On the “
Blue House Apologetic Society” page, Chad “the Atheist Killa” Elliott
posted this image from the "
Hammer the Gods" Facebook page;
Though, as you can see from the screen-capture, his version was of a
lower quality, both in image quality and due to the caption he posted
with it;
For those not familiar with it, special pleading is, basically, applying
a set of rules or restrictions on someone, but you get to ignore those
rules and restrictions because, at least when used for logical
arguments, your position itself is made invalid and illogical if those
same rules or restrictions apply to it.
For more in-depth reading on the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading
So,
that said, the remaining portion of this entry will be showing
screen-captures of the five arguments Mr. Elliott wrote to prove what he
does with his apologetics, in which he states it is illogical for the
universe to be eternal, to come from “pure nothing,” or to be
uncreated/self-creating while it is logical for his god of choice to be
eternal and uncreated, is not special pleading.
If not obvious,
the special pleading lies is his saying the universe cannot be eternal
and/or uncreated/self-creating because it is illogical but God can be
eternal and/or uncreated because, well, God.
Note: Below, I will
not be responding to the rampant use of ad-hominem attacks used by Mr.
Elliot, though I do wonder if he is capable of behaving in a civilized
manner.
Let us begin.
"1.) GOD DOESNT REQUIRE A CREATOR BECAUSE BY DEFINITION GOD IS SPACLESS,
TIMELESS, AND SUPERNATURAL. THE UNIVERSE IS NOT SPACELESS, TIMELESS, OR
SUPERNATURAL. WHATEVER CREATED THE UNIVERSE MUST EXIST OUTSIDE OF SPACE
AND TIME AND ALSO BE WITHOUT BEGINNING. IF YOU DONT LIKE THAT LOGIC ITS
NOT MY FAULT. MAYBE BECAUSE ITS THE ONLY OPTION THAT MAKES SENSE AND
BECAUSE THE WORD GOD IS ASSOCIATED WITH IT THEN YOU GET SCARED
LOL..CLOWN!"
Response:
First, “supernatural” is a null
world. If it exists, it is natural. Whether something is a part of this
universe or another, this dimension or another, if it exists then it is
natural. God, were there to be one, would be a natural part of
existence, not a supernatural one. If God created everything, then the
natural order of things involves God. If God exists and controls and can
ignore natural laws, then God and its power would be part of natural
laws and exempt from the laws that descend from it. “Supernatural” is a
term that gets thrown around to either explain what cannot currently be
explained or to try and rationalize something irrational as a response
to everything known about the universe currently making it irrational.
Second,
why must whatever created the universe be outside of space and time and
also without a beginning? As the “Hammer the Gods” image stated, if you
can make baseless assertions about God without evidence, then others
can do the same about the universe in response. You have not shown
empirically why a creator god must exist, nor do you have empirical
evidence of any god even existing.
Third, having already dealt
with the supernatural claim, I will move on to spaceless and timeless.
Something being spaceless and timeless does not inherently imply that it
does not need a creator, it simply implies that something exists
without space and is unaffected by time. Even something creating itself
or being created, and then being inserted into a time-system that had no
effect on it, would still be timeless AND have a beginning. Something
being timeless does not inherently mean it has no beginning. God being
self-creating, or having a creator, with a beginning, but still being
timeless, would make more sense than what you present here.
Special Pleading:
God
does not require a creator and can be eternal and remain logical, while
the universe requires a creator and cannot be eternal and remain
logical, just because.
"2.)
I ASSERT WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE CREATOR NEED NOT BE CREATED. YOU ASSERT
WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THE UNIVERSE CAN BE UNCREATED. THIS IS WHY NO ONE
CAN DEFEAT ME IN DEBATE. NO ONE CAN PROVE THE UNIVERSE CAN EXIST AS
SOME FORM OF STE OR SCPNCEU. ITS ALL BASELESS NONSENSICAL ASSERTIONS
FROM ATHEIST TRASH THAT LEAVES THEM IN A PHILOSOPHICAL ILLOGICAL HOLE."
Response:
We
propose it is possible and logical for the universe to be uncreated IF
it is possible and logical for a god to be uncreated. We do not assert
that this is the case, though, as any claim about the universe in which
evidence is not used is likely to be illogical. Whereas you DO assert
there is a creator that exists and was not created, yet have no evidence
of this. You claim you assert with evidence, but you have none. The
closest thing to evidence for the existence of the god you follow is the
Bible, and that is not evidence. The Bible is the claim from whence
your god comes, and it does not withstand the scrutiny of science,
history, logic, or internal consistency. The Bible is self-refuting.
What
you have is not evidence, but rather opinion, conjecture, anecdotes,
hearsay, and wishful thinking. If there were empirical evidence for the
existence of any god, there would not be as many atheists in the world
as there are.
You are right, though, that no one can prove the
universe as being eternal or to have come from “pure nothing,” but I do
not see anyone making these claims, either. What you seem to fail to
realize is no one can prove an uncreated creator created the universe,
either. The academically, intellectually, honest response to claims
about the absolute origins of the universe is, “We do not know,” possibly
with the addition of, “but we are trying to figure it out.”
