Chad "Atheist Killa" Elliott
From Encyclopedia Dramatica
please click here and scroll slowly down to the bottom of the page.
When you lose, you claim Victory. But you fucking fail at life so much that you will never win at anything.
You are about to meet the most sadly self-deluded fucktard to ever be unwillingly forced out of a blue waffle. It is pretty safe to assume that, at an early age, this shit-stain on the underwear of humanity was indoctrinated in Jebus' scrotum cult. Not sure, but I feel that his failures in life are partly due to the Dunning-Kruger Effect which has infected his small brain (found in the vicinity of his urethra). His Illusory Superiority has taken over the fucktard's ego and caused him to move quickly beyond willful ignorance into willful retardation.
Below, you will sink slowly into his dementia as you find out more about him. You will probably escape this bullshit without any harm, but you will feel a strong urge to troll this fucktard and mess with him. Be warned that all previous attempts have met with deletion of comments, banning and his boastful claims of having won. You may end up in a video where the bitch boy will claim to own you while curiously showing his own abject failure. Examples are below. Be careful and have fun making his life miserable!
Let's just put it this way. He was raised fucked, schooled fucked and lives fucked. The only thing he has going for him is his football and he screwed that up royally. He has been trying to get into rapping and theology/philosophy to bide his time in between playing Arena Pee Wee League and begging for the NFL to take in the newly fucked Tebow.
Chad was fucked from the beginning and did not even know it. He was great in high school and won some awards, as he went to college his ego started to grow, because he was allowed in on football scholarships. He sat on the bench for most of his time at Syracuse. He ended up eventually in Stockton, CA.
As stated above, he has tried his hand at Rap and has even failed at that! Here is an original FiveThirty song for you:
For the past couple of years, he has been studying, CREATARDISM! He says he has studied the Big Bang Theory, Evolution, Philosophy and more, but his lack of knowledge on all subjects, proves otherwise. His page Creationism and the Origin of Life is home to his fucknuttery! This is where you will end up to start and then when you get banned, you will end up on more than 3 different groups that talk, troll and fuck with him to the extreme.
Chad suffers from a particularly severe case of unwarranted self-importance. This affliction is commonly observed in creatards on the internets, and, as in Chad's case, usually presents with some or all of the symptoms associated with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Those afflicted often exhibit the types of unique and colorful behaviors that can be observed on Chad's facebook page.
Talking to HimselfGolden Question", it will quickly become apparent Chad is a chronic comment deleter.
Chad routinely likes his own posts, and is usually the only one to do so. He regularly refers to himself in either the third person or in the first person plural, seemingly in attempt to convince visitors that his page, with its 700ish likes, is run by a crack team of ever-vigilant apologists, rather than some antisocial jackoff who figured out how to turn on a laptop and press the delete key.
It's important to note that one is required to "like" his page in order to post there, so most of that 700 are people who are actually banned (he bans you ASAP and claims VICTORY); it's estimated he has about 10 actual "fans" (some of which sound suspiciously like Chad), and that most of his posts are "liked" by people taking the piss, and Chad himself. It's guestimated that there's 0.12 actual "likes' per post that isn't actually Chad liking his own posts.
Because of his condition, Chad is completely unable to understand that his fame and notoriety exist only in his head, and that nobody has any clue what he's referring to when he spouts his pseudo-logical nonsense. This makes communicating with others quite challenging for him. He additionally has no sense of distinction between a lie and disagreeing with him.
- A visitors posts on Chad's page and is immediately instructed to answer his "GQ" before making any other posts.
- When asked what the GQ is, Chad answers that it is the "Golden Question".
- When asked what the Golden Question is, he replies with "Are you a Type-A atheist or a Type-B atheist?"
- When asked what Type-A and Type-B are, he replies that they are "SCPNCEU and STE" types of atheist.
- When asked what SCPNCEU and STE stand for, he explains that they're "something can come from pure nothingness and then create entire universes" and "space and time eternal" (apparently the only 2 options the atheist has for the origin of the universe).
