.............Video Controls. Unmute Audio, Pause Video, Show Website While Video Plays.
Site uses cookies to enhance your experience.

Richard Dawkins 747 Gambit.

Richard Dawkins 747 Gambit.

My responses to Dawkins challenge as a creationist.

Argument #1:
Premise #1. Every existing entity that shows evidence of design requires a designer superior to itself
Premise #2. God shows evidence of design in himself
Conclusion #1. Hence God requires a designer (another God) superior to himself

Response: Being “eternal” means has always existed. If God needs to be created He is not eternal. If eternal things require a first cause to exist then they are not eternal in every sense of the word and it’s meaning.

Physical things require a first cause, such as evolution. But even evolution has no first cause to start the causation process. If it does then several questions need to be addressed.

1) What is the first cause?
2) Who observed it?
3) And can this claim be repeated in a lab to prove it?

Why is this important? Evolution is called a “Scientific Theory”. right? Which means one of the criteria’s to become such a high level theory should be a provable “First Cause”. Because in the causation process, the First Cause starts the causation process for all the other causes to work and become viable possibilities. Without that First Cause no process claimed have a viable possibility.

Argument #2:

Premise #3. Infinite regressions are not possible
Conclusion #1 implies an infinite regression (an infinite number of gods)
Conclusