"Undefeated" Apologetic Argument

[ThePinsir]

http://theatheistkilla.blogspot.com/2012...ial.html?m=

I think the best way to argue this one is by using "God of the gaps". Just because we don't YET know how the universe was created doesn't mean it was magic.

How would you refute this guy?

[StuW]

The universe didn't come from nothing, it came from a singularity which is pretty much the exact opposite. Job done.

[LostLocke]

The other problem is that they're doing the.. "If it's not a, it must be b " argument, which generally isn't logical to begin with.
You can use that only when you know all the possible options. IE... a normal light switch can only be on or off. If you can show that it is not on, it's safe to assume that it's off.
But try doing that with a dimmer switch light. Their argument is like saying "If the light isn't at 100% power, it must be at 50% power". They neglect 99%, 98%, 97%, etc. In this case, showing that the light isn't at 100% power only proves that it is not at 100% power, nothing more.

[Ben Davis]

How would you refute this guy?

With lolz.

P1 - Both ''STE'' and ''SCPNCEU'' are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence.

That's right. STE is a known falsehood: space/time began with the expansion of the singularity and no-one with any knowledge holds the position implied by SCPNCEU.

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''.

Nonsense, false dichotomy. Because STE is a flasehood, it can't be a position of any kind. And since SCPNCEU is a nonsense, in fact, neither of the proposed options are options at all. Pure misdirection.

P3 - ''Atheists'' deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated Creator'' option as the cause of the universe.

I do because this is special pleading and a logically incoherent concept. Other atheists may or may not.

T - ''Atheists'' are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence.

This conclusion has nothing to do with the propositions! A generalisation of atheists cannot be achieved from an examination of misunderstandings (or lies) regarding scientific knowledge that may or may not be held by individuals.

Undefeated, pah! School children can see through this nonsense.

[pocaracas]

I still await for proof of any god... -.-'

[Alex K]

The graphic design of this abomination is already proof enough that there is no God! Bleargh!

But in seriousness -

"Creating" is a word in the English language which only has meaning as a name for a temporal process taking place in space. Anyone who talks about "creating time" or "creating the universe" without giving you a really careful mathematical description of what she means, is simply stringing words together. The resulting phrases only superficially sound as if they had meaning, because we kind of insert meanings from everyday experience. Once you analyse these statements with *any* scrutiny, you immediately find that they are nonsensical. "Creating" is meaningless if there is no timeline of some sort which preexists, with respect to which this change is effected. If a timeline preexsists, a universe of sorts already exists, thus making this creation process not the original creation of the universe, but simply a physical process within an existing universe, i.e., nothing special that says anything about your god.

Furthermore, assuming for the sake of entertainment that this creation ex nihilo were an actual problem for atheism, it follows that it would be just as big a problem for theism, since it is no more justified to assume an existing god than it is to assume an existing universe.
Introducing the "uncreated creator" as the sole alternative to eternal spacetime or spontaneous creation from nothingness is a cheap rhetorical sleight of hand. One could as well substitute "uncreated cyclical universe" e.g.:

P1 - The ''SCPNCEU'' and "STE" are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence. (English???)
P2 - If you deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated cyclical Universe'' option, then your only options are ''SCPNCEU'' or "STE".

P3 - ''Theists'' deny or disbelieve in an ''Uncreated Universe'' option as the cause of the universe.

T - ''Theists'' are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence.

You see what I have done here? P2 simply introduces an arbitrary alternative which the opponent of your choice denies, and like in a parlor trick, you have already established nonsensical alternatives which then seem to be the only alternatives for your opponent to believe in, thus seemingly showing that he is irrational.

Yawn.

p.s.

"In over 500 online debates it remains undefeated!!"

LOL

[Mister Agenda]

http://theatheistkilla.blogspot.com/2012...ial.html?m=

I think the best way to argue this one is by using "God of the gaps". Just because we don't YET know how the universe was created doesn't mean it was magic.

How would you refute this guy?

It goes wrong in the first sentence of the background with what is 'presupposed'. AK is an idiot for Jesus who would be twice as smart as he actually is if he were half as smart as he thinks he is.

[Minimalist]

Ignorance goes a long way with the audience this shithead is trying to impress.

[Crossless2.0]

What a relief! When I read the title of the OP I thought my ill-advised skepticism regarding god claims was about to be exposed for the intellectually bankrupt sham it is. However . . .

[leodeo]

oh oh oh its magiiic....u knowww....never believe its not soooo