My Rebuttal to Dawkins Argument

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

I'll take "The Universe" for $500, Alex (edit: Goddamnit, Whatevs got there first, that sly old bastard). It has tons more evidence, and doesn't ask me to believe horseshit. It presents brute reality, unlike any god you can name.

However, Flew is still making the same special-pleading fallacy Anselm did centuries ago. Just because he changed his mind doesn't mean he got it right.

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.

I respect you as a human, but I'm a cussing sonofabitch. How about you stop trying to tell me what to believe and how to talk, and I will respect your delicate sensibilities?

Do I go into your abode and start cussing? Why, then, should you come here and start preaching? Respect is a two-way street, pal.

It is too complex for science to understand at this point.

Then the obvious thing to say is, you don't know and neither do I, because your faith isn't knowledge any more than my truck is a ham sandwich.