"Undefeated" Apologetic Argument

[Simon Moon]

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.

[Tonus]

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...

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

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?

[max-greece]

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.

[StuW]

what gives a singularity the capacity to change?

We don't know and we may never know.

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.

[WesOlsen]

This is just rehashed Kalam and Cosmological, with a few false choices squeezed in. The others have already hit the nail on the head. Adding 'god' just does nothing to halt the proposed regress.

".The author also makes the claim that there is in fact no known Wiki: proving that something can come from pureWiki: "

Better wheel god out of the picture then. Bye bye special pleading.

"and THEN that something create/or be responsible for creating, entire universe(s). The author also claims that there is no evidence pure nothingness can ever be achieved."

There's also no evidence for god either, or that he can somehow halt the regress. As Dawkins rightly points out, god must be at least AS complex as the thing he supposedly designs and creates, and demands a bloody big explanation of his own. God simply bypasses/breaks all the laws that creationists claim can't exist without him in the first place (nothing can come from nothing, remember chaps).

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

---

what gives a singularity the capacity to change?

We don't know and we may never know.

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.

[Minimalist]

Unless you are a panentheist like me. God makes the universe from himself.

[Mudhammam]

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?

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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

What IS the difference between a good reductionist and a greedy reductionist? That's a new one to me.