When I picked up “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, I was expecting to encounter new reasons put forward to form a positive case for the Atheist worldview, but I have to say that I was disappointed. What I read were rehashed, incoherent arguments that made me realize that Richard Dawkins is not very well read in philosophy. In light of this I thought it would be useful to respond to his main arguments in the following way:

1. Respond to what Dawkins considers his central argument;
2. Respond to what Philosophers consider his best argument.

Responding to what Dawkins considers his central argument

On pages 157-158 of “The God Delusion,” Dawkins summarises what he calls “the central argument of my book”:

1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinism evolution by natural selection and we don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics.
5. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.

God almost certainly does not exist.

Preliminary Note

Before I go into Dawkins’ main points, I would like to address his conclusion “God almost certainly does not exist.” My main issue is – how does he conclude that God doesn’t exist from the above statements? It seems to me that his conclusion just jumps out of thin air, to infer that God does not exist just shows how invalid his argument is. It seems to me that the only delusion is Dawkins’ conviction that his argument is “a very serious argument against God’s existence.”

If we could conclude anything from Dawkins’ argument it would be that we should not infer that God exists based on the design of the universe. However, even if that is true, it doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist; we can believe in God’s existence from other arguments, which include:

• The argument from morality;
• The miracle of the Qur’an;
• The cosmological argument;
• The argument from personal experience;
• The argument from consciousness.

If we were to accept all of Dawkins’ statements, it would not be enough to reject the idea that God exists, and it certainly does not provide a case for Atheism. However, many of his statements are false. Let us take his statements and respond accordingly.

Statement #1: One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

I believe that it is only a challenge if you wish to take God out of the picture. It is indeed a challenge if you presume atheism to be true. However for someone who is reflective and thinks deeply about things, I think the simplest and the best explanation – with the greatest explanatory power – is that there is a supernatural designer. The next point will address why God makes sense of the design in the universe.

Statement #2: The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.

This is not only a natural temptation but a rational conclusion brought to light based upon the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe. Let me start off by presenting the premises of this argument:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe to permit life is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Explaining Premise One

The existence of a life permitting universe is due to conditions that must have been fined-tuned to a degree that is literally incalculable. Take the following examples:

• The Strength of Gravity & the Atomic Weak Force: Physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life permitting universe.

• Big Bang’s Low Entropy Condition: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010. Penrose comments, “I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010.”

• Volume of the phase space of possible universes: Roger Penrose of Oxford University states “In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes” Now, how tiny is this volume? According to Penrose the volume of the phase space would be 1/10 to the power of X which is 10123. This is smaller than the ratio of a Proton! This precision is much, much greater than the precision that would be required to hit an individual proton if the entire universe were a dartboard!

There are only three possible explanations for the presence of the above fine tuning of the universe:

1. Physical necessity;
2. Chance;
3. Design.

Why it cannot be Physical Necessity

The first alternative seems extraordinarily implausible. There is just no physical reason why these constants and quantities should have the values they do. As P. C. W. Davies states:

“Even if the laws of physics were unique, it doesn’t follow that the physical universe itself is unique…the laws of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions…there is nothing in present ideas about ‘laws of initial conditions’ remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply uniqueness. Far from it…it seems, then, that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise.”

Additionally if anyone was to take the view that the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life is due to physical necessity that would mean that it would be impossible to have a universe not fit for life! However as can be seen by the examples above, a slight change of any of the values or constants would mean the universe could not permit life.

Why it cannot be Chance

Some people who do not understand the impossibility of the universe coming into being by chance exclaim, “It could have happened by chance!” However would they say chance explains how an elephant was sleeping in their garage overnight? Or how a 747 ended up parked in their garden?Even after their irrational perspective is highlighted, they still hold on to the theory that the universe can exist due to chance. In response to this I would argue that it is not just about chance but something the theorists call “specified probability.”

Specified probability is a probability that also conforms to an independent pattern. To illustrate this, imagine you have a monkey in a room for twenty-four hours, typing a way on your laptop. In the morning you enter the room and you see, “O Romeo, O Romeo, where art thou O Romeo? Deny thy father and deny thy name…” The monkey has miraculously written out a Shakespearian sonnet! What you may have expected is random words such as “house,” “car,” and “apple.” However, in this case not only have you seen the improbability of typing intelligible English words – but they also conform to the independent pattern of English grammar! This is the same case with accepting that the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life was just by chance.

It must be Design

Since premises one and two are true, it follows that supernatural design is the most reasonable explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life.

Statement #3: The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.

The above statement, which is a contention to the design argument is flawed for two main reasons. Firstly, anyone with a basic understanding of the philosophy of science will conclude that in the inference to the best explanation, the best explanation does not require an explanation! The following example illustrates this point.Imagine 500 years from now, a group of archaeologists start digging in London’s Hyde Park only to find parts of a car and a bus. They would be completely justified in inferring that these finds were not the result of sedimentation and metamorphosis but products of an unknown civilization. However if some skeptics were to argue that we cannot make such inferences because we do not know anything about this civilization, how they lived and who created them, would that make the archaeologists conclusions untrue? Of course not!

Secondly, if we take this contention seriously it could undermine the very foundations of science and philosophy themselves. If we require an explanation for the basic assumptions of science, for example that the external world exists, where do you think our level of scientific progress would be?Additionally if we were to apply this type of question to every attempt at explaining the explanation, we would end up with an infinite regression of explanations. And an infinite regression of explanations would defeat the whole purpose of science in the first place – which is to provide an explanation!

