Chad Elliott, the “Atheist Killa”

I ran into Chad’s Facebook page, called Creationism and the Origin of Life, and quickly saw that I was dealing with a deluded megalomaniac. His thoughts were the kind I so often encounter: inquisitive and intelligent, but completely undercooked, uninformed, thought out in a half-assed way, and worst, presented as the be-all and end-all, the final word on the subject. In short, this guy was like a passionate student in a mediocre university’s Phil I class. What forced me to troll his ass was his unbridled arrogance: he talks about himself (in all caps, all the time) as if he is a well-known philosopher, calling his “Golden Question” The Elliott Argument (EA). Although the argument is largely incoherent, I’ll grant him that it’s at least something I’d never heard before. The final straw was him styling himself as “The Atheist Killa”, as if he actually had beaten anyone in debates, rather than just banning people who disagreed with him. I knew I’d be banned within a few posts, but this fucker had to be taken down.

The “Golden Question” or The Elliott Argument:

THE GOLDEN QUESTION::: *BEFORE ANY ATHEIST IS ALLOWED TO TALK IN THIS ROOM THEY HAVE TO ANSWER THE “GOLDEN QUESTION.”

THE GOLDEN QUESTION IS…… ARE YOU AN STE (space and time eternal) OR SCPNCEU (something come from pure nothingness and then create entire universes) type of atheist????

ATHEISTS DENY THE UNCREATED CREATOR OPTION AS THE CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE, AND WHEN YOU DO THAT YOU ARE ONLY LEFT WITH TWO CHOICES!!! ITS A 100% CONCRETE FACT THAT NO MATTER WHAT THE ATHEIST CAN THINK OF, IT WILL FALL UNDER ONE OF THE TWO PROVIDED CATAGORIES!!!!

TO ANSWER THE GOLDEN QUESTION THE ATHEIST CAN EITHER…………….. 1.) TELL US IF THEY ARE AN STE or SCPNCEU ………….. 2.) SAY IDK BUT ADMIT THESE ARE THEIR ONLY TWO OPTIONS!!……or…….3.) Attempt to provide a 3rd option that does not fall under STE or SCPNCEU.

http://www.facebook.com/THEATHEISTKILLA

Me:

Chad, just so we’re not playing tennis without the net, could you specify clearly and exactly why it is logically incoherent to say a) that space and time are eternal, and b) that something could come into existence that could create universes? It seems like the God hypothesis combines features of both of these options: that there is something that exists eternally that is capable of creating a universe. I’m genuinely interested in how this proposition doesn’t run into similar logical problems.

Creationism and the Origin of Life:

A.) BECAUSE IF YOU HAD AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME IN THE PAST ETERNITY FOR US TO HAVE COME INTO BEING IT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED ALREADY!!!! ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT IS IMAGINE YOU ARE STANDING IN A LINE WITH AN IFINITE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE AND TIME IN FRONT OF YOU…DO YOU EVER GET YOUR TURN?? NO..BUT HERE WE ARE TODAY GETTING OUR TURN!!! I SUGGEST YOU LOOK UP PROBLEMS WITH INFINITE REGRESS……B) THE UNCREATED CREATOR DOES NOT FALL UNDER EITHER STE OR SCPNCEU…HES NOT STE BECAUSE BY DEFINITION HE IS AN ALL POWERFUL ALL KNOWING PERSONAL MIND AND CAN DECIDE “WHEN” HE WANTS TO CREATE, THEREFOR DOESNT FACE THE PROBLEMS OF INFINITE REGRESS…AND HES NOT SCPNCEU BECAUSE FOR 1 HE DIDNT COME FROM ANYWHERE, AND FOR TWO HE DOESNT FALL UNDER THE CATAGORY OF PURE NOTHINGNESS!!! H

Me:

The brand of the infinite regress objection that you’re using is a temporal infinite regress– that kind of argument has been around since about 500 BC, with a notable early appearance in Democritus (who used it to draw the exact opposite conclusion you’re supporting). It seems that in your point of view, God is bounded by Time in exactly the same way we are– he exists in our timeline. You imply that there is an ‘eternity’ in which the Universe hasn’t happened yet, and that God is somehow hanging out during all that eternity, and there is a point in time when he can decide to create a Universe.

