Posts: 3644
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: "Undefeated" Apologetic Argument
January 24, 2014 at 1:57 pm
So, I read Elliot's entire argument on his website, and...not impressed.
His entire argument is predicated on a false dichotomy. Not only that, his acronym SCPNCEU stands for, " Something can come from ''PURE-Nothingness'' and then create entire universe(s)."
No one (except ignorant or dishonest apologists) claims anything like this.
So he is also guilty of a straw man.
If I have time later, I might post more on why the Elliot argument is invalid and unsound. But if you google 'refuting the Elliot argument', there is more than enough good refutations to be found.
I mean, come on, this Elliot guy turned off comments on his YT vid because he was getting mercilessly slapped around.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 7180
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: "Undefeated" Apologetic Argument
January 24, 2014 at 2:06 pm
(January 24, 2014 at 9:02 am)ThePinsir Wrote: 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?
You already did. God of the gaps. It's such a silly argument. It boils down to "just because this closet is empty doesn't mean there isn't something inside!!!"
Actually, that's exactly what it means...
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 8719
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
53
RE: "Undefeated" Apologetic Argument
January 24, 2014 at 3:13 pm
(January 24, 2014 at 9:19 am)Ben Davis Wrote: (January 24, 2014 at 9:02 am)ThePinsir Wrote: How would you refute this guy? With lolz.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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. So if the first is a known falsehood and the second is nonsense, then what is the third theory? Its okay to say I don't know...but the unmoved mover / uncaused cause seems like a viable alternative. and what gives a singularity the capacity to change? Or if the singularity embodies change what limits its creative expression to the form of this specific universe?
Posts: 2177
Threads: 45
Joined: June 5, 2013
Reputation:
39
RE: "Undefeated" Apologetic Argument
January 24, 2014 at 3:30 pm
Science: "Universe from nothing."
Religion "God made the Universe from nothing."
See the similarity? The problem is not whether or not there is a God - that is irrelevant. The problem, in both cases, is the from nothing bit.
This means that either the universe can come from nothing and the argument in invalid or the universe cannot come from nothing, the argument stands, and BOTH science and religion are wrong.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
Posts: 647
Threads: 24
Joined: July 28, 2013
Reputation:
14
RE: "Undefeated" Apologetic Argument
January 24, 2014 at 3:33 pm
(This post was last modified: January 24, 2014 at 3:33 pm by StuW.)
(January 24, 2014 at 3:13 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: what gives a singularity the capacity to change?
We don't know and we may never know.
(January 24, 2014 at 3:13 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Or if the singularity embodies change what limits its creative expression to the form of this specific universe?
Physics?
"creative expression" doesn't come into it as that would imply expressive intelligence.
Posts: 243
Threads: 7
Joined: November 2, 2013
Reputation:
9
RE: "Undefeated" Apologetic Argument
January 24, 2014 at 4:29 pm
(June 19, 2013 at 3:23 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Most Gays have a typical behavior of rejecting religions, because religions consider them as sinners (In Islam they deserve to be killed) (June 19, 2013 at 3:23 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: I think you are too idiot to know the meaning of idiot for example you have a law to prevent boys under 16 from driving do you think that all boys under 16 are careless and cannot drive properly
Posts: 8719
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
53
RE: "Undefeated" Apologetic Argument
January 24, 2014 at 5:20 pm
(This post was last modified: January 24, 2014 at 5:21 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
(January 24, 2014 at 3:30 pm)max-greece Wrote: Science: "Universe from nothing."
Religion "God made the Universe from nothing."
See the similarity? The problem is not whether or not there is a God - that is irrelevant. The problem, in both cases, is the from nothing bit.
This means that either the universe can come from nothing and the argument in invalid or the universe cannot come from nothing, the argument stands, and BOTH science and religion are wrong. Unless you are a panentheist like me. God makes the universe from himself.
(January 24, 2014 at 3:33 pm)StuW Wrote: (January 24, 2014 at 3:13 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: what gives a singularity the capacity to change?
We don't know and we may never know.
(January 24, 2014 at 3:13 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Or if the singularity embodies change what limits its creative expression to the form of this specific universe?
Physics?
"creative expression" doesn't come into it as that would imply expressive intelligence.
Physics is part of the specific form. Yours is a non answer.
Posts: 69246
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
258
RE: "Undefeated" Apologetic Argument
January 24, 2014 at 5:26 pm
Quote:Unless you are a panentheist like me. God makes the universe from himself.
![[Image: church_lady.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=naartjiemultimedia.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F10%2Fchurch_lady.jpg)
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: "Undefeated" Apologetic Argument
January 24, 2014 at 6:54 pm
(This post was last modified: January 24, 2014 at 6:57 pm by Mudhammam.)
(January 24, 2014 at 9:02 am)ThePinsir Wrote: http://theatheistkilla.blogspot.com/2012...al.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?
Tell him to learn the difference between being a good reductionist and a greedy reductionist. Or ask him by what materials or power does God create matter and energy and how is it specifically done. If hasn't got a clue, tell him go back to what is it he likes to do while thoughtful and inquisitive people, such as scientists, figure out it.
Posts: 8719
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
53
RE: "Undefeated" Apologetic Argument
January 24, 2014 at 9:27 pm
What IS the difference between a good reductionist and a greedy reductionist? That's a new one to me.
|