A Note on Rejecting the Supernatural

Dawkins’ also rejects a supernatural designer because he thinks, as an explanation, it lack explanatory power; in other words, no advance is made. He raises this objection because he feels that a supernatural designer is just as complex as design. However Dawkins’ objection is problematic as he assumes that a supernatural designer is as complex as the universe. But a supernatural designer, in other words God, is one of the simplest concepts understood by all. This opinion is expressed by many Philosophers including the famous atheist turned theist Professor Anthony Flew.

Dawkins’ other assumption is that God is made of many parts; however, God is immaterial, transcendent and one. Just because God can do complex things does not make him complex, it seems to me that Dawkins confuses ability with nature. In other words, just because God can do complex things (such as creating the universe) it does not make His nature complex.So it stands to reason that God is the simplest, and therefore the best, explanation.

Statement #4: The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinism evolution by natural selection and and we don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics.This statement is irrelevant due to the following reasons:

1. Evolution does not have its foot in the door;
2. Evolution is based upon incalculable probabilities;
3. Evolution is impossible because we have not spent enough time on Earth yet.

Let me expand upon these points.

1. Evolution does not have its foot in the door

With regards to the existence of God, evolution does not even have its foot in the door; it’s about nine billion years away if we use the fine-tuning argument mentioned above. Simply put, evolution has no say.

2. Evolution is based upon incalculable probabilities

The odds against assembling the human genome spontaneously are incalculable. The probability of assembling the genome is between 4-180 to 4-110,000 and 4-360 to 4-110,000. These numbers give some feel for the unlikelihood of the species Homo sapiens. And if anyone were to accept evolution by chance, they would have to believe in a miracle as these numbers are so high! Therefore evolution itself would prove the existence of God!

3. Evolution is impossible because we have not had enough time on Earth yet

According to John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, the calculated odds of assembling a single gene are between and 4-180 to 4-360. The implications of this are that there simply has not been sufficient time since the formation of the earth to try a number of nucleotide base combinations that can even remotely compare to these numbers!

Statement #5: We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.

Dawkins basically says that since there is a naturalistic explanation for the apparent design in species and we do not have a similar explanation for physics, we should just wait. Does this not sound like blind faith to you? The statement presumes scientific naturalism to be the only way of establishing facts or sound conclusions. Why else would he want to wait for a naturalistic explanation? Dawkins’ presumption that scientific naturalism is the only way to establish facts is not true because scientific naturalism cannot prove:

1. Logical truths such as mathematics – in actuality, logical truths are required to prove scientific naturalism. To argue the other way round would be tantamount to arguing in a circle.
2. Aesthetic truths such as beauty.
3. Moral truths such as right and wrong.

Finally, scientific naturalism is self-defeating as the statement “scientific naturalism is the only method to use to establish facts” cannot be proven using scientific naturalism!

It can be seen from the above that Dawkins’ central argument fails and is an embarrassment to the scientific community, as atheist Philosopher Michael Ruse explains,

“unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, “What caused God?” as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery.”

Responding to what Philosophers consider his best argument

According to Philosopher and lecturer at Yale University, Gregory E. Granssle, Dawkins’ strongest argument can be found on page 55:

“A universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without.”

Dawkins’ argument can be summarised in the following way:

1. A universe created by God would be different than the one created by nature;
2. The universe we live in fits better to a universe created by nature;
3. Therefore the universe we live in is most likely to have been created by nature.

I would argue that Dawkins’ argument couldn’t be any further away from the truth; this is because the universe that we live in actually makes more sense being created by God for the following reasons.

1. The universe is ordered and open to rational anaylsis

If God did not exist, the universe would not display the order it does, and it would not be finely-tuned to permit our existence. Professor Roger Penrose states, “There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance…I don’t think that’s a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe.”

Additionally, the very fact that we can observe and perform rational analysis on the patterns we perceive in the universe makes more sense if God did exist, because in a naturalistic universe things would be expected to be more chaotic. This does not mean a universe without a God could not be ordered; however it is more likely that God would create an ordered universe, and since the universe we live in is ordered it makes sense that God’s existence fits well with our universe

2. The universe contains conscious and aware beings

A universe that contains consciousness and awareness makes sense with the existence of God. A universe without a God would be very different to the one we are living in.Explanation

Human beings experience things all the time. This article you are reading is an experience; even talking about your experience is an experience. However the ultimate reality that we know from any experience is the one who experiences it – in other words ourselves. When we realise that there is a first-person, an “I”, “me” or “mine,” we come to face a profound mystery. The Philosopher Roy Abraham Varghese puts it nicely when he wrote, “To reverse Descartes, ‘I am, therefore I think…’ Who is this ‘I’? ‘Where’ is it? How did it come to be? Your self is not just something physical.”

The self is not a physical thing; it is not contained in any cell or biological structure. The most unchallenged and intuitive reality is that we are all aware, but we cannot describe or explain what this awareness is. One thing that we can be sure of is that the self cannot be explained biologically or chemically. The main reason for this is that science does not discover the self; it is actually the other way round. For science to try and explain the truth of the self would be tantamount to arguing in a circle! Even scientists recognise this; the physicist Gerald Schroeder points out that there is no real difference between a heap of sand and the brain of an Einstein. The advocates of a physical explanation for the self end up in a muddle as they require answers to even bigger questions, such as “How can certain bits of matter suddenly create a new reality that has no resemblance to matter?”So if the self cannot be explained physically then the next question must be asked: “How did it come to be?” The history of the universe indicates that consciousness spontaneously arose, and language emerged without any evolutionary forerunner. So where did it come from? Even the neo-atheists have failed to come to terms with the nature of the self and its source, because no physical explanation is coherent enough to be convincing. Even Richard Dawkins almost admits defeat concerning the self and consciousness; he states, “We don’t know. We don’t understand it.”