Special Pleading:
1) You
require evidence from atheists to support any position they hold, but
require and offer none of your own despite claims of having it.
2) You
hold a position based on the concept of an illogical god, yet demand
people act as if it were logical while trying to force people into
taking illogical positions so you can call them out on being illogical.
"3.)
I ASSERT WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE UNIVERSE NEEDS TO BE CREATED AND NEEDS A
CREATOR. AS MENTIONED BEFORE THE UNIVERSE REQUIRES GOD. GOD IS THE
NECESSARY COMPONENT WHICH EXISTS OUTSIDE OF SPACE AND TIME WHICH GIVE
SPACE AND TIME THEIR STARTING POINT."
Response:
You assert with
no evidence the universe needs to be created, nor that it needs a
creator. You assert with opinion and hyperbole, wishful thinking and
conjecture, not fact or evidence. Until you can prove with empirical
evidence that the universe requires a god to create it in order to
exist, you are posing opinion as fact and claiming victory.
A
person screaming from atop Mt. Everest that they are on the bottom of
the ocean does not make their claim true, no matter how loud they
scream. And like this delusional individual on top of Mt. Everest claiming
to be in the ocean with no supporting evidence, you are shouting from
behind your screen that God created the universe despite no supporting
evidence.
You see, Mr. Elliott, if the universe needs a creator,
and cannot be uncreated, God does as well. It is not logical to claim
one set of rules for existence while ignoring those rules to assert your
opinion as fact.
Special Pleading:
Claiming without evidence
that the universe must be created and needs a creator outside of space
and time, yet God does not need a creator and does not need to be
created by something higher or outside of God’s realm of existence.
"4.)
EVIDENCE IS VERY IMPORTANT. UNFORTUNATELY ATHEISTS HAVE NONE. THERE IS
NO EVIDENCE FOR STE OR SCPNCEU AND THOSE ARE THE ATHEISTS ONLY TWO
OPTIONS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE. THEISTS HOWEVER NOT ONLY HAVE
UNLIMITED OPTIONS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE, WE ALSO HAVE TONS
OF EVIDENCE THAT A CREATOR EXISTS, AND FORMAL ARGUMENTS THAT PROVE HE
DOES!"
Response:
First, formal arguments do not prove anything
exists outside of philosophical musings. With enough thought and
consideration, one can use a formal argument to “prove” just about
anything, regardless of the truth or possibility of it actually being
so.
Second, theists do not have unlimited options for the
existence of the universe, they have one; “God did it.” Nor do they have
any empirical evidence to support their claim. Philosophy, faith,
opinion, hearsay, fairytales, lies, and fiction are not evidence, and
that is all theists have to support their claims.
Third, atheists
have other options, as has been shown to you repeatedly in the past.
Whether it is “time is eternal and space is created,” “space is eternal
and time is created,” “an uncreated creative force that is not a god…”
or, given that your options are illogical, there is no reason a third
option has to be logical either. Therefore, a valid third option is
“blue.”
Special Pleading:
Claiming evidence is important then
failing to have, or present, any evidence to support your claim while
still asserting it as victorious and true.
"5.)
NO SPECIAL PLEADING NECESSARY. IF I WERE TO SAY TIME EXISTED PRIOR TO
GOD CREATING IT, AND THEN SAY INFINITE REGRESS IS AND ILLOGICAL CONCEPT
THAT DOESNT APPLY TO GOD THEN I WOULD BE SPECIAL PLEADING. LUCKILY WE
DONT DO THAT RETARD. WE DONT NEED TO SPECIAL PLEAD ANYTHING TO DEFEAT
ILLOGICAL ATHEIST TRASH. ITS SIMPLE!!! AK..... ALSO I CHALLENGE THE
MAKER OF THIS MEME TO A LIVE REAL TIME PUBLIC DEBATE. MY MONEY SAYS THE
COWARD WONT SHOW. BUT WHAT ELSE IS KNEW #AKUNDEFEATED!"
Response:
First,
while hashtags may work on the opening post if your account is linked with Twitter, they do not work inthe comment sections of posts. Also, simply claiming to be undefeated
does not mean you are undefeated. You willfully choosing to ignore the
many, many, many, many documented cases of your defeat does not make
them no longer exist.
Second, if you do not need to use special
pleading, then why, as I have clearly shown, do you use it? Just as with
your habit of ignoring your defeats, ignoring your special pleading
does not mean it does not exist, it just means you are being dishonest.
Special Pleading:
Stating
you do not need special pleading to “prove” your points by offering up
arguments full of special pleading, thus inherently asking your opponent
to ignore an illogical aspect of your argument while attempting to
enforce rules of logic on theirs.
In conclusion I believe I
have clearly shown that Mr. Elliott does indeed make use of the logical
fallacy known as special pleading despite his claims to the contrary.
And now, if the “Atheist Killa” does read this, I can almost certainly
expect a string of
ad-hominem attacks,
strawman retorts, and a blatant
disregard for logic and reason from Mr. Elliott in response.