- Visitor outwardly wonders why it took 6 steps to arrive at this point, explains the absurdity of his false dichotomy, and is immediately banned and deleted.
In the event that Chad is actually proven wrong without any of his Rules being broken, he quickly deletes all the evidence and bans the visitor from his page.
|Fun Fact! Because he lacks a basic command of English, Chad has a hard time conceptualizing collective nouns, and refers to his types not as "categories" or "groups", but literally in conversation as "acronyms".|
Chad likes to issue challenges to specific interwebs and real world personalities by posting on the wall of his page (which 600 people who love a train wreck as much as the next guy have decided to follow) and then claim victory by no-show 24 hours later, it never even beginning to occur to him that nobody has any clue who the fuck he is.
—Chad "AK" Elliott, Creatardism and the Origin of Strife
Despite sporting an IQ Corky from Life Goes On wouldn't bat an eyelash at, Chad is undeterred. He operates under the delusion that he can take a PHIL 101 class and Introduction to Physics for Shit-for-Brains Majors while not even maintaining a GPA sufficient for a football scholarship in a bullshit major at a party school, and wind up some heavyweight apologist. He regularly posts challenges and critiques of leading physicists and biologists and their theories, claiming they are too scared to debate him.
Surprisingly enough, Chad suffers the same affliction with the YouTube videos he made before he became a genius that he does with the posts of visitors to his facebook page. To explain the caps, he originally posted a rather graphic description of a 14-hour fapping session he had to a bootleg download of a Kent Hovind and William Lane Craig felching video he put on repeat after dimming the lights and inhaling some amyl nitrite, whereby he, let's say, and use your imagination, eventually determined the caps-lock key to be stuck permanently in the on position, but deleted the video and replaced it with some bullshit cover-up after someone pointed out the first video made him sound just a little bit gay.
Not So Personal Info
Ever wondered where a fucktard lives? This peice of shit says he lives in the HOOD! I have done all the homework for you, so if you feel like trolling this bastard, go for it and make lulz his ass!
Anybody can find this information if you just look! :)
Chad seems to talk a lot of about the moral issues involved with having your daughter fuck a horse. By the way he goes on about it, we have to wonder whether or not he really has a secret desire to either fuck a horse or be fucked by one.
The lack of intelligence is astounding with this fucktard.
To see more of the insanity, watch this playlist!
He claims victory when he has clearly lost and he even tries the most fucked up tactics to win. This fucking retard even tried to call this noob in the video a PEDOPHILE and got his ass reemed on this blog: Karma for the Atheist Killa
To see who else he claims he owns, check out his "My Pet" playlist!
Owning Wiki Editors
Since being blocked and banned from both RationalWiki and Wikipedia, this fucktard has made a couple of videos claiming victory. Despite various people consistently calling him out on his utter bullshit, Chad seems to be under the impression that copypasta'ing his argument all over the internet and then attempting to cite it as an independent 'source' will make it 'notorious' enough to be a Wikipedia article, so prepare yourselves for the additional shitstream that is likely to flow from this moron's mouth in the near future. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to have grasped the concept that his 'notoriety' is merely an indicator that everyone with an IQ over 20 is laughing at his expense.
This guy is so retarded everyone on the fucking internet makes fun of his ass and refutes his absurd false dichotomy. If you Google Elliott Argument you will LULZ over all the shit you find against him! Even whores take on this who spews shit out his mouth like secretion of a Blue Waffle!
