• Richard Dawkins' Lack of Logic

    Dawkins thinks a non-existent God who created universes is better than an existing God who creates universes. But that is logically incoherent because there is no possible universe in which a non-existent being exists.

    This is not my most favorite proof, since I prefer my resurrection proof using the Minimal Facts Approach and the 4 Step Proof for God, but the ontological is the most elegant.

    The Ontological Argument (The Nature of Existence or Being)
    1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and morally perfect in every possible world). Hence atheism is false. The basic meanings are Atheism is the word in the English language to claim God does not exist. Agnosticism is the word in the English language to say one is not sure.
    2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world (eventually you would come to a world with a maximally great being because there would be an infinite number of possibilities).
    3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it would exists in every possible world (true by definition, because part of being maximally great is to exist in every possible world).
    4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then He or She exists in the actual world.
    5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
    6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.


    Comments 3 Comments
    1. Churchwork's Avatar
      Churchwork -
      Richard Dawkins is a peanut and William Lane Craig is a sledge hammer.

      Tearing apart Richard Dawkins' with the Teleological Argument (design or purpose in nature).

      The Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems prove that a cosmological singularity is inevitable, and therefore, it is impossible for the universe to be oscillating from eternity because it is impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state. Stephen Hawking notes about this that, "The Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems led to the abandonment of attempts, mainly by the Russians, to argue that there was previously a contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Almost everyone now believes the universe and time itself had a beginning at the big bang."

      Richard Dawkins is still under the delusion, contrary to what Hawking said, that singularity doesn't form a boundary to space-time.

      How can you set initial conditions at negative infinity for an eternal universe? All universe(s) in a state of cosmic expansion always needed an absolute beginning.

      Penrose says these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic (of or pertaining to human beings or their span of existence on earth) fine tuning of the universe.

      In order to recognize the explanation is the best, you don't need an explanation of the explanation. If it was discovered a pile of machinery on the backside of the moon, it would be justified in inferring intelligent design even if we had no idea who the designers were.

      Atheism destroys science because it always requires an explanation of the explanation backwards for infinity, so every time an explanation was realized, it needed any explanation and so on, so you could never prove anything. Since the Intelligent Designer is the simplest explanation, is the best explanation, has the most explanatory scope, has the most explanatory power, and is most plausible, you don't need to explain the Designer, but can leave that open for future inquiry.

    1. Churchwork's Avatar
      Churchwork -
      The Moral Argument

      Dawkins says we are just species for propagating DNA. There are no moral requirements, yet he suggests changing the Ten Commandments and thinks the practice of human sacrifices by the Inca's is morally apprehensible, thus contradicting himself when he rejects objective moral values. He's acting like there are objective moral values as he keeps asserting himself morally even though he denounces objective moral values. Isn't that talking out the side of your face?

      When a lion kills a zebra it doesn't murder the zebra and when a great white shark forcibly copulates with a female it does not rape her, because there is no moral dimensions to these actions, so why should we have jails for when people murder each other since there is no moral dimension to our acts either? Such acts are neither prohibited or obligatory in an atheist naturalistic world. There is nothing wrong with Hitler killing 6 million Jews according to Richard Dawkins since there is no moral denunciation of such acts.

    1. Churchwork's Avatar
      Churchwork -
      Cosmological Argument

      Richard Dawkins is actually a theist. Why does he lie claiming he is not a theist?