Atheists have no defense on this one... lets storm the Gates of Hell...!!! Who's with me...?
From the article:
'''The Elliott Argument''' : is a fairly new apologetic argument that is sweeping the internet and taking the creationism vs. atheism debating scene by storm ...The 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 by the author to be irrational, illogical, and have no evidence. They are presented throughout the [[formal argument]] as well defined acronyms. The first one being ''STE'' which stands for [[Space Time Eternal]], and the second being ''SCPNCEU'', which represents the thought that ''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 then made by the author, that there is absolutely no evidence that ''space-time" is in fact eternal in the past. The second acronym, ''SCPNCEU'', is also claimed to be irrational and illogical by the author for many reasons. The most common claim made here is that the acronym (SCPNCEU) in fact defies mathematical absolutes, the law of [[cause and effect]], known philosophical truths, and is in itself an inherently flawed concept.The author also makes the claim that there is in fact no known [[evidence]] proving that something can come from pure[[nothingness]] and THEN that somethingcreate/or be responsible for creating, entire universe(s). The author also claims that there is no evidence pure nothingness can ever be achieved.
From the Article:
The claim made by the author is that ''The Elliott Argument'' was founded on human logic, philosophical understanding, research, observation, mathematical absolutes, and current scientific evidence. Thus the argument would not be able to be defeated until new scientific evidence and/or human understanding becomes available.
That all sounds great. Which peer-reviewed scientific journal is it published in?
It's based on an assuming the Universe is all that is, and the Universe is a closed system. Neither of which bears out in science and math. Try again. Come back later.
Wouldn't the same "logic" negate creationism?
George... do your own research...
Shane... this argument is based on "ogic, philosophical understanding, research, observation, mathematical absolutes, and current scientific evidence"... you are arguing that the universe is not all that there is... That is what the Bible says...! who's to say God isn't in one of the other universes...?
Sheildes... yes, the same logic would apply to creationism... but since creationism does not make either of the above truth claims that the Elliott Argument refutes... it is a moot point...
The logical process would still be the same
I'm saying the counter argument is incomplete. It's creating a straw man argument. Scientists do not claim the Universe is all there is, or that the Universe is a closed system, which is where the Elliot argument begins. It's akin to trying to debunk evolution because there is no "missing link", when evolutionists don't claim a "missing link" to begin with. This guy wasted a lot of time coming up with acronyms for no good reason.
Excellent argument to destroy a straw man created by the author. Nothing more.
Before I begin, I note that the author states special pride in refusing to allow athiests onto his website if they fail to either a) Construct an athiest theory that he does not believe is scientifically correct or b) Agree that The Elliott Argrument is in fact correct untill today and if they do not, then they must be dishonest. Personally, that seems incredibly arrogant, and the tags at the bottom of the post also suggest this (and also the explination of deductive reasoning was a tad patronizing). Secondly, I am only a high school student in my first year of A-levels, so my scientific understanding is *not* as strong as other's on this site, and I apologise for any incorrect science/theory.
The statement that nothing can be infinte is odd to me. If the universe is expanding, yet the amount of space is finite, where is it expanding to?
A part of the argument that I personally agree with is that "pure nothing" cannot exist. Even in space a vacuum contains energy, waves, and even tiny parts of matter. But, energy, and matter (measured by mass), have both been connected through E=MC². Therefore, if there was a state of "nothing" before the current universe, it would most likley be this state, or even pure energy. The argument also states that nothing can be the cause of itself. The example I will use is the current scientific theory of how earth was formed, I.E gravity, which is a force. Forces and energy have both been connected, meaning that force and mass would also be connected to one another. The forming of the earth if I am correct in the above statement, would have essentially been, to a certain extent, cause by itself. While energy, force and mass are not identical, they can exist without each other as well and be proven without each other, as opposed to the idea of "Infinte Regress".
Also, a variation of the big bang theory (in short) states that each time the universe destroys itself, the bang creates a new universe, which would mean that there would be an absolute past in *that* universe, but not overall. Futhermore, comparing say, the creation of a bike to the existence of the universe is like comparing a rubiks cube to a tree. It just isn't valid. The idea that "Something exists, therefore it is a creation and there must be a creator" Is not true. It is difficult to provide an example to prove this, but according to the theory of evolution everything evolved from single cell organisms that are made from molecules made from atoms ect ect. Now, it is possible that the circumstances for this where reliant on various factors (perhaps to do with the nature of the planet at the time, I don't claim to know enough to elaborate). Now, the Elliot Argument states that everything has a purpose. But the example I have used, life, is it's own purpose. It exists for the sake of existence. This is why species always reproduce in some manner, why all species resist death in some manner (Animals hiding/running, plants being poisonous, ect). It's also why competing exists in nature. This also goes against the "logic" of the Elliott argument.
I'll continue my reply some other time. Hope my science is okay! :)
Secondly, I am only a high school student in my first year of A-levels, so my scientific understanding is *not* as strong as other's on this site, and I apologise for any incorrect science/theory.