My Rebuttal to Dawkins Argument

[Minimalist]

Please, I would like it if you respect me as a human, and not use profanity.

I'm sure you'd like it but I am far too tired of you assholes acting as if your silly book is something special.  Give it a rest.  It's the same shit as the bible....maybe worse.

[dyresand]

Please, I would like it if you respect me as a human, and not use profanity.

I'm sure you'd like it but I am far too tired of you assholes acting as if your silly book is something special.  Give it a rest.  It's the same shit as the bible....maybe worse.

It's the same shit like the bible but get this ironically it's less violent than the FUCKING NT.

[Goosebump]

Seems like a troll got enough attention. Not sure if rock crushers are still in fashion.

[The Valkyrie]

I'm about to head off for a while folks.

But before I do, I would like to help Min a little with his anger issues:

So I give you kitties:




Bunnies:



And Gay Horses.

[Minimalist]

Fucking god.........

[Mohammed - Muslim and Proud]

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

The refutation has faulty reasoning.

If you disbelieve things because they go against the basis of science then why do you say it's obvious that a creator exists outside of space and time and creates things and does things but we can't understand.

It goes against science to just assume another dimension exists, that actions can be done outside of space and time.

I'd like to add that the point of the question is to show an infinite regression.  There's nothing wrong with the question who created God.

Basically this argument goes a bit like this

Man1) I can fly

Man2)how?

Man1) that question goes against science because the human body can't actually fly, what I'm obviously doing is going into another dimension, turning invisible, stopping time, then even though time is stopping I'm still moving because I'm in this other dimension that I can't prove exists.  This is how I managed to build the pryamids in ancient Egypt, either prove I definitely didn't do it or I'm right and I did do it.

You don't have wings

[ignoramus]

Min, that picture looks like a bachelor party gone too far with all that tomatoe sauce!
Anyway, he'll sleep it off for 3 days.....I'm sure he'll be fine.

[paulpablo]

The refutation has faulty reasoning.

If you disbelieve things because they go against the basis of science then why do you say it's obvious that a creator exists outside of space and time and creates things and does things but we can't understand.

It goes against science to just assume another dimension exists, that actions can be done outside of space and time.

I'd like to add that the point of the question is to show an infinite regression.  There's nothing wrong with the question who created God.

Basically this argument goes a bit like this

Man1) I can fly

Man2)how?

Man1) that question goes against science because the human body can't actually fly, what I'm obviously doing is going into another dimension, turning invisible, stopping time, then even though time is stopping I'm still moving because I'm in this other dimension that I can't prove exists.  This is how I managed to build the pryamids in ancient Egypt, either prove I definitely didn't do it or I'm right and I did do it.

You don't have wings

I agree.

[robvalue]

You can't prove I don't have wings.

[Mr.wizard]

The refutation has faulty reasoning.

If you disbelieve things because they go against the basis of science then why do you say it's obvious that a creator exists outside of space and time and creates things and does things but we can't understand.

It goes against science to just assume another dimension exists, that actions can be done outside of space and time.

I'd like to add that the point of the question is to show an infinite regression.  There's nothing wrong with the question who created God.

Basically this argument goes a bit like this

Man1) I can fly

Man2)how?

Man1) that question goes against science because the human body can't actually fly, what I'm obviously doing is going into another dimension, turning invisible, stopping time, then even though time is stopping I'm still moving because I'm in this other dimension that I can't prove exists.  This is how I managed to build the pryamids in ancient Egypt, either prove I definitely didn't do it or I'm right and I did do it.

You don't have wings

And you don't have a "creator" or an "outside of space and time".