Watch how easily he fails at life through this playlist!
|Fucky the Gnome||About missing Pics|
His FB page: http://www.facebook.com/THEATHEISTKILLA
His FB profile: http://www.facebook.com/chad.a.elliott (His middle name is Alan)
His ALT FB profile: http://www.facebook.com/theathe.istkilla.3
His Myspace Music profile: http://www.myspace.com/mrfivethirty
His Myspace personal profile: http://www.myspace.com/chadalanelliott
His Myspace failed clothing line: http://www.myspace.com/circusclothes
His Youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/fivethirty
His AK Youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5Aio1bKymPwJtUNjZtYKrg
Facebook Group - Creationisn and the Origin of Life http://www.facebook.com/groups/ElliottArgumentDebunked/
Facebook Group - Creatardism and the Origin of Lies http://www.facebook.com/groups/502294266456608/
Trollin' the Holies http://adamfludd.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/chad-elliott-the-atheist-killa/
"The Elliott Argument" and Failures of Tensed Time http://philosotroll.com/2011/12/07/the-elliott-argument-and-failures-of-tensed-time.aspx
Urban Dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=elliot%20argument
THE ELLIOTT ARGUMENT AGAINST ATHEISM http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/the-elliott-argument-against-atheism.452673619/
A debate with a moron. http://britatheist.blogspot.com/2012/01/debate-with-moron.html
Forum post relating to a video which is no longer available: http://syracusefan.com/threads/chad-elliott-why-am-i-not-in-the-nfl.25363/
Article: WTF happened to that gimp who used to play half-arsed football? http://www.theunion.com/article/20110116/BREAKINGNEWS/110119796
A fan site http://www.theatheistkilla.com/
The Elliott Argument
|Below is what the fuckstick tried to get on wikipedia. All red links and typos are intentional. It is a copy of the what the fucktard wrote and it goes to show how well he can form an article that get's deleted, salted, blocked and banned from WP.|
This was not accepted and was deleted by Wikipedia, here are the deletion logs.
- 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 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 and time themselves are 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 by the author 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 that something can come from 'pure' nothingness and then that something create/or be responsible for creating entire universe(s), and that there is no evidence PURE nothingness can ever be achieved.
: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 made by the author is that The Elliott Argument was founded on human logic, philosophical understanding, research, observation, and current scientific evidence. Thus the argument 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. It has taken the internet by storm and has been the topic of numerous blogs, social media pages, youtube accounts, videos, and formal online debates. It is claimed by Mr. Elliott that the argument makes no claims about the existence or validity of God, but rather is designed to show that atheists only two options are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence, and therefore would be a flawed position. Mr. Elliott notes William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Thomas Aquinas, Al-Ghazali and other promonent Christian apologists as his inspiration for developing this argument. Mr. Elliott also claims that his argument has never been defeated.
The Formal 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.
: Eternal - Eternity (or forever) is defined as endless time according to wikipedia, while freedictionary.com defines Eternity as time without beginning or end. However, as it pertains to The Elliott Argument and the acronym STE, the word eternal is ONLY in reference to past eternity, or time without beginning. It makes no claims or reference to time ending or the future state of time.
:Uncreated Creator - A spaceless, timeless, supernatural, immaterial, all powerful, all knowing, personal mind. This is considered by The Elliott Argument to simply be an option which atheists deny or disbelieve in. It is claimed by the author that the argument itself makes no claims about the existence or validity of this option. Mr. Elliott has a two different youtube videos where he explains this topic. The first is titled "3 Choice Logic" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Etwger1s3A) and the second is titled "The Elliott Argument Makes No Claims About The Existence or Validity of God or the UC Option" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJfEWuI82D8)
: Infinity - Freedictionary.com defines infinite as 1. Having no boundaries or limits and 2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless. :Wikipedia defines infinity as "without any limit." David Hilbert, considered by some to be the greatest mathematician of the twentieth century, stated in “On the Infinite”, in Philosophy of Mathematics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall, 1964, pp. 139, 141:) “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.” Mathematicians realize that an actual infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. Mr. Elliott points out this apparent dilema when he says, "if there was an infinite number of subsequent causes and events in the past eternity, we can never arrive at our present moment. We would have had to traverse an infinite number of events to get to today and you cannot traverse an infinite number of events. If there is an infinite amount of time in the past eternity we can never arrive at our current position in time."
