My Rebuttal to Dawkins Argument

[Brian37]

Said the one who claims an invisible sky wizard with zero evidence to back it up.

Man I wish you were as gullible about your wallet as you are about your belief in a god. I could sell you an invisible Lamborghini. Did I mention I also own the Brooklyn Bridge, I could sell it to you, you could make a mint on traffic tolls.

Who says I have zero evidence?

1. Appeal to popularity does not constitute evidence. If it worked like that then the world should all become Muslims because it has the most members.

2. Using a holy book or holy writings of  ANY RELIGION  to prove a god or religion is called circular reasoning, humans of every religion use circular reasoning. Circular reasoning also does not constitute evidence. Muslims and Jews and Hindus also point to their writings.

3. Appeal to tradition, again, see #1 and #2

4. Appeal to authority(holy people or theologians) is also not evidence. All religions do this. Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus and Catholics and Mormons and Sikhs also point to their brand of holy person.

5. A history of passing down claims generation after generation only means a history of passing down a claim. At one point the majority of the world's population once believed the earth to be flat.

6. Religious people can accept science. While that is true, scientific method is not a religion but a tool and it is not there to prop up or favor any one religion. Scientific method is completely separate and independent from ALL religions. 

7. Scientific method is the only universal tool humans have to gain knowledge. It is why a computer will work in Japan and in Saudi Arabia and Mexico. It is why planes fly and land in all countries.

Now when you can prove your god claim in a lab and beat everyone to the patent office then you can collect your Nobel Prize in "God theory". I doubt you'll have any better luck than any other person in the world has. 

My advice to you would be to consider that YOU got it wrong and your god belief only dwells in your brain because someone else sold it to you, because someone else sold it to them.

[henryp]

Now, clearly theists and atheist can agree on one thing: if anything at all exists, there must be something preceding it that always existed. How did this eternally existing reality come to be? The answer is that it never came to be. It always existed. Take your pick: God or universe. Something always existed

I agree with your original point.  Saying "Who created God?" is silly, because by definition God doesn't have a creator. How can that be?  Who knows!  And the idea is protected from challenges because the understanding of how the universe was operating at the start hasn't been figured out yet, that I know of.

That being said, saying God or Universe always existed is making the same mistake Dawkins made.  It's taking a time? where things are happening differently than we understand, and then applying our understanding to it anyways.  

The meaningful question, is why believe a God created the universe?  I'm unfamiliar with your religion's take on when creation took place, but science says it's a few billion years ago.  The story you're presenting is that God created a giant universe, and then a few billion years later, on one planet, to one species, after they were already on the planet for a few thousand years, God gave a book to them with the answers to stuff.  That seems unlikely.  

To me, it just doesn't seem plausible enough to justify claiming, or really even seriously consider "God" as the answer to the origin of the universe question.

[robvalue]

It is perfectly justified to ask what created god if the premise of an argument is that everything needs a creator.

[Excited Penguin]

Hello, 

Hi.

Greetings to you brothers and sisters in humanity,

Um, ok.

I would like to refute Richard Dawkins argument " If God created man, then who created God? "

How dare you? Richard Dawkins is the supreme Atheist, we never question him. And neither should you. Sacrilege!

The answer to this question is very simple, and I would like to discuss it in detail:

I see more than one question, but O.K.

1. The Creator is called The Creator, so how can the Creator have a creator if he is The Creator?

You forgot to capitalize the the the third time you mentioned the Creator, so your whole conclusion is wrong.

2. The question can be turned around, which will allow me to ask: " If the universe created man, then who created the universe? "

Who is a pronoun. Thirteen something billion years ago we didn't have pronouns yet. Sorry, men. Fatal error.

3. Only do things in our galaxy and universe and space-time, require a creator. God is obviously out of space and time, and the galaxy and universe, in another dimension, in which we do not understand.

Aimp is Romney red blue theater goes home alone repeat I yes dog sell kitty bone not why yes.

4. This is like saying that an explanation requires an explanation, which would lose you in an infinite regress, which is clearly contradictory to the bases and fundamentals of science.

What is like saying that...? An explanation usually doesn't require an explanation. But even if it did, you can't get an infinite regress here, there's only so much things to explain, and you can only be so much of a moron to begin with.

5. Antony Flew in his book states:

Now, clearly theists and atheist can agree on one thing: if anything at all exists, there must be something preceding it that always existed. How did this eternally existing reality come to be? The answer is that it never came to be. It always existed. Take your pick: God or universe. Something always existed

It doesn't matter what theists and atheists believe or think. It only matters what physicists know and discover. If you're so curious about how the universe came to be, you should study physics, not mentally masturbate at the prospect of being some absolute dictator's plaything.

[Excited Penguin]

I already think about the systems and difficult questions. The assumption that they were created is irrelevant to their study.

The final barrier is solipsism, and I fear I will die before I solve it.

How exactly do you know things that are too advanced for science? Where are you getting your information?

What exactly is your quandary with solipsism?

[Reforged]

Has Richard Dawkins actually responded yet?
If not I think we might have to take that as an acknowledgement he has been defeated by this unstoppable train of logic and reasoning.

[robvalue]

I think he has resigned as supreme atheist overlord.

I take it this poster had no interest in us as a community, then. Not a big surprise. Scream and skidaddle.

[robvalue]

It is perfectly justified to ask what created god if the premise of an argument is that everything needs a creator.

Further thought:

When someone defines something that doesn't need a creator, after stating everything needs a creator, all they are showing is that their initial premise is wrong. It's self defeating.

Of course we have desperate attempts to smuggle things in, by essentially saying "everything that isn't God needs a creator" which is begging the question.

[SofaKingHigh]

As a muslim, I am not allowed to use profanity because Islam teaches me to respect people, regardless of their beliefs and views. Please, I would like it if you respect me as a human, and not use profanity. You are not a Muslim, and you do not have a degree on Islam, you speak on a few researches you have done through the internet. I advise you to talk to Muslim Scholars who have a masters in Islam. I advise you to watch Reza Aslan, Ahmed Deedat, Maajid Nawaz and etc.

My friend, respect is earned, you can respect everybody if you like, me, I'll wait to see if they deserve it.

Now, you believe in Allah, there are literally thousands  of different Gods that people believe in or have believed in, why should I waste my time watching Reza Alsan there are so many other religious teachers I could be watching, what makes yours true?

[henryp]

It is perfectly justified to ask what created god if the premise of an argument is that everything needs a creator.

Sure.  But in this case, it's Dawkins claiming everything needs a creator.  I think you can have the premise of God without claiming everything needs a creator.  Maybe Dawkins was responding to someone else who made that claim, but I'd say that's more sloppiness on that person's part.  They could easily apply a scope, and say everything in our universe needs a creator, and protect their idea of God from the rule.

The key here, is that Dawkins is making an argument for God not existing.  Which I don't think works.  As opposed to this being an argument for God existing, which also doesn't work.