The best explanation for the nature and source of the self is that it came from a source that is thinking, aware and conscious. How else can the self, which is an entity with a capacity to reflect and experience, manifest itself? It cannot have come from unconscious matter incapable to experience and ponder. Simply put, matter cannot produce concepts and perceptions, therefore we can conclude that the self cannot have a material basis but must have come from a living source that transcends the material world; and this is best explained by God. No other answer provides an adequate explanation for this phenomenon.

3. The universe contains objective morality

We all believe that killing 6 million Jews during World War II was morally wrong, however not only do we believe it was morally wrong we believe it was objectively morally wrong. What I mean by objective is that if the Nazis had successfully taken over Europe and brainwashed us to believe that it was ok to commit genocide, it would still be objectively morally wrong regardless of human experience. However since our universe contains objective morality then it can only make sense with God’s existence, because God is required as rational basis for objective morality. Without God morality is subjective, because God is the only conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity. So the universe with objective morality makes no sense without God. In this light the Muslim or theist may argue:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist;
2. The universe with objective moral values does exist;
3. Therefore, God exists.Explaining the key premise

The question about objective good or bad, in other words objective morality, has been discussed by many theists and non-theists alike. Many have concluded that there is no objective morality without God. Humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz aptly puts it as,

“The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”

Paul Kurtz is right; God is the only conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity, so without God there is no rational basis for objective morality. To explain this further let us discuss alternative conceptual foundations for morality.In God’s absence, there are only two alternative conceptual foundations

1. Social pressure
2. Evolution

Both social pressures and evolution provide no objective basis for morality as they both claim that our morality is contingent on changes: biological and social. Therefore morality cannot be binding – true regardless of who believes in them. Therefore without God, there is no objective basis for morality. God as a concept is not subjective, therefore having God as the basis for morality makes them binding and objective, because God transcends human subjectivity. The following statement by Richard Taylor, an eminent ethicist, correctly concludes,

“Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.”

Since the universe contains objective morality, and Gods existence is necessary as a conceptual foundation for objective morals, then the universe we live in makes sense with the existence of God.

A Quick Note on Religious “Evils”

Before I conclude I would like to highlight that a response to Dawkins’ other contentions with the concept of God and religious life. Dawkins seems to attribute all the negative and evil things to religion. However there is a strong argument that these things are not unique to religion itself, but the common conceptual dominator is humanity. This is summarised well by Keith Ward, the former Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford, he writes,

“It is very difficult to think of any organised human activity that could not be corrupted…The lesson is that anti-religious corruptions and religious corruptions are both possible. There is no magic system or belief, not even belief in liberal democracy, which can be guaranteed to prevent it.”

To illustrate this let me use the outdated cliché of “religions are the cause war and conflict” and show how war and conflict are not unique to religions. In the relatively short history of secularism the following massacres have committed in the name of non-religious ideologies such a communism and social-Darwinism:

• 70,000,000 under chairman Mao
• 20,000,000 under Stalin
• 2,000,000 no longer exist because of Pol Pot
• 700,000 innocent Iraqi’s in the current occupation
• 500,000 Iraqi children in the 10 year sanctions

So it can be clearly seen above that war and conflict are not religious monopolies, rather they are human phenomena and not unique to religion.

Conclusion

This article attempted to respond to Richard Dawkins’ best-seller “The God Delusion” by responding to his central argument and the argument that Philosophers consider to be his best. However, intellectual gymnastics – no matter how truthful – seldom convinces others, so I thought it would best to allow the expression of God – the Qur’an – to have the final say. In the wonderful eloquence and sublime style God says,

“In the creation of the heavens and Earth, and the alternation of the night and day, and the ships which sail the seas to people’s benefit, and the water which God sends down from the sky – by which He brings the Earth to life when it was dead and scatters about in it creatures of every kind – and the varying direction of the winds, and the clouds subservient between heaven and Earth, there are signs for people who use their intellect.” Qur’an, 2:164

Hamza Tzortzis
http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/?page_id=77

Very well articulated.

Richard Dawkins, it is widely known, is an air-head.

@tbaba1234:
I see that you disagree with Dawkins, You and few billion other theists. Nothing new about that.
But your attempt at discrediting his arguments fell flaton its face. You know why? Nearly all theist defend their belief in the same way: with passions rather than reason ,simply because religious belief is subjective. From your arguments above, one can see you that you have a strong belief in a creator ,so you and others think that based on your subjective reality, you can make a case for the exisitence of god.

Your post is full of so many fallacies, your arguments are so convoluted and foggy that it seems you are posting for elemetary school children rather than intelligent adults. i dont even know where to start  to refute your arguments since nearly everything you said are factually incorrect.

Let me attempt to point out some of your errors. example. you said that dawkins feels that the idea of  a supernatural designer is as complex as the design.You cannot say that god designed the universe without attempting to explain who or what god is. You then went ahead to say that, it stands to reason(to whom, you?) that god is the simplest and therefore the best explanation(in the same way that god's anger was the simplest and best way to explain thunderstorm to stone age cave men? and evil spirits were also the simplest way to explain illness and death?). not so?
Its human nature to seek simplistic answers to complex questions. the idea of god is simpler and best explaination for you because its like a  cup of cocoa,you can make it cold, you can make it warm or you can make hot, buts its always feels good to have one.

There has always been a limit to we know  and understand at any point in our history. Not knowing somethinfg does not somehow make that thing  attributable to god. The primitive caveman and his idea of the source of thunderstorm is not valid to today simply because we know more about the physical universe than the  caveman. We do not, at this time ,fully understand human consciousness. so what? we are still trying to understand how the simplest life form began here on earth. So what? Because we dont know , it has to be god?
I am sure you will aslo tell me that god created himself, right? how? from spontaneous generation? Pls address your thoughts on that question for us.