: Infinite Regress - According to Wikipedia, an infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, and the truth of proposition Pn-1 requires the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity. To suggest that there have been an infinite regress of past events/moments, is to suggest that we would have had to come to an end of an infinite series. An infite series however is by definition is a series with no end. This is logically incoherant says Timothy Mccabe ( thegodcontention index 4 ) and other known philosophers such as Al-Ghazali who wrote, "it is impossible that the universe be beginningless. If the universe never began to exist, then the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But this is impossible, because an actual infintite number of events cannot exist." ( The Incoherence of the Philosophers). Also William Lane Craig tells us that "if you can't have an actual infinite number of things, then you can't have an actual infinite number of past events. That means that the number of past events must be finite." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrFwGvWlJnc). Mr. Elliott follows suit here when he says, "space and time would have to had started somewhere or we wouldn't be having this discussion at all." Another key scientific discovery to point out here is the The [sic Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem]. The BVG Theorem states that, "Any universe which is on average expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past, but must have a finite beginning and space time boundary. Even if the universe is just a part of a wider multiverse, then that multiverse itself must have had an absolute beginning." Vilenkin then goes on to say, "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men, and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no long hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe."
: Time - Time according to Wikipedia, 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. According to Freedictionary.com Time is "a nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future." The key word here is events. The concept of time by definition is essentially a measurement of events. Simply put, if there are no events then there is no time. However, Mr. Elliott reminds us, "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 was still passing."
:Pure Nothingness - Literal non-being. No space, time, energy, matter, laws, constants, structure, life, minds, etc. The concept of pure literal nothingness. In mathematics this concept can be represented as zero. Philosopher William Lane Craig is noted as saying such things as, "from nothing, nothing comes. It is as certain as anything in philosophy and that no rational person sincerely doubts it." (Reasonable Faith Website-Causal-premiss of the KCA)). Craig also is quoted as saying, "it is impossible that nothing exists, and that there is no possible world in which nothing exists. ("http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/What_is_Nothing_.mp3) Mr. Elliott also makes the claims that pure nothingness is an illogical concept which we can never achieved. It is noted in (Excerpts from F. V. Konstantinov, ed., Philosophical Encyclopedia, Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia Publishers, 1963, vol. 4, pp. 78-9) that "nothingness is pure non-being and impossible abstract emptiness." The claim is that from pure nothingness, pure nothing comes. (Latin: ex nihilo nihil fit) is a philosophical expression of a thesis first argued by Parmenides. It is associated with ancient Greek cosmology, such as presented not just in the opus of Homer and Hesiod, but also in virtually every philosophical system.
:The Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius expressed this principle in his first book of De Rerum Natura (eng. title On the Nature of Things) : "Principium cuius hinc nobis exordia sumet, nullam rem e nihilo gigni divinitus umquam."
:English translation: :["But only nature's aspect and her law, which, teaching us, hath this exordium: :Nothing from nothing ever yet was born."]
:Similarly, many other noted philosophers such as William Lane Craig, John Philoponus, Al-Kindi, Saadia Gaon, Al-Ghazali, and St. Bonaventure stand behind the claim that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."
:This is directly in line with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason. Leibniz argues (Russell, Bertrand, A History of Western Philosophy. New York, Simon and Schuster, 1945, p. 568, and Cassirer, Ernst Kant’s Life and thought. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981,pp. 73) that "everything in the world is contingent that it may or may not have existed. Something will not exist unless there is a reason for its existence." This rests on his premise that the actual world is the best possible world, as such we can account for everything in it as being there for a specific reason. But the universe as a whole, requires a further reason for existence, and that reason for Leibniz is God.
:[Thomas Aquinas]] put it like this is The Second Way - Causation of Existence. "Common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it." Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an Uncaused First Cause (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way:
:1.There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
:2.Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
:3.There cannot be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
:4.Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called God.
:Important Note: God didn't create himself nor did he begin to exist.
:And finally William Lane Craig makes a mockery of anyone believing something can come from pure nothingness when he says, "Believing that something can come from nothing is literally worse than believing in magic. I mean think about it, when the magician pulls the rabbit out of the hat at least you have the magician. Nobody sincerly believes something can pop into being uncaused out of nothing." And he goes on to ask, "if something could come from nothing, then it's inexplicaple why everything or anything doesnt come from nothing. For example why don't bicycles, or root beer just pop into being uncaused out of nothing? There can't be anything about nothingness that favors universes, because nothingness has no properties. So what makes nothingness so descrimitory, that only universes are allowed to pop into being from nothingness? Nothingness cannot be constrained by anything because there is nothing to be contrained." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrFwGvWlJnc time frame 25:54-30:05)
:SCPNCEU - Acronym used in The Elliott Argument which stands for "Something can come from PURE Nothingness and then create entire universe(s)."
:STE - Acronym used in The Elliott Argument which stands for "Space and Time Eternal". It is claimed by the author that this definition is designed to be used in the broadest sense. Meaning not just space and time in our universe, but also any other proposed universes or deminsions where there would be space and time."
Only for Atheists
:The author, Mr. Elliott, claims that The Elliott Argument is only to be used against atheists and that is not designed to be used against agnostics. He also claims that his argument is not designed for anyone who denies reality, or believes our physical universe may not be real, but is actually some kind of elaborate dream or matrix.
The Golden Question
:The Golden Question is a spin off of The Elliott Argument. It's a question with a series of steps that is designed to ultimately lead to resolution and one proving their honesty. Mr. Elliott makes all atheists (who attempt to join his creationist website) answer this question before they are allowed to comment, post, or have any dialog with him on his page. He claims that he hates dishonesty, and that the Golden Question (GQ) forces atheists to either prove their honesty, or be immediately banned from his page. Mr. Elliott brags about banning over 20,000 atheists since the inception of his page. He frequently claims each one of these bans are victories (on top of his formal debates), and further proof that he cannot be defeated since atheists would rather rule violate than address his question. The Golden Question goes like this...
:STEP 1 - Are you a Type A or Type B atheist?
:(Type A is an SCPNCEU type atheist. Someone who believes "something can come from pure nothingness and then create entire universe(s)").
:(Type B is an STE type atheist. Someone who believes "space and time are eternal")
:Mr. Elliott says that the atheist must make sure they do one of the following to complete step 1.
:1.) Tell us if they are a Type A or Type B atheist.
:2.) Say I dont know or Neither. In which case they must admit that atheists in fact have only these two options for the existence of the universe, or present a third option.
:Steps 2, 3 and 4 begin once the atheist had made it past step 1. These follow up steps frequently are about logic, rational, and evidence.
:The Final Step to the process come when Mr. Elliott forces the atheist to summarize all their admissions on his page wall, and admit that The Elliott Argument, as of today, stands.
Common Rebuttals and Objections
: Special Pleading Fallacy - Atheists sometimes claim that The Elliott Argument is special pleading for the existence of God. However, this rebutal is usually shot down fairly quickly by Mr. Elliott as he likes to point ou that neither the conclusion nor premises make any outright claims about the existence or validity of God (or a UC option.). Mr. Elliott claims that UC option is only presented as an option which atheists deny or disbelieve in. Nothing more. Also some atheists will claim that God falls under STE or SCPNCEU. Mr. Elliott generally responds in the following ways. 1.) God does not fall under STE because God by definition is spaceless and timeless. Thus making the UC option (God), virtually the polar opposite of the STE acronym. 2.) God is not SCPNCEU because God does not come from anywhere. Therefore it would be an incoherent statement to claim God comes from pure nothingness and then creates entire universes. Also, God is an all powerful all knowing personal mind/creator. He is not Pure Nothingness or literal non-being. It's common for the atheist to then try and make the jump to, well if God is not pure nothingness, then he must create from pure nothingness. Mr. Elliott says this is not true. "It is important to remember that nothing can exist outside the presence of God. This is to imply that everything which exists (which God created), was supernaturally manifested from within God (who is not pure nothingness). For example, something like energy didn't exist eternally inside of God in its current naturalistic form, but rather what was required to bring the energy into existence, existed timelessly inside of God who is supernatural, all knowing, all powerful, and omnipresent."
