Another thing to learn from this exchange with Nick is when he attempted to give only two possibilities. He stated:
“I am asserting that , “We have matter spontaneously organizing itself into animate matter after the universe is created, OR we have animate matter in the universe from the get go.””
That’s not how a true two-possibilities argument should go. Such an argument requires negation.
Logically, you should say “either p is true or not-p is true.” When p is true, not-p is false and when p is false, not-p is true.
His admitted assertion does not follow this negation requirement. He has two separate p’s and neither of them are not-p’s to the other. You can see that these two p’s are subtly different when you examine the sentence structure.
In the first p, “spontaneously organizing itself” is not the opposite of existed, in fact, not spontaneously organizing itself is it’s opposite. And visa-versa.
So it’s necessary to break his possibilities into two p, not-p pairs.
Taking his first assertion (and since he failed to evidence his god, I’ve changed created to began),
p1 = “matter spontaneously organizing itself into animate matter after the universe began,” and
not-p1 = “matter did not spontaneously organizing itself into animate matter after the universe began”
So, either matter spontaneously became animated after the universe began or matter did not spontaneously become animated. Only one can be true.
His second assertion should have been,
p2 = “animate matter existed when the universe began,” and
not-p2 = “no animate matter existed when the universe began”
So, either animate matter existed when the universe existed or it did not. Only one can be true.