external world as well as within our own minds is wholly illusory. Both tenets are required to be believed if one wishes to hold to static time. However, If our changing experiences are themselves illusions, then we are experiencing a Changing illusion, which is objective and leads to a vicious infinite regress. For example, if that change is an illusion, then something's causing that illusion, and that illusion, and that illusion. Therefore, the static theory of time is self-contradictory."
Quantum Vacuum and Virtual Particles " Many people try to make the claim virtual particles may be evidence that something can come from nothingness. The fact here is that virtual particles do not come from pure nothingness, are not known to have the capability to create entire universe(s), and therefore do not provide valid evidence for SCPNCEU. Virtual particles exist in what is known as the Quantum Vacuum, which is a sea of fluctuating energy, endowed with a structure and a rich physical reality that is governed by physical laws. It emphatically NOT pure nothingness says Mr. Elliott
Illegalcombatant

Con

Opening Statement

I could argue that the resolution as stated even if Pros argument is a good one still doesn't justify the claim that the argument it's self is the MOST POWERFUL ARGUMENT OF ALL TIME. But I seek not to win on such a technical point, as such I accept Pros argument in the spirit in which it is given, and will proceed not by holding Pro accountable to justify the most ambitious claim that this argument is the MOST POWERFUL ARGUMENT OF ALL TIME, but to merely provide scrutiny, counter argument, objections and hopefully show that the argument given by Pro is not a good one.

General Points

Before I get into the main objections I would like to raise some points that may be relevant later.

1) Pro claims that (SCPNCEU) defies the law of causality, but does not explain what the law of causality is or what is the justification for their undefined law.

2) Pro claims that (SCPNCEU) defies known philosophical truths, but doesn't tell use what so called truths are defied nor the justification that establishes known philosophical truths.

3) Pro makes claims about how atheists can't prove this and that, but the lack of evidence of an alternative to God doesn't prove that God did it, after all there was a time when earthquakes were quite mysterious without explanation and as such many religious people claimed that therefore God did it, this is just to commit God of the Gaps as rational wiki explains...""God of the gaps" is used to describe the tendency of believers to appeal to God as the cause for phenomena which human knowledge has not yet explained. When these gaps are filled, the believer just jumps to the next gap and the game can continue ad nauseam until human knowledge is able to explain everything. The argument is an instance of the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance. Nor is it a very theologically sound argument, as it has the effect of reducing and diminishing one's god over time.

The God of the Gaps argument finds what is perhaps its most popular manifestation in ideas about first cause. The argument essentially suggests that, as there is no commonly accepted theory to completely explain the original origin of the universe, then God (or Gods) must exist." [1]

Main objections to Pros argument

1) The Logical possibility of an Uncreated Non personal cause (UCNPC)

Pro makes the charge...."atheists in fact only have two options for the existence of the universe, and that it is logically impossible to present a third option." This is more formalized in their argument in premise 2 of their argument that states...

      • "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."

I propose the following LOGICAL option.......Uncreated Non personal cause. We can call this (UCNPC) if you like.

There is no logical impossibility of an uncreated non personal cause as wikipedia explains a logical possibility as..."A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction." [2]

2) The possibility that asking what caused the universe/singularity is an irrational question

I also propose another possible logical option available to both atheists and theists alike, that being to ask what caused the universe/singularity etc is an irrational question.

Consider the following question, how heavy is the number 2 ? most people realize that this is an irrational question, as the question wrongly assumes that the number 2 has weight, but the number 2 as an idea does not have weight, thus to ask how heavy is the number 2 has no direct answer, it can only be dismissed as an irrational question.

But why think that asking what caused the universe/singularity/etc is an irrational question ? Notice that when we talk about cause and effect this implies that the cause exists temporally prior to the effect, parents which are the cause of their sons and daughters exist before the sons and daughter, the apple tree exists before that apples that it produces and so on.

This concept of causality is a defeater when talking about the "cause" of the universe or singularity, cause if time does not exist absent the universe or singularity, a notion that Pro seems to imply where he talks about a "timeless" personal cause, then that means there is no "before" the universe, and since causes must exist before their effects this means the universe does not have a cause.

As such I propose another logical option for the atheist or anyone for that matter is to be of the view that to ask what caused the universe/singularity whether God or other is an irrational question.

Conclusion

The main objections I raise in this first round is to Pros 2nd premise, that states that failure to agree that the universe has a Uncreated (personal) Creator as it's cause commits one to either accepting STE or SCPNCEU. I have provided at least two options available to some one who does not agree that the Universe has a uncreated (personal) creator, those being...

1) An uncreated non personal cause of the universe/singularity.
2) That to ask what caused the universe is an irrational question.

As such it is my argument that I have shown Pros 2nd premise false and thus their argument is not a good one.

I look forward to Pros reply.

Sources

[1] http://rationalwiki.org...

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Chad_Ellliot

Pro

Chad_Ellliot forfeited this round.
Illegalcombatant

Con

So what did you get for Christmas ?

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Chad_Ellliot

Pro

Chad_Ellliot forfeited this round.
Illegalcombatant

Con

It's 2013, remember one day older means your another day closer to death.
Debate Round No. 3
Chad_Ellliot

Pro

Chad_Ellliot forfeited this round.
Illegalcombatant

Con

I believe that humans and fish can co-exist peacefully.
Debate Round No. 4
Chad_Ellliot

Pro

Chad_Ellliot forfeited this round.
Illegalcombatant

Con

If you like stuff vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 4 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Not necessary, I will just deal with the argument on its own merits or lack of.
Posted by DLazman 4 years ago
DLazman
You may not have heard of it, but I know plenty who are just plain tired of this guy and would like to put this argument to rest once and for all. I dealt with the guy for 6 months and I am just done at this point. He has even made it personal with me. If you would like some more information on this solipsist, I will give you some links!
Posted by Illegalcombatant 4 years ago
Illegalcombatant
First time I have ever heard of this argument.
Posted by DLazman 4 years ago
DLazman
This argument has been defeated so many times. The creator of it is a Solipsist Dunning Kruger. I would like to see where this goes though!
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
Despite being a dumb resolution, you actually might win.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Chad_EllliotIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by rowsdower 4 years ago
rowsdower
Chad_EllliotIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by JasonGlenn 4 years ago
JasonGlenn
Chad_EllliotIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Well,,,, Pro forfeited.