: False Dichotomy - A common objection from atheists is to try and make the claim that there are in fact more options than the two presented in The Elliott Argument. Thus proving it a false dichotomy. However, the author says that because of the way the two acronyms are defined, that it's logically impossible to ever present a third option for the existence of the universe. "There will never be a third option for atheists. The only thing that might change in the future is that one of these options may be shown to have evidence or somehow be proven rational or logical." Mr. Elliott frequently says, "Asserting a false dichotomy is not the same as proving one."
: Big Bang Theory – From Wikipedia.com. "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly." 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 in this model to prove this reasoning invalid. The singularity in the Big Bang Model is widely defined as a super condensed, extremely hot/volatile, pin point of matter and energy, with infinite density and infinite spacetime curvature, which is at the center of a black hole. Physicist Paul Shestople from Berkley writes, "It is hard to imagine the very beginning of the Universe. Physical laws as we know them did not exist due to the presence of incredibly large amounts of energy, in the form of photons. Some of the photons became quarks, and then the quarks formed neutrons and protons. Eventually huge numbers of Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium nuclei formed( http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html). At big-bang-theory.com they say, (http://www.big-bang-theory.com) "A singularity is an infinitely dense, infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, zone." Proponents of this theory will claim that all space and time which currently exist were simply products of this singularity's expansion. There in fact was no space or time prior to this event. This is well documented in the Hartle-Hawking state. James Hartle and Stephen Hawking claim that, "the universe is infinitely finite: that there was no time before the Big Bang because time did not exist before the formation of spacetime associated with the Big Bang and subsequent expansion of the universe in space and time. Hartle and Hawking suggest that if we could travel backward in time toward the beginning of the universe, we would note that quite near what might have otherwise been the beginning, time gives way to space such that at first there is only space and no time. Beginnings are entities that have to do with time; because time did not exist before the Big Bang, the concept of a beginning of the universe is meaningless." However, Mr. Elliott asks two fundamental questions here which seem to unsettle this line of logic. #1.) How can a singularity ( or super condensed energy and moving particles) exist without having the initial potential to exist (space)? He goes on to say, "Clearly it couldn't. Without some form of space, the potential for the singularity itself would not exist. This proves that space did exist prior to the expansion of the singularity." #2.) How can energy or moving particles (such as in the singularity) exist without any events occurring, or in a completely frozen state. Without any change in temperature, no increase in potential, no transferring, no movement, no motion, nothing? The claim by the author is that they cannot, and therefore this would prove that not only did space exist prior to the expansion of the singularity, but also that the concept of time was in play because events were in fact occuring. #3.) In regards to Spacetime Curvature in a Gravitational singularity, Wikipedia says, "More generally, a spacetime is considered singular if it is geodesically incomplete, meaning that there are freely-falling particles whose motion cannot be determined beyond a finite time, being after the point of reaching the singularity." Mr. Elliott points out that, "even though the particles motion cannot be determined, that doesn't mean that the motion of these particles cease to exist. If these particles have motion, which they do, then the concept of time is still in play. Even though we cannot determine the motion, we know that concious observers need not be present for the concept of time to still be in play. If events are occuring, which they were, then you cannot claim time did not exist." The question then becomes, where did the singularity and spacetime come from? Did they come from pure nothingness on their own, or were they eternal in the past without beginning? Essentially bringing us back to the initial claim that atheists only have two options for the existence of the universe. STE and SCPNCEU.