It is such a logical folly when people say that only god could have designed and created the universe, but that god is selfcreated or self existence . Why cant the universe be self created and self-existence as well?
Yes, evolution is based on incalculable odds. Its a trial and error machanism, but 12 billion yrs for the universe and 4.7 billion yrs for the earth is well enough time to hit many many evolutionary jackpots.
Everyone of you claim that the universe was designed and therefore had a purpose , but you never ever speculate what that purpose might be. After 12 billion yrs , should the purpose be clearly manifest and be self-efident? Unless, ofcourse, you subscribe to the notion that god created the universe 12 billion years ago and waited to create the earth 4.7 billion yrs ago and  then wated for humans to come along about 50-100 thousand yrs ago so that we can grow and multiply and worship him?.
What is jupiter, a lifeless gaseous gint, 800 times the  size of the earth, doing in our solar system. what is its purpose? and saturn, what is the purpose of the rings around saturn? what is the purpose of microscopic germs in creation? To harm and kill us when we are naughty?
How about sicle cell anemia, does that also have a purpose or was that an error by an omnipotent designer?
Sickle-cell anemia, for me is probably the most visible evidence of the evolotionary process because it shows the cell actually evolving in a desperate  attempt to adapt and survive a hostile and threatening enviroment. Since evolotion is a trial and error mechanism, the resultant sickle cell is the error phase of that mechanism. In time , perhaps tens of thousands or million yrs, this mechanism will self correct by trying billions and billions of dna configurations to correct that anomaly. the species may in that period perish or survive with new capablilities.

What is objective morality, and what does it  have to with god? What morality and whose morality? . Morality, just like the notion of god, is very very fluid and subjective. How does the universe contain objective morality? na wa o.Do you think you really know what is good or bad?

From you:
In the relatively short history of secularism the following massacres have committed in the name of non-religious ideologies such a communism and social-Darwinism:

• 70,000,000 under chairman Mao
• 20,000,000 under Stalin
• 2,000,000 no longer exist because of Pol Pot
• 700,000 innocent Iraqi’s in the current occupation
• 500,000 Iraqi children in the 10 year sanctions
This is very very dishonest. I dont see the relatonship of saying one does not believe in a creator , with communism. The characters above were not leaders of athiests nor did they kill in the name of athiesm. what does Iraqi sanctions , war and occupation have to do with athiesm? ? n a wa o. was it not gorge bush, a born again christian and his  christian conservatives that invaded Iraq? are you trying to rewrite history?

Anyway, I have tried my best to address some of your fallacies. Your write-up is much too convoluted and incoherent. i think you took many ideas from many different sources and tried to patch them together into coherent argument. you failed.
You believe in god with all your being , that is ok, but you can not make a case for god in any debate. Its just not possible.There are no facts, no connecting dots, not even anectodal evidence, just wishful conjectures.

@plaetton
I am glad you are willing to engage,

Your reply shows that you failed to logically follow the relatively simple steps laid out, I would try to address your concerns by answering the simple question of a creator

Let's reason together then:

Lets prove God logically, Please be patient and read carefully,

When we reflect upon our own existence we will come to the realisation, that at some point in time, we began to exist. Since we were once non-existent and are now in existence, it follows that we must have had a beginning.

Things that began to exist were either:-

1. Created or brought into being from nothing
2. Self caused or self created
3. Created or brought into being by something else that began to exist
4. Created or brought into being by a non-created or un-caused entity

First of all let's answer the first question

Did the universe begin to exist?

To substantiate the view that the universe began to exist we can bring into our discussion a plethora of philosophical and inductive arguments:

1. The second law of thermodynamic
2. The absurdity of an infinite history of past events
3. Astrophysical evidence

1. The second law of thermodynamics

The concept of entropy was introduced to explain the direction of various processes that occur in the natural world. Entropy is a measure of how evenly energy is distributed in a system. For example, heat always flows from a body of a higher temperature or energy (low entropy) to one of a lower temperature or energy (high entropy).Hence, according to the second law of thermodynamics, processes in a closed system tend towards higher entropy, as their energy is being used.

Applying the second law of thermodynamics to the universe we will conclude that it must have began to exist. Since the universe is a closed system, with enough time the universe will suffer a heat death or thermodynamic equilibrium. When systems are in thermodynamic equilibrium, they cannot transfer energy. This is because entropy can only increase over time. Therefore, as the universe continues to expand it will eventually become cold and dead. However this raises a question, if the universe never began to exist it would imply that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. If this is true then why isn’t the universe already in a state of heat death? This strongly suggests that the universe must have had a beginning, because if it didn’t it would imply that it has existed for an infinite amount of time, which would mean that it should already have suffered a heat death. Since it hasn’t suffered a heat death, it strongly indicates that the universe is finite, meaning it began to exist.

2. The absurdity of an infinite history of past events

Some philosophers such as Bertrand Russell argued that the universe is eternal, meaning it has no beginning and it will never end. However if we think about this we will conclude that this position is irrational. If the universe never had a beginning it means there must be an infinite history of past events. Yet does an actual infinite exist in the real world? Is it possible?