Yet Time is something that exists as a part of the Universe; presumably, if God created the Universe, then he created Time as a part of it. That means that, outside the context of the Universe, there is no such thing as ‘after’ and ‘before’, and no problem with temporal infinite regresses. By the way, this doesn’t depend on modern physics’ conception of spacetime– theologians since Augustine (3rd Century AD) have taken care to articulate that God is not a simple being which is limited by linear time; he is outside of Time, and therefore it doesn’t make sense to talk about an infinite amount of time ‘before’ the creation. If you do maintain that God is limited by linear time, there emerge some pretty serious problems about the nature of Time. In fact, if God exists in Time, then all the infinite regress arguments apply to him as well.

Now, I’m going to assume that your God is not a simplistic little being IN the Universe like the rest of us are; and that since Time is interwoven with the Universe, God, as creator of the Universe, must be outside of Time. So a really clear description of your position, as distinct from STE and SCPNCEU, is as follows: a) STE says that Space and Time are Eternal (and for the sake of argument I’m going to act as if your objection to this works); b) SCPNCEU says that a being emerges in Time which can create a Universe; and the most solid theist position is that c) something exists outside of time that is capable of creating a Universe.

Now that it’s all laid out clearly and specifically, it’s easy to see that an atheist isn’t limited to position a) or b); an atheist can take position c) just as easily as a theist. I, for one, accept certain philosophical arguments that show that there is a Necessary Being. Now, “Being” sounds nice and mystical, but really that just means that there is at least one existent thing that cannot NOT exist. I call this the Ultimate Being, because it is the necessary thing upon which all contingent things depend. When you look at all these abstract arguments carefully, you’ll notice that at no point when ‘proving’ that there must be an ‘uncreated creator’ or ‘Ultimate Being’ is there any reason to attribute consciousness, personality, or sentience to it. For me, I imagine the Ultimate Being as something like a self-referential mathematical equation (or, more precisely, a metaphysical structure that could be described by a self-referential mathematical equation). And here’s the kicker: since I think that that Necessary Being must exist “prior” to (so to speak) and beyond the Universe, beyond spacetime, then that means I, an atheist, hold a metaphysical view that is exactly the same as most intellectually sophisticated theists’ view: namely, c) above– that there is a Being (not a personal being, just something with the property of existence) that exists outside of time, and by some means is able to cause the emergence of a Universe. QED.

Creationism and the Origin of Life:

//God is bounded by Time in exactly the same way we are– he exists in our timeline. // NOPE…IN A NATURALISTIC SENSE GOD IS SPACELESS TIMELESS AND IMMATERIAL…………………………………………………………………………………..//he is outside of Time, and therefore it doesn’t make sense to talk about an infinite amount of time ‘before’ the creation.// CORRECT, HOWEVER WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ELLIOTT ARGUMENT, (STE) IS DEFINED AS ANY AND ALL POSSIBLE SPACE/TIME CONCEPTS INCLUDING THE NATURAL AND SUPERNANTURAL..BROADEST SENSE!!…………………………………………………………………………………………….//You imply that there is an ‘eternity’ in which the Universe hasn’t happened yet, and that God is somehow hanging out during all that eternity, and there is a point in time when he can decide to create a Universe.// YES GOD IS ETERNAL…ALSO IS BY DEFINITION GOD AN ALL POWERFUL ALL KNOWING PERSONAL SUPERNATURAL MIND…DECIDING “WHEN” IS NOT AN ISSUE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….//Yet Time is something that exists as a part of the Universe; presumably, if God created the Universe, then he created Time as a part of it.// NATURAL TIME EXISTS AS A PART OF OUR UNIVERSE YES…. GOD CREATED NATURAL SPACE/TIME BUT GOD BY DEFINITION EXISTS IN THE SUPERNATURAL SPACE/TIME REALM………………………………………………………………………………………………………….//That means that, outside the context of the Universe, there is no such thing as ‘after’ and ‘before’, and no problem with temporal infinite regresses.// IN A NATURALISTIC SENSE OF TIME THERE IS NO AFTER OR BEFORE BUT AGAIN THIS DOESNT APPLY BECAUSE GOD EXISTS IN THE SUPERNATURAL REALM…YOU WOULD HAVE TO TELL ME WHAT MECHANISM STOPS THINGS FROM HAPPENING BEFORE OR AFTER AS IT RELATES TO THE SUPERNATURAL REALM…YOU CANT DO IT!!!! NOT TO WORRY THIS IS A COMMON ATHEIST MISTAKE……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. //So a really clear description of your position, as distinct from STE and SCPNCEU,// DEFINITIONS OF ALL TERMS INCLUDING TIME, STE, THE UC OPTION, SCPNCEU ECT ARE ALL ON THE VIDEO AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE TITLED DEFENDING THE ELLIOTT ARGUMENT PT1!!!