:Important to note: The space and time which existed prior to the expansion of the singularity, was casually connected to the existence of our 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, or static time, falls under STE if eternal in the past. Therefore presents no available evidence for such a position. It is also claimed by Mr. Elliott that the B-theory of time 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 and William Lane Craig on Origins and Design 17:2
:First Law of Thermodynamics – Some opponents of The Elliott Argument may try to bring up the First Law of Thermodynamics as apparent evidence for STE. The First Law of Thermodynamics basically states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, the line of reasoning would follow that if energy exists, and it cannot be created or destroyed, that it must be eternal. The problem then becomes, anyone presenting the 1st law as evidence must also consider what the 2nd law says. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that everything was once at zero entropy, and like a wind up clock, everything is slowly winding down. All of the useable energy is being used up, and there will eventually come a point where there is none left. The problem here is obvious. The universe (spacetime) therefore cannot be eternal, because if it was, then all the useable energy would have long since been used up and there would be none remaining. But, we see that we still have useable energy today. Astronomer Robert Jastrow, who is currently serving as the director of the Mount Wilson Observatory (in his book In God and the Astronomers), explains that there are “Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, and the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a beginning” (1978, p. 111). More on Jastrows thoughts regarding this topic can be seen at apologetics press.
:Multi-Universe Theory/String Theory - Mr. Elliott claims every proposed option will in fact fall under one of his two provided categories. Opponents of this argument frequently bring up Multi-Universe or String Theory as proposed new third options. Elliott's response is that if these theories are simply eternal cycles (of universe creating universe, creating universe, creating universe, without beginning) that thus would fall under STE. Since in each of the previous universes there would in fact be some form of space, and also there would certainly be events occuring. Mr. Elliott also claims that the very act of 'universe creating universe' is also evidence of events occuring, and that all the universes would be casually connected if responsible for creating one another.
:The Elliott Argument disproves the existence of God - Many times atheists will claim that if The Elliott Argument is in fact sound and valid, which the author claims, that it also disproves the existence of God. Mr. Elliott makes the case that this cannot be so for the mere fact that God (the UC option) does not fall under the definition of either STE or SCPNCEU. Mr. Elliott claims that God does not fall under STE because God is considered by many christians to be spaceless and timeless. Dr. Craig talks in depth about this fact on his reasonable faith website. To read more about it you can click on the following link.... http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-the-cause-of-the-universe-an-uncaused-personal-creator-of-the-universe. Also God does not fall under SCPNCEU because God by definition is not pure nothingness, but rather an all powerful all knowing personal mind. You can read some scriptures about this definition on About Christianity (http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/qt/biblefactsgod.htm). Thus God (The UC option) would not be literal non-being or Pure Nothingness.
:Revision of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) - The Elliott Argument is fairly new compared to many other apologetic arguments and some have interpreted it to be a similar, or a re-worked version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Mr. Elliott likes to bring up 4 main points which he feels differeciates his argument from the KCA. #1.) The arguments have a completely different stucture. #2) The arguments have completely different premises. #3.) The Elliott Argument makes the claim that atheism is irrational illogical and has no evidence, without making any claims about the existence or validity of God. While the KCA on the other hand is designed to prove a God must exist. #4) The arguments have two completely different conclusions.
:IDK or Neither - When the atheist realizes that both of his options are irrational and illogical, often times they will try to back out of the equation by saying they dont know which acronym they fall under, or make the claim that they are neither. Mr. Elliott is noted as saying, "choosing neither or saying I don't know is just fine. However, if the atheist says they are neither, or claims that they don't know which one they are, then they must admit that atheists only have two options for the existence of the universe, or present a third option. Mr. Elliott claims that its logically impossible for a new option to ever present itself, but rather the only thing that might change is that one of the provided options may become logical and have evidence to support it.
:It's claimed by the author that The Elliott Argument has never been defeated and that in over 100 formal online debates it remains unrefuted and virtually unchallenged. Mr. Fucknut has an open debate challenge for any atheist in the world that can be seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4DtnkBxCI4)
Chad "Atheist Killa" Elliott is part of a series on
Visit the Music Portal for complete coverage.
Chad "Atheist Killa" Elliott is part of a series on YouTube.