The concept of the actual infinite cannot be exported into the real world, because it leads to contradictions and doesn’t make sense. Let’s take the following examples to illustrate this point:

1. Say you have an infinite number of balls, if I take 2 balls away, how many do you have left? Infinity. Does that make sense? Well, there should be two less than infinity, and if there is, then we should be able to count how many balls you have. But this is impossible, because the infinite is just an idea and doesn’t exist in the real world. In light of this fact the famous German mathematician David Hilbert said,

“The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought…the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.”[2]

2. Imagine you are a soldier ready to fire a gun, but before you shoot you have to ask permission for the soldier behind you, but he has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever shoot? No you wouldn’t. This highlights, the absurdity of an infinite regress and this applies to events to. Therefore, there cannot be an infinite history of past events.

3. Astrophysical evidence

The ‘Big Bang’ is the prevailing theory in cosmology. It was first formulated by the aid of some observations made by an American Astronomer called Edwin Hubble. While Hubble was trying to understand the size of the universe, he observed immensely luminous stars called Cepheid Variables and noticed something peculiar. He observed that some of these stars were further away than initially anticipated, and that their colour was slightly changed, shifting towards red, something now known as red-shift. From Hubble’s observations we were able conclude that everything seems to be moving away from each other, in other words the universe is effectively expanding. As time moves on the universe continues to expand, but if time is reversed, the theory is that everything starts to coalesce and come together. Coupled with the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the radiation uniformly filling the observable universe, the idea of the ‘Big Bang’ was born. In other words the universe began at a cataclysmic event which created space-time and all matter in the universe. The physicist P. C. W. Davies explains,

“If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.”[4]

Although our understanding of what happened 10-43 seconds after the ‘Big Bang’ is highly speculative, astrophysicists now concede little doubt that this universe in which we live is the aftermath of the emergence and expansion of space-time, which occurred approximately 14 billion years ago. John Gribbin, an astrophysicist at Cambridge University, summarises the importance of ‘Big Bang’ cosmology,

Now that we have proven that we do not leave in an infinite universe, Let's examine the options

The Universe  that began to exist was either:-

1. Created or brought into being from nothing
2. Self caused or self created
3. Created or brought into being by something else that began to exist
4. Created or brought into being by a non-created or un-caused entity

1. Created or brought into being from nothing

We know the universe couldn’t have come out of nothing, because out of nothing, nothing comes! This is an undeniable philosophical principle, as P. J. Zwart in his publication About Time explains,

“If there is anything we find inconceivable it is that something could arise from nothing.”[8]

A significant point to raise here is that nothingness should not be misconstrued as the nothingness that some physicists talk about. The term nothingness in this context refers to the absence of anything physical, in other words there is no pre-existing ‘stuff’. In light of the beginning of the universe, there was absolutely nothing before it began to exist, which is why physicists have explained the universe as having a space-time boundary.

However, nothingness as defined by some physicists relates to the quantum vacuum. This is misleading because the quantum is something. In quantum theory the vacuum is a field of energy pervading the whole of the universe. In the word’s of John Polkinghorne, a philosopher of science, the quantum vacuum,

“…is not ‘nothing’; it is a structured and highly active entity.”[9]

So, in context of some of the physicists’ definition, the universe could not have come from absolutely nothing, as the quantum vacuum is something. It is a sea of fluctuating energy, which is still part of the cosmos and it did not pre-exist the universe. This point leads us nicely to the next possible explanation.

2. Self caused or self created

Philosophically, the universe couldn’t have created itself because that would imply a paradox. It would mean that something can exist and not exist at the same time. The logical ends of this explanation are tantamount to saying that your mother gave birth to herself!

Recently, the world renowned physicist, Stephen Hawking in his new book The Grand Design argues that the universe did self create due to the law of gravity,

“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing…”[10]

But his view on nothing, as previously mentioned, is not really nothingness but is space filled with the quantum vacuum, which is part of the universe. In essence Hawking is telling us that the universe can create itself, but it has to already exist for it to do that!

Concerning the law of gravity, well that is just a mathematical equation that describes nature. This law is part of the universe, which can also be described as a force of attraction between material objects. Therefore, how can this force exist before matter, in other words the universe?

To assert that the universe created itself would be absurd and self refuting, because in order for something to create itself it would need to exist before it existed!

3. Created or brought into being by something else that began to exist

This is not an adequate explanation for the origins of the universe. The universe could not have owed its existence to another state of temporal physical existence. To maintain such an explanation would be equivalent of expanding the boundaries of the universe, as all things which have a temporal beginning exist within the universe. Also, if temporal physical existence owes itself to another temporal physical existence ad infinitum, it doesn’t explain anything. Rather it highlights the absurdity of an infinite regress, and that there has to be a beginning to the temporal physical states, which logically must be a non-physical state.

Take the following example into consideration. If the universe, U1, followed another temporal cause U2, and U2 followed another temporal cause U3, and this went on ad infinitum we wouldn’t have the universe U1 in the first place. Think about it this way, when does U1 come into being? Only after U2 has come into being. When does U2 come into being? Only after U3 has come into being. This same problem will continue even if we go to infinity. If U1 depended on its coming into being on a chain of infinite temporal causes, U1 would never exist. As the Islamic Philosopher and Scholar Dr. Jaafar Idris writes,

“There would be no series of actual causes, but only a series of non-existents, as Ibn Taymiyyah explained. The fact, however, is that there are existents around us; therefore, their ultimate cause must be something other than temporal causes.”[11]

4. Created or brought into being by a non-created or un-caused entity

Since something cannot come from nothing, and self creation is absurd, including the unreasonableness of the aforementioned explanation, then the universe being created or brought into existence by an uncaused entity is the best explanation. This concept is intuitive but also agrees with reality: whatever begins to exist has a cause or a creator.

