The elliot Arguement is the most powerful arguement of all time, it can never be defeated.

Opening StatementI could argue that the resolution as stated even if Pros argument is a good one still doesn't justify the claim that the argument it's self is the MOST POWERFUL ARGUMENT OF ALL TIME. But I seek not to win on such a technical point, as such I accept Pros argument in the spirit in which it is given, and will proceed not by holding Pro accountable to justify the most ambitious claim that this argument is the MOST POWERFUL ARGUMENT OF ALL TIME, but to merely provide scrutiny, counter argument, objections and hopefully show that the argument given by Pro is not a good one.General PointsBefore I get into the main objections I would like to raise some points that may be relevant later.1) Pro claims that (SCPNCEU) defies the law of causality, but does not explain what the law of causality is or what is the justification for their undefined law.2) Pro claims that (SCPNCEU) defies known philosophical truths, but doesn't tell use what so called truths are defied nor the justification that establishes known philosophical truths.3) Pro makes claims about how atheists can't prove this and that, but the lack of evidence of an alternative to God doesn't prove that God did it, after all there was a time when earthquakes were quite mysterious without explanation and as such many religious people claimed that therefore God did it, this is just to commit God of the Gaps as rational wiki explains...""God of the gaps" is used to describe the tendency of believers to appeal to God as the cause for phenomena which human knowledge has not yet explained. When these gaps are filled, the believer just jumps to the next gap and the game can continue ad nauseam until human knowledge is able to explain everything. The argument is an instance of the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance. Nor is it a very theologically sound argument, as it has the effect of reducing and diminishing one's god over time.The God of the Gaps argument finds what is perhaps its most popular manifestation in ideas about first cause. The argument essentially suggests that, as there is no commonly accepted theory to completely explain the original origin of the universe, then God (or Gods) must exist." [1]Main objections to Pros argument1) The Logical possibility of an Uncreated Non personal cause (UCNPC)Pro makes the charge...."atheists in fact only have two options for the existence of the universe, and that it is logically impossible to present a third option." This is more formalized in their argument in premise 2 of their argument that states... "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." I propose the following LOGICAL option.......Uncreated Non personal cause. We can call this (UCNPC) if you like.There is no logical impossibility of an uncreated non personal cause as wikipedia explains a logical possibility as..."A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction." [2]2) The possibility that asking what caused the universe/singularity is an irrational questionI also propose another possible logical option available to both atheists and theists alike, that being to ask what caused the universe/singularity etc is an irrational question.Consider the following question, how heavy is the number 2 ? most people realize that this is an irrational question, as the question wrongly assumes that the number 2 has weight, but the number 2 as an idea does not have weight, thus to ask how heavy is the number 2 has no direct answer, it can only be dismissed as an irrational question.But why think that asking what caused the universe/singularity/etc is an irrational question ? Notice that when we talk about cause and effect this implies that the cause exists temporally prior to the effect, parents which are the cause of their sons and daughters exist before the sons and daughter, the apple tree exists before that apples that it produces and so on.This concept of causality is a defeater when talking about the "cause" of the universe or singularity, cause if time does not exist absent the universe or singularity, a notion that Pro seems to imply where he talks about a "timeless" personal cause, then that means there is no "before" the universe, and since causes must exist before their effects this means the universe does not have a cause.As such I propose another logical option for the atheist or anyone for that matter is to be of the view that to ask what caused the universe/singularity whether God or other is an irrational question.ConclusionThe main objections I raise in this first round is to Pros 2nd premise, that states that failure to agree that the universe has a Uncreated (personal) Creator as it's cause commits one to either accepting STE or SCPNCEU. I have provided at least two options available to some one who does not agree that the Universe has a uncreated (personal) creator, those being...1) An uncreated non personal cause of the universe/singularity.2) That to ask what caused the universe is an irrational question.As such it is my argument that I have shown Pros 2nd premise false and thus their argument is not a good one.I look forward to Pros reply.Sources[1] http://rationalwiki.org...[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...