Analyzing the core argument of "The God Delusion"

In an earlier video, I discussed some of the problems in Richard Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion," and why it has failed to receive very positive reviews from the scholarly community. In this follow-up video, I discuss the core argument of his book, as stated by Dawkins himself on pages 157-158.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• atheism
• dawkins
• god
• delusion
• theism
• philosophy

[grammastola]

@MattFarabaugh5, with all due respect, you're misconstruing what I said. For one thing, the design hypothesis goes far beyond the mere cause-effect connection. Second, you are claiming that God is an effect, but I see no reason to accept that claim. Indeed, the traditional notion of God is that he is the prime cause -- the very first cause. If you're going to claim that he is (and you do), then it's up to you to demonstrate that this is NECESSARILY so.

[neuromatiker]

I am sorry to say your premiset is false. It is impossible to prove something to not exsist, such as god, fairies or unicorns. Dawkins simply finds the creationist explainion lacking, as it explains nothing - who designed the designer?

Now the god argument falls upon the religious to prove, but all versons of god presented so far seem unproveable, and very very unlikely.

I challange you: Prove the existence of your god, beyond a mere possibility.

[grammastola]

@neuromatiker You are incorrect. First, it often IS possible to prove the non-existence of something. (Look up reductio ad absurdum, for example.)

Second, whether one can prove God is irrelevant. Dawkins offered a specific argument, and his argument fails. That is what I'm pointing out. I am not attempting to prove God's existence in this video; rather, I explained why his particular argument fails. I've pointed this distinction out numerous times now, just FTR.

[ferrett78]

Firstly, Id like to agree that the overall conclusion Dawkins reaches here does not follow from the previous statements. However, I'd also like to query some points.

1) If the theistic philosophy only suggests that every effect has a cause, how does this point have any relevance for either side of the debate?

2) Universal fine tuning could be merely the anthropic principle. There may be other Universes with other laws of physics which marvel at how fine tuned their universe is for them, too?

[grammastola]

@ferrett78 Regarding (1), you might look up the Kalam cosmological argument. It explores the implications of your statement.

Regarding (2), I discussed that matter in several of my other videos. Suffice to say that the anthropic principle is a woefully inadequate answer, and so is the multiple universe theory.

[grammastola]

In brief, I think that his analysis is incredibly sloppy. He has a way of stating things with tremendous confidence though, and frankly, most readers are not used to analyzing such matters in detail.

[MattFarabaugh5]

Your analysis of his analysis seems flawed to me. First, you say that the design hypothesis is not fatal because it does not posit a designer, but only posits that if there is an effect, then there must be a cause. God is an effect. God must, therefore, have a cause. To say otherwise would be fallacious. Or are you saying that god is not an effect? And please don't say that an effect is something with a cause - that would be circular logic.

[mrdokma]

@neuromatiker Asking who designed God is a logical fallacy as follows: If the amount of passed time was infinite we would never arrive at the current point because you cannot count to infinity (google uncountable set). Therefore since God - if He created everything including time, space and matter - must exist outside of the frame of time any questions that inherently assume time cannot be applied to Him. So asking 'Who designed God?' - which assumes that He had a beginning is a logical fallacy.

[ShadowEspada]

I love this, keep it coming

[Dumah000777444]

Time is a God's creation and God is not restricted by it. Everything created has a designer that created it and who preexisted. God has no designer since no one existed before Him (not even time would exist without Him).

So since time does not apply to God, neither time-related laws apply to Him (which makes almost all -if not all- known laws invalid for God).

[knivesron]

this book isent to prove god doesent exist! its to make apparant that te assume he does is stupid. dawkins is a scientist not thiest. this book is a scientific view on religon. if you dont belive in evolution you just dont know it well enough read dawkins new book the greatest show on earth. why should we assume things that we are not sure of and risk things like 911 happening and the middle east, its just not worth it