This cause or creator must be uncaused due to the absurdity of an infinite regress, in other words an indefinite chain of causes. To illustrate this better, if the cause of the universe had a cause and that cause had a cause ad infinitum, then there wouldn’t be a universe to talk about in the first place (something we have already discussed above). For example, imagine if a Stock Trader on a trading floor at the Stock Exchange was not able to buy or sell his stocks or bonds before asking permission from the investor, and then this investor had to check with his, and this went on forever, would the Stock Trader every buy or sell his stocks or bonds? The answer is no. In similar light if we apply this to the universe we would have to posit an uncaused cause due to this rational necessity. The Qur’an confirms the uncreatedness of the creator, God,

“He neither begets nor is born.” Qur’an 112:3

The cause or creator for the universe must be a single cause for several reasons. An attractive argument to substantiate this claim includes the use of the rational principle called Occam’s razor. In philosophical terms the principle enjoins that we do not multiply entities beyond necessity. What this basically means is that we should stick to explanations that do not create more questions than it answers. In the context of the cause for the universe we have no evidence to claim multiplicity, in other words more than one. The Qur’an affirms the Oneness of the creator,

“Say: He is God, [who is] One.” Qur’an 112:1

However some philosophers and scientists claim: why doesn’t the cause be the universe itself? Why can’t the cause stop at the universe? Well, the problem with these claims is that they would imply that the universe created itself, which we have already discussed, is absurd. Additionally, we have good reasons to postulate a cause for the universe because the universe began to exist, and what begins to exist has a cause.

Our argument thus far allows us to conclude that this cause or creator must be non contingent meaning that its existence is dependent on nothing but itself. If it were contingent it would be one more effect in the chain of causes. The Qur’an verifies this,

“God is Independent of (all) creatures.” Qur’an 3:97

The cause or creator must also be transcendent, this means that the cause of the universe must exist outside of and apart from the universe. Since this being exists apart from the universe it must be non-physical or immaterial, if it was material then it would be part of the universe. This is confirmed in the Qur’an,

“There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing” Qur’an 42:11

This cause must have the power to create the universe, without this ability nothing could be created. The Qur’an testifies to God’s power,

“Certainly, God has power over all things.” Qur’an 2:20

This cause must have a will, because it wouldn’t be able to create the universe without one. What this means is that it must have a will so the power to create could be acted on. The Qur’an refers to God as having a will in many places, for instance,

“And God guides whom He wills to a straight path.” Qur’an 2:213

In summary, we have concluded what the Qur’an concluded over 1400 years ago, that a creator for the universe exists, that is one, has a will, is powerful, uncaused, immaterial and eternal.

Quantum Physics Undermines the Argument

A common contention to the central argument made in this essay is that the assumption – whatever begins to exist has a cause – is false. This is due to the apparent observations in the quantum vacuum that sub-atomic events behave spontaneously without any causes. In light of this common contention there are some good objections we can raise:

1. Firstly, the view that some events just happen, also known as indeterminism, for no reason at all is impossible to prove conclusively. Our inability to identify a cause does not necessarily mean that there is no cause.

2. Secondly, there are deterministic perspectives adopted by physicists to explain these so-called spontaneous sub-atomic events. For instance in the 1950s David Bohm showed there was an alternative formulation of quantum theory that is fully deterministic in its basic structure. [12] Commenting on Bohm’s theory Polkinghorne explains,

“In Bohm’s theory there are particles which are as unproblematically objective and deterministic in their behaviour as Sir Isaac Newton himself might have wished them to be. However, there is also a hidden wave, encoding information about the whole environment. It is not itself directly observable, but it influences in a subtle and highly sensitive manner the motions of the particles in just such a way as to induce the experimentally observed probabilistic effects.”[13]

What this means is that the apparent indeterminism present at the quantum level can be explained deterministically by this hidden wave that produces observed indeterministic or probabilistic effects.

However, since these two interpretations of quantum theory are empirically equivalent the choice between them will not be based on a scientific decision but on a metaphysical one. This leads to the philosophical objection to this contention.

3. Thirdly, from a philosophical perspective it is extremely difficult for these physicists (who adopt an indeterministic explanation of sub-atomic events) to justify their conclusions. This is because without the concept of causality we will not have the mental framework to understand our observations and experiences. In philosophical terms causality is a priori, which means knowledge we have independent of any experience. We know causality is true because we bring it to all our experience, rather than our experience bringing it to us. It is like wearing yellow-tinted glasses, everything looks yellow not because of anything out there in the world, but because of the glasses through which we are looking at everything. Take the following example into consideration; imagine you are looking at the White House in Washington DC. Your eyes may wonder to the door, across the pillars, then to the roof and finally over to the front lawn. Now contrast this to another experience, you are on the river Thames in London and you see a boat floating past. What dictates the order in which you had these experiences? When you looked at the White House you had a choice to see the door first and then the pillars and so on. However, with the boat you had no choice as the front of the boat was the first to appear.

The point to take here is that you would not have been able to make the distinction that some experiences are ordered by yourself and others are ordered independently, unless we had the concept of causality. In absence of causality our experience would be very different from the way it is. It would be a single sequence of experiences only: one thing after another. So to accept that sub-atomic events do not correspond with causality would be tantamount of denying our own experience!

Check https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-799964.0.html

Please check out the videos https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-799964.0.html

Now that i have addressed the question of God:: Let's go back to Mr Dawkins arguments shall we?

plaetton:

@tbaba1234:
I see that you disagree with Dawkins, You and few billion other theists. Nothing new about that.
But your attempt at discrediting his arguments fell flaton its face. You know why? Nearly all theist defend their belief in the same way: with passions rather than reason ,simply because religious belief is subjective. From your arguments above, one can see you that you have a strong belief in a creator ,so you and others think that based on your subjective reality, you can make a case for the exisitence of god.