Me:

Hmm. Positing both a “natural” and “supernatural realm” of spacetime is a really confused move– how can there be “supernatural spacetime”?? That’s a pretty ad hoc move that I’m going to ignore in order to keep taking the conversation seriously and being respectful. Do you acknowledge, or not, that what I described as position c), the position that I, and I believe you, hold, is DIFFERENT than the two options you give in your “Golden Question”? Let me recap: Space and Time are Eternal? (We both say no). Something can come from nothing which is capable of creating a Universe? (We both say no.) Something exists eternally/beyond time which is capable of creating a Universe (you, a theist, and I, an atheist, both say Yes). For you, the eternal being (I’m still not sure whether you think God exists in Time or not) is a personal, intelligent person-like thing (without you ever having to explain why); and for me, the ultimate being (“eternal” doesn’t exactly make sense outside of time) is a logically necessary metaphysical structure, without any features like consciousness or being angry about whether I work on Sunday or not. That is a genuine third position– I, an atheist, don’t accept STE or SDFASDFAUAEU. I have the same position as you do, without the mythology. I am really eager for you to explain to me how that doesn’t meet your challenge to find a third option.

Creationism and the Origin of Life:

//Hmm. Positing both a “natural” and “supernatural realm” of spacetime is a really confused move– how can there be “supernatural spacetime”??// WE DEFINE SPACE/TIME IN THE ELLIOTT IN THE MOST BROADEST SENCE…MEANING ANY AND ALL SPACE/TIME CONCEPTS…NATURAL AND SUPERNATURAL….USING IT MORE LIKE AN UMBRELLA IN CASE THE OPPOSITION TRIES TO SAY A 3RD CAUSE COULD BE OUTSIDE OF NATURALISTIC SPACE/TIME.

 Me:

But you’re utterly missing the point– you’re saying that, ‘Yes, God is outside of time. But there’s some more time out there that he IS in.’ What I’m talking about is existence not dependent upon ANY kind of time. Now, it is completely unclear what it would mean for there to be a ‘supernatural spacetime’ — believe it or not, you haven’t made that make sense, you’ve just revealed that you can’t quite imagine something existing unless it’s in some kind of time. Besides, I’ve read you ranting about people believing things without evidence, but you made up ‘supernatural spacetime’ out of thin air just to make your theory work. What kind of EVIDENCE could you possibly have for that? Anyway, I am not saying that God lives in a ‘supernatural’ space or time different than ours, like you seem to be picturing. I’m saying that there must be some being UPON WHICH time and space both depend, and that being must therefore be a more basic level of reality than that at which space and time emerge. But all this is beside the point– you still haven’t answered my question: after all your comments about atheists not having the intellectual courage to admit when they’re wrong, I think it’s time for you to prove you do have that kind of integrity by admitting that my answer gives a third option besides the two choices you give in your argument. I am not an STE or an [your acronym], I am a SEOOTTCCUWIAIROFAIPB. “Something exists outside of time that can create universes without invoking an infinite regress objection from an introductory philosophy book.” Go back and read my last post carefully, and if you are actually doing what you say and “seeking the truth”, then you have to admit that I’m right. There is a third option. It’ll take some pretty impressive cojones, after all your rhetoric about being an “Atheist Killa”, to admit it, but that’s what someone who is seeking the truth would do.

First off, you didn’t notice that you just contradicted your whole “Golden Question”. You claiming that there is a “supernatural spacetime” beyond God makes you an STE (Space and Time are eternal)– the Fairy Tale version, to be sure, but still STE. Since God exists IN supernatural spacetime, he didn’t create it, and since he exists eternally, so must the spacetime in which he exists. But now that I think about it, I’m going to go ahead and let you have “supernatural spacetime” just for the sake of argument, as much as every fiber in my philosophy degree screams out in outrage, lol. Let’s just pretend that could be defended by some imaginable means. Even so, I still provided a third option: an atheist can believe that something immaterial exists eternally (therefore not SCPNCEU), which created the universe (therefore not STE), but is not God (therefore not a theist position). Dude you literally cannot get more owned than this.

