My Rebuttal to Dawkins Argument

[Brian37]

Hello, 

Greetings to you brothers and sisters in humanity,

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/...-book.html

In my opinion the book's arguments are so fallacious and cheaply composed I doubt Flew would have signed off on it in sound mind, and Oppenheimer comes to much the same conclusion. It seems Flew simply trusted Vargheseand didn't even read the book being published in his name.