Fun with the "Atheist Killa:" Special Pleading

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.