Question

Has anyone read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins? If not I highly recommend the book, even if you are religious it is still an eye opener.

For the theists, how do you reply to the logical argument that Dawkins introduce in chapter 4?

Answer 1

@Opcode you love using logic and rationalism in your arguments, so what do you have to say?
@PixieDust1 how do you reply to this?

Answer 2

Oh yes, the chapter 4 Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.
Here is an overview of the chapter...

Idea #1 - Everything that shows design requires a superior designer
Idea #2. God is design
Conclusion #1. God would require a designer (superior) to create Him.

Which leads to

Idea #3. Never-ending regressions isn't possible
Conclusion #2 But conclusion #1 requires infinite gods all to create each other
Conclusion #3. Therefore conclusion #1 is impossible and no gods can exist at all.

_______________________________________________________________________________
We know that Dawkins doesn't believe idea #1 as truth, yet thinks that theists believe it is true. But theists actually DON'T believe that anyways; making the entire thing a moot point from the start. Anywho, let me proceed. Idea #2 makes a big point with little evidence. How is God "design"? He is not a physical entity, but rather a spiritual entity.

We can easily proceed to turn the entire argument against Dawkin's multiverse.


Idea #1. Everything with design requires a superior designer
Idea #2. The universe is design
Conclusion #1. There the universe requires a superior designer.

As for Dawkin's second argument, things start to get funny here when it is turned against his ideas.

Idea #3. Never-ending regression is impossible
Conclusion #2 implies an infinite regression (an infinite number of universes)
Conclusion #3. Therefore, Conclusion #2 isn't possible, so then no universes can exist

...But the universe does exist. Dawkin's entire point was based off of Idea #1 which is invalid, making the entire "strongest argument" collapse. Things can be either contingent or they can be necessary. The Creator is necessary, not contingent. Since he does not differentiate between contingent and necessary, this would mean cause and effect is upon everything. But if time itself started at the Big Bang, then a major problem is posed. No time = No Cause and Effect.

We can come to the conclusion (based upon Dawkin's own argument) that the Creator is outside of time and has always existed.

Answer 3

Your argument suffers from multiple logical fallacies from a view point of an atheist. From a viewpoint of a theist it does not, can you change your argument to used as a counterargument against atheists?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

The part where you introduce God creates the logical fallacies. Can you just refute the logic?

Awesome first try tho

Answer 4

I believe what science has determined, "The universe could of come into existence by it self". Science also has a principle of emerging qualities over time, life didn't come into existence all at once or anything else. With this in mind could God be an emerging quality able to reach back in time, communicate, or see things that would happen before he came into existence. At some point he may be able to control, hopefully for the good of mankind.

Answer 5

I am not making a counterargument because this isn't a debate; its simply a question asking my opinion. But proceeding on, let me review again why Dawkin's "strongest argument" fell flat. His foundation for his entire point was all based upon Idea #1... which was incorrect. Theists don't believe that (as he claims we do). Maybe he should have asked a theist before writing his "strongest argument". Then he proceeds to make a big statement "God is design". Woah now, who said God is design? God isn't physical. Design is physical. God isn't design. So *BOOM!* Idea #2 just fell flat. Now, for a little math...

Incorrect + Incorrect =/= Correct

So, looks like Conclusion #1 would be incorrect since it was based off two incorrect statements. God doesn't require a designer superior to create Him, since he is NOT design.

Idea #3 and Conclusion #2 and #3 are all based upon moot points. Which makes the entire thing moot for a theist.

Now, if I turn the nonsense argument against Dawkin's ideas, it still makes no sense whatsoever. And it really makes no sense since Dawkin doesn't even believe Idea #1 to begin with, yet he states it as if we believe it (we don't). So, in fact, nobody believes Idea #1 to be true. But let us proceed anyways...


Idea #1. Everything with design requires a superior designer
Idea #2. The universe is design
Conclusion #1. There the universe requires a superior designer.


Idea #3. Never-ending regression is impossible
Conclusion #2 implies an infinite regression (an infinite number of universes)
Conclusion #3. Therefore, Conclusion #2 isn't possible, so then no universes can exist

Same idea, same conclusion, still makes no sense.
From a theist's perspective, it doesn't make any sense because he *presumed* what we believe, rather than *finding out* what we actually believe. So, hopefully I was more clear this time. In case I was not, let me repeat my main point.

Dawkin's argument presumes that theists believe Idea #1 and #2. But we do not, making the entire point fall flat.