During his debate with Matt Dillahunty, Eric tried to build a case for the existence of God with a series of premises to establish his conclusion. Of course, concluding God is not the same as demonstrating God, but apologists don’t get that. Eric continued his presentation with three premises which were meant to build on the previous ones. Since he hasn’t actually demonstrated the previous ones, we can make fairly easy work of these next three. Eric has made various assertions and assumptions of proof, but the only two things he’s proven so far are jack and shit. The Gish gallop of the Headless Horseman continues.
The fifth premise is whatever is eternal transcends the universe. The proof of this is 1) it follows necessarily from premises three and four. If something is eternal, but it is not the universe, then whatever is eternal must have existed prior to the universe and would therefore transcend the universe.1
Incoherence is Bad, Mmkay
This is complete nonsense. Eric’s premises three and four weren’t demonstrated to even be coherent, let alone true. This is also where Eric’s use of temporal language devolves into word salad. By saying that whatever is eternal must have existed prior to the universe, Eric is suggesting that something must have existed outside of spacetime. But there is no outside of spacetime. If there is no space, then there is no outside of space. It’s incoherent. Also, there is no moment prior to spacetime because there is no time in which a moment can occur. That’s also incoherent. Existence of somethings, particularly the type of something Eric is positing, is necessarily temporal and spatial. Saying that something exists outside of spacetime is the same as saying something exists in absolutely no place at absolutely no time. Eric’s notion of transcendent existence is reduced to gibberish.
Respect My Authority
Eric’s second “proof” was a sound clip in which Dr. Lawrence Krauss states his support of the multiverse hypothesis. Of course Eric couldn’t let the quote stand on its own because it didn’t actually say what he wanted it to say. Eric prefaced the quote with the claim that Dr. Krauss believes the evidence points to an eternal transcendent cause for the universe’s existence. Then he added, “Krauss and I both agree on that. We simply disagree on what the cause was.” To which I reply, “Bullshit.”
While his first use of a sound clip was not fallacious, this one was for several reasons. There is no scientific consensus on whether the multiverse even exists. Among those who think it does exist, there is currently no cohesive multiverse model about which a consensus can be reached. The best that can be said is that our current scientific knowledge allows for the possibility of a multiverse and there is mathematical support for it. That’s hardly a consensus.
Eric’s motivation for using the clip is clear: Krauss thinks this is how things are, so you should too. This is a textbook argument from authority. We’re expected to agree with Krauss for no reason other than that he’s Krauss. Eric makes this embarrassingly obvious by trying to close the gap between his views and those of Krauss. Krauss is convinced, rightly or wrongly, by the mathematical support he has reviewed. Eric has no such mathematical support for his beliefs. “What the cause was” is a much bigger factor than Eric makes it sound. That’s a cheap tactic if not intentionally dishonest.
Premise number six: whatever is eternal is the source of all things created. The proof for this is that anything created must ultimately come from that which is eternal. Otherwise, at some point, existence would have come from nonexistence, which is absurd.
Eric hasn’t established that anything is eternal or that the concept as he’s using it is even a coherent one, so this premise can be dismissed for lack of support. Eric is beginning to change the language here by introducing the word “created”. He’s trying to slip in the notion of creation and all its baggage simply by assertion. No clarification, no justification, no support whatsoever. Eric has done enough debates to know this is fallacious. He’s just in such a hurry to get to his conclusion that he hopes this bit of dishonesty will go unnoticed under the sheer volume of words he’s barfing out. It doesn’t work. Not only can this premise be rejected for complete lack of support, but his presentation of it shows Eric to be a sack of shit. I apologize for any offense to sacks or to shit resulting from that comparison.
Premise number seven: whatever is eternal is the source of all power existing. Again, the proof of this is that if the premise were not true, then at some point, a certain measure of power would have been brought into existence by nonexistence, which again is absurd.
Eric, in typical fashion, made absolutely no effort to define or clarify his terms. What he meant by power is anybody’s guess and what he meant by power being “brought into existence” is just more unclarified assertion. Fortunately for us, we don’t need any clarification. This premise crumbles immediately due to Eric’s utter failure to establish any support for it. No matter what else he attempts to stack on this turd pile, it won’t do him any good or get him anywhere. He would be better off starting over completely. And as we’ll see from his next premise, that’s essentially what he does. I think the truly absurd thing at this point in Eric’s presentation is that he really believes it’s valid, sound, and makes any sense whatsoever.
1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiNEuz6wstM [All of Eric’s premises cited here are from this source video.]