My Rebuttal to Dawkins Argument

[Mister Agenda]

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

1. Argument from semantics? The meaning of a word doesn't prove anything about reality. If the word doesn't fit, it's not the right word.
2. Then you would be pretending an impersonal universe is equivalent to a personal creator.
3. You haven't established that those things require a creator. They may require a cause, which is not the same thing. God is not obviously out of space/time, God has been redefined so because he can't be found within space/time, so an ad hoc explanation of where he is was made up. There was no talk of the Abrahamic God being outside of space/time before Einstein. Plus, you've assumed God, which is the thing you're trying to prove.
4. Explanations DO require explanations, but the explanation for the explanation is often obvious. The regress stops when it hits verifiable facts.
5. And that something may well be quantum foam. I'm fascinated by how many of the attributes I'm often told God must possess are inherent to it.