Creationism and the Origin of Life:

//’Yes, God is outside of time. But there’s some more time out there that he IS in.’// NO IM NOT..LOL…GOD EXISTS IN THE SUPERATURAL REALM…I NEVER MADE THE CLAIM THERE IS “MORE TIME THAN WHAT HE IS IN”……………………..// you made up ‘supernatural spacetime’ out of thin air just to make your theory work.// THE ELLIOTT ARGUMENT MAKES NO CLAIMS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OR VALIDITY OF A SUPERNATURAL REALM…………………………………………………………………………//after all your comments about atheists not having the intellectual courage to admit when they’re wrong, I think it’s time for you to prove you do have that kind of integrity by admitting that my answer gives a third option besides the two choices you give in your argument.// YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED A 3RD OPTION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE THAT DOES NOT FALL UNDER STE OR SCPNCEU..ALSO I HAVE NOTHING TO PROVE..THE EA MAKES NO CLAIMS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OR VALIDITY OF THE UC OPTION..LOL AT U          ……………….//Something exists outside of time that can create universes without invoking an infinite regress objection from an introductory philosophy book// ONCE BROKEN DOWN I WILL PROVE YOUR OPTION FALLSS UNDER STE OR SCPNCEU..TRUST MEOR TRY ME SUCKA……………………………………………………………………………..//First off, you didn’t notice that you just contradicted your whole “Golden Question”. You claiming that there is a “supernatural spacetime” beyond God// YOU KNOW PPL GET BANNED AROUND HERE FOR LYING RIGHT…I NEEEEVVVEERRRR SAID THERE IS ANY SPACE/TIME” BEYONDGOD…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..//God makes you an STE (Space and Time are eternal)– the Fairy Tale version, to be sure, but still STE. Since God exists IN supernatural spacetime, he didn’t create it, and since he exists eternally, so must the spacetime in which he exists. // FAIL GOD IS NOT STE BECAUSE BY DEFINITION GOD IS AN ALL POWERFUL ALL KNOWING SUPERNATURAL PERSONAL MIND AND CAN DECIDE AT “WHEN” TO CREATE….ALSO THE SUPERNATURAL REALM IS ETERNAL SO IT WASNT CREATED AND DID NOT BEGIN TO EXIST…BUT AGAIN THIS DOES NOT FALL UNDER STE BECAUSE GOD IS NOT STE BECAUSE BY DEFINITION GOD IS AN ALL POWERFUL ALL KNOWING SUPERNATURAL PERSONAL MIND AND CAN DECIDE AT “WHEN” TO CREATE………………………………………………………………………………………//Even so, I still provided a third option:// NO YOU HAVENT..YOU CLAIMED YOU HAVE WHICH THOUSANDS OF OTHER PEOPLE BEFORE YOU HAVE AND FAILED! …ONCE WE BREAK IT DOWN DADDY WILL SHOW U WHERE YOUR OPTION FALLS!…………………………………………………………………………………PREPARE TO GET OWNED!!! AK

Me:

Haha. Chad, listen. You fail to understand the most basic of philosophical ideas, you invent ad hoc theories to avoid admitting you’re wrong and then act like you never said there was “super-natural space time”, and now I’m supposed to be scared because you and your posse of B-boy ex crackheads from prison are hitting the books to figure out how to beat my argument? You are not seeking the truth– you are trying to win. I engaged in this conversation to see if, even though your arguments are really naive and simple, you were sincere about being a “truth seeker”. You clearly aren’t, and even though you as good as revealed that you’re stumped, you can’t admit your argument has some serious holes. Chad, it has SERIOUS HOLES– it sounds like something an 8th grader would put together. I was hoping that if I contradicted you in your own made-up terms, you would acknowledge that you have more to learn. But it looks like you can’t step up and do what people do when they are truly trying to find the truth. I’ve lost interest in this Middle School philosophizing; my main interest was to see how you reacted to being clearly beat on your own playing field. My advice: leave philosophy & theology to the experts and you go back to doing whatever people with neck tattoos do to make a living. (Having said that, feel free to explain to me why I’m wrong when your crack team of researchers “breaks it down”).

//ALSO THE SUPERNATURAL REALM// (what you called “supernatural spacetime” //IS *ETERNAL* SO IT WASN’T CREATED AND DID NOT BEGIN TO EXIST, BUT IT IS NOT FALL UNDER STE// (which means Space and Time are Eternal). Yes, you literally said that. Also, that was pretty creepy when you called yourself Daddy. Yuck dude.

BANNED. Oh well, never did get that admission of defeat… I bet it was the neck tattoo comment.

Posted in Uncategorized | 20 Comments