Rebutting the Elliot argument (religion and me)

Disclaimer: although gramatically faulty, some capital letters and usage of some of the quotation marks are intentionally double-layered.

This blogpost is part of a series of three posts that contain a complete rebuttal of the Elliot argument, a refutation of the existence of any Deity, and rebukes all religion including its followers.


For centuries theists have tried to prove the existence of god by means of raw logical argumentation, while others have used those same means without an a priori conclusion, therefore ending up on the other end of what we could call the ‘god – No god scale’. Theists have used their age old tactic, and merciless punishment, of silencing those people with the threat of death (Galileï) during a majority of these centuries. They have done this because in their mind god is logical and true by definition, which in turn makes any counterargument false by definition. According to them falsehood is the work of the devil, so great thinkers have been labeled as Heathens who deserved death to please the king and purify his ‘kingdom of love’. This king would be jesus of course. Even when Science and Philosophy has progressed as far as it has in 2013, with its miraculous findings, wonderful Theories and magnificent Truths, deep inside creationists (as modern theists call themselves these days) still feel the way their spiritual forefathers did for centuries about ‘Heathens’. So instead of killing Atheists off, which is illegal in contemporary times (thanks to ‘Protohumanist’ Thinkers), they use childish intellectual attacks and pseudo-philosophical arguments to sneer at us instead. As they did centuries ago, they still try to hijack the train that represents the way of thinking that has developed itself since the Renaissance, and believe they can use this train to destroy the train itself. All the while forgetting that by hopping on the train that railroads only direction is forward, and they themselves have joined the incredible journey through the landscape of science, only hindered from seeing the landscape by intentionally closing their eyes. We as passengers can prevent those from grabbing the steering weel and halting the vehicle, and we should. Yes, they are trying to steal our weapon of rationalism, and although they can’t reverse the journey that has already come to pass, they try to hijack and halt the train with closed eyes and use it for their own goals. I can hear you thinking: “That’s pathetic”. And sadly, you are completely right. It is pathetic.

Most people know about Anselm’s ontoligical argument, which is actually quite fun to try to wrap your head around. These days, as I stated before, the arguments are mean spirited and use means that can be used to question their own (real) arguments, to create arguments that are false and ad hominem.

One of these (not so ‘onto’)logical arguments is the ‘Elliot argument’, a pseudo-philosophical argument by an obnoxious, loudmouthed devout christian called ‘Elliot’ aka “TheAtheistKilla”. By spamming half of the internet in ALL CAPS he actually managed to get some recognition by fellow creationists who lack the intellectual capacity to see its very simple fallacies. (About that last statement I wish to quote Richard Dawkins: “that was not an ad hominem that was an ad bullshitism”.) “TheAtheistKilla” proudly flaunts his achievement by stating that over 20 thousand atheists have failed to successfully refute the argument. Of course he doesn’t realize that the argument is so “simpletonish” that only few Atheists care to refute it. So i’ll lower my standards for a few minutes and just do it, get it over with. Not that “TheAtheistKilla” is going to acknowledge it as a successful rebuttal of course, and he’s obviously going to count me as the 20.001st on his list. Well, so be it.

His 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.

– “Atheists” are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence.

(STE= Space Time Eternal, SCPNCEU=Something can come from pure [[nothingness]] and then create entire universe(s).)


Before and after this “TheAtheistKilla” “proves” that irrational and illogical is synonymous to lying, implying Atheists are liars. Knowing liars that is.

The formal counterargument:


P1 – The universe exists, and consists of ‘something’. Describing the nature of the universe is done by verifying facts, rationally or empirically.

P2 – There are two kinds of facts: hard facts and soft facts.  Hard facts hold predictive capabilities. *1

P3 – It is only possible to verify a fact by means of logic. The purpose of logic is to find facts.

P4 – The existence of an uncreated creator, as well as STE and SCPNCEU, are not verified as hard facts.

P5 – Combined facts together hold predictive capabilities that one of these individual facts doesn’t.

P6 – All verified hard facts together hold no predictive capability about the existence of an uncreated creator, but they do for STE and SCPNCEU.

P7 – STE and SCPNCEU attract more legitimacy to be investigated, or tried as verified hard facts, than an uncreated creator.

P8 – Investigating the predictive path of combined verified hard facts is more logical than deviating towards the claim of the existence of an uncreated creator.

P9 – Creationists claim the existence of an uncreated creator is a hard fact, but in reality meets the standards of an unverified soft fact.

T1 – Atheism is logical, rational and has no evidence to back it up. *2

 T2 – Creationism is illogical, irrational and has no evidence to back it up. *2


*1. Hard facts are usually  laws of nature and hold predictive capabilities. The first example would be that water boils at 100 degrees celsius and turns into gas, and is then lighter than oxygen. This is true in all corners of the universe, and can be verified an indefinite number of times, and is falsifiable. A second example would be particle wave duality, that can be observed and verified an indefinite number of times in any part of the universe.  Their predictive capabilities are that the boiled water that has turned into gas will float up in the air, and keeps moving up, making it possible for it to move objects. This has resulted in the invention of the steam locomotive. Particle wave duality in light has the predictive power that it will interact with anything that it encounters as a wave and a particle, resulting in two outcomes instead of one. This has resulted in it being used as a tool in electron microscopy. These predictive capabilities are tested, and produce new verified hard facts. Soft facts are events that happened and are therefore a fact. A verified soft fact would be that yesterday I ate a hamburger. Soft facts are true, but untestable, and do not tell us anything about how the universe works, They are unverifiable and have no predictive capabilities. A second example would be: suppose I tell you that yesterday I ate a salad. I did not eat a salad. Therefore the salad is an unverified soft fact, it did not really happen. The fact that I lied is a verified soft fact because me lying really happened.
*2. The schools of thought do not justify judging its followers by definition.
Dit bericht werd geplaatst in Alles, Filosofie, Opinie en getagged met , , , , , , , . Maak dit favoriet permalink.

Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen. logo

Je reageert onder je account. Log uit / Bijwerken )


Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Google+ photo

Je reageert onder je Google+ account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Verbinden met %s