I have given you a logical reasons to believe in God:: Now your challenge is simple:: Counter any of the assertions without using emotions,

plaetton:

Let me attempt to point out some of your errors. example. you said that dawkins feels that the idea of  a supernatural designer is as complex as the design.You cannot say that god designed the universe without attempting to explain who or what god is. You then went ahead to say that, it stands to reason(to whom, you?) that god is the simplest and therefore the best explanation(in the same way that god's anger was the simplest and best way to explain thunderstorm to stone age cave men? and evil spirits were also the simplest way to explain illness and death?). not so?
Its human nature to seek simplistic answers to complex questions. the idea of god is simpler and best explaination for you because its like a  cup of cocoa,you can make it cold, you can make it warm or you can make hot, buts its always feels good to have one.

My argument for God above explains that much; Counter my arguments for God logically,

plaetton:

There has always been a limit to we know  and understand at any point in our history. Not knowing somethinfg does not somehow make that thing  attributable to god. The primitive caveman and his idea of the source of thunderstorm is not valid to today simply because we know more about the physical universe than the  caveman. We do not, at this time ,fully understand human consciousness. so what? we are still trying to understand how the simplest life form began here on earth. So what? Because we dont know , it has to be god?
I am sure you will aslo tell me that god created himself, right? how? from spontaneous generation? Pls address your thoughts on that question for us.

See as i proved above, the Universe must have been created by an uncreated being simply because of absurdity of an infinite regress of causes,
If you ask the question of who created the creator?
Then nothing stops us from asking " Who created the creator that created the creator?
Let's continue: Who created the creator that created the creator that created the creator?

If we continue like this, will there ever be a Universe? The best explanation is that the creator just is and was not created, Please read my explanations above,

plaetton:

@tbaba1234:
It is such a logical folly when people say that only god could have designed and created the universe, but that god is selfcreated or self existence . Why cant the universe be self created and self-existence as well?
Yes, evolution is based on incalculable odds. Its a trial and error machanism, but 12 billion yrs for the universe and 4.7 billion yrs for the earth is well enough time to hit many many evolutionary jackpots.
Everyone of you claim that the universe was designed and therefore had a purpose , but you never ever speculate what that purpose might be. After 12 billion yrs , should the purpose be clearly manifest and be self-efident? Unless, ofcourse, you subscribe to the notion that god created the universe 12 billion years ago and waited to create the earth 4.7 billion yrs ago and  then wated for humans to come along about 50-100 thousand yrs ago so that we can grow and multiply and worship him?.
What is jupiter, a lifeless gaseous gint, 800 times the  size of the earth, doing in our solar system. what is its purpose? and saturn, what is the purpose of the rings around saturn? what is the purpose of microscopic germs in creation? To harm and kill us when we are naughty?
How about sicle cell anemia, does that also have a purpose or was that an error by an omnipotent designer?
Sickle-cell anemia, for me is probably the most visible evidence of the evolotionary process because it shows the cell actually evolving in a desperate  attempt to adapt and survive a hostile and threatening enviroment. Since evolotion is a trial and error mechanism, the resultant sickle cell is the error phase of that mechanism. In time , perhaps tens of thousands or million yrs, this mechanism will self correct by trying billions and billions of dna configurations to correct that anomaly. the species may in that period perish or survive with new capablilities.

You did well until this point when you came with emotional arguments:: My next post https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-801621.0.html#msg9536345 addresses the problem of evil (sickle cell aneamia + natural disasters) , Please refer to that post and read patiently,

plaetton:

What is objective morality, and what does it  have to with god? What morality and whose morality? . Morality, just like the notion of god, is very very fluid and subjective. How does the universe contain objective morality? na wa o.Do you think you really know what is good or bad?

Exactly, that is why i say that God is the only objective anchor for Good and Evil:: The need for an objective Good and evil is informed by the fact that .In God’s absence, there are only two alternative conceptual foundations

1. Social pressure
2. Evolution

None of which is objective:::::

plaetton:

From you:
In the relatively short history of secularism the following massacres have committed in the name of non-religious ideologies such a communism and social-Darwinism:

• 70,000,000 under chairman Mao
• 20,000,000 under Stalin
• 2,000,000 no longer exist because of Pol Pot
• 700,000 innocent Iraqi’s in the current occupation
• 500,000 Iraqi children in the 10 year sanctions
This is very very dishonest. I dont see the relatonship of saying one does not believe in a creator , with communism. The characters above were not leaders of athiests nor did they kill in the name of athiesm. what does Iraqi sanctions , war and occupation have to do with athiesm? ? n a wa o. was it not gorge bush, a born again christian and his  christian conservatives that invaded Iraq? are you trying to rewrite history?

This is in response to Mr dawkins accusations of religion causing deaths: This just shows that in secular societies, we have lost more life than in the history of mankind>>>

References

[1] Derek Parfit, “Why Anything? Why This?” London Review of Books 20/2 (January 22, 1998), page 24.
[2] David Hilbert. On the Infinite, in Philosophy of Mathematics, ed. with an Intro. by P. Benacerraf and H. Putnam. Prentice-Hall. 1964, page151.
[3] Aristotle, Physics 207b8 (available online here http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.html)
[4] P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1978), pages 78–79.
[5] John Gribbin, In the Beginning: The Birth of the Living Universe (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1993), page 19.
[6] Alex Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universe. Hill and Wang. 2006, page 176.
[7] Paul Davies, “The Birth of the Cosmos,” in God, Cosmos, Nature and Creativity, ed. Jill Gready (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1995), pages. 8-9.
[8] P. J. Zwart, About Time (Amsterdam and Oxford: North Holland Publishing Co., 1976), pages 117-19
[9] John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale. Questions of Truth. 2009, page 41
[10] Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. The Grand Design. 2011, page 180.
[11] http://www.jaafaridris.com/English/Books/physicists.htm accessed 1 October 2011, 10:32AM.
[12] See D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley. The Undivided Universe. Routledge, 1993.
[13] John Polkinghorne. Science and Religion in Quest of Truth. SPCK. 2011, page 39

Any other objections?

tbaba1234:

Any other objections?

Which God are you defending?

to understand the God Delusion you must understand English.

Debate: Is God a delusion?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-nULVvgbx0&feature=autoplay&list=PL1E634D387E3E5D4C&lf=PlayList&playnext=1

Platteon will appear to reject any views, no matter how logically advanced, that are Theistic.

tbaba1234:

Any other objections?

You are here again?

God Delusion is a masterpiece, if you can't understand it, ask for help

Surely anyone who has any sense knows by now that "The God Delusion" is hogwash and a sheer rubbish piece of work! Heck, even some of the more honest among the atheists' own intellectuals say it is rubbish: for example Michael Ruse says

The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.

For a review that is still relatively easy enough to follow, see http://www.alternet.org/media/47052?page=entire

Extract

In one of his more bizarre creedal statements as an atheist, Dawkins insists that there is "not the smallest evidence" that atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. It's an astonishing, naïve, and somewhat sad statement. The facts are otherwise. In their efforts to enforce their atheist ideology, the Soviet authorities systematically destroyed and eliminated the vast majority of churches and priests during the period 1918-41. The statistics make for dreadful reading. This violence and repression was undertaken in pursuit of an atheist agenda -- the elimination of religion. This doesn't fit with Dawkins' highly sanitized, idealized picture of atheism. Dawkins is clearly an ivory tower atheist, disconnected from the real and brutal world of the twentieth century.

Dawkins develops a criticism that is often directed against religion in works of atheist apologetics -- namely, that it encourages the formation and maintenance of "in-groups" and "out-groups." For Dawkins, removing religion is essential if this form of social demarcation and discrimination is to be defeated. But what, many will wonder, about Jesus of Nazareth? Wasn't this a core theme of his teaching -- that the love of God transcends, and subsequently abrogates, such social divisions?

Dawkins' analysis here is unacceptable. There are points at which his ignorance of religion ceases to be amusing, and simply becomes risible. In dealing with this question he draws extensively on a paper published in Skeptic magazine in 1995 by John Hartung, which asserts that -- and here I cite Dawkin's summary: Jesus was a devotee of the same in-group morality -- coupled with out-group hostility -- that was taken for granted in the Old Testament. Jesus was a loyal Jew. It was Paul who invented the idea of taking the Jewish God to the Gentiles. Hartung puts it more bluntly than I dare: "Jesus would have turned over in his grave if he had known that Paul would be taking his plan to the pigs." Many Christian readers of this will be astonished at this bizarre misrepresentation of things being presented as if it were gospel truth. Yet, I regret to say, it is representative of Dawkins' method: ridicule, distort, belittle, and demonize. Still, at least it will give Christian readers an idea of the lack of any scholarly objectivity or basic human sense of fairness which now pervades atheist fundamentalism.

There is little point in arguing with such fundamentalist nonsense. It's about as worthwhile as trying to persuade a flat-earther that the world is actually round. Dawkins seems to be so deeply trapped within his own worldview that he cannot assess alternatives. Yet many readers would value a more reliable and informed response, rather than accepting Dawkins' increasingly tedious antireligious tirades.. . . .

Final paragraph of article above:

Dawkins seems to think that saying something more loudly and confidently, while ignoring or trivializing counter-evidence, will persuade the open-minded that religious belief is a type of delusion. For the gullible and credulous, it is the confidence with which something is said that persuades, rather than the evidence offered in its support. Dawkins' astonishingly superficial and inaccurate portrayal of Christianity will simply lead Christians to conclude that he does not know what he is talking about -- and that his atheism may therefore rest on a series of errors and misunderstandings. Ironically the ultimate achievement of The God Delusion for modern atheism may be to suggest that it is actually atheism itself may be a delusion about God.

God is Satan

the enigma deluded,  ha ha ha, god is satan

Deep Sight:

Platteon will appear to reject any views, no matter how logically advanced, that are Theistic.

hhmm. i dont know about that Deepsight. I'm quite open minded. i hav eneve taken a dogmatic view that god does not exist. God probably does exist. But no thiest has ever made a good sound argument for the existence of god. Your very own arguments are probably the best I have come across , thats why i enjoy reading your post. However, your argument has two main flaws which I have pointed out a few times.

1. If you cannot satisfactorily explain the nature or origin of god, then any notion of god stands on quicksand, so why bring it up?. The uncaused cause is just a play on words. No matter what superlative words or qualities you ascribe to the creator, they are still just fancy words. That " The creator is the uncaused superlative superlative superlative cause" still means nothing.

2. The notion (your own words)of a creator , whether true or not, is just a not[/b]ion. If you agree with that, then you and I may be on the same page.

My position has always been that given even the [b]very little that we understand about the universe, a creator may not have been necessary.
Why latch on to simplistic imaginations (and then be held hostage)when our complex universe beckons us to unlock its many secrets and wonders?

Theists of all shades claim that they feel god,see god in everything, intuit god, commune with god, and yet, when I support them by saying that god is therefore existing in their heads,they refute it and sometimes go ballistic. It is still a mysteriy to me.

I cast my lot with those who seek to know rather than with those who say they already know.
That is just me.

plaetton:



I cast my lot with those who seek to know rather than with those who say they already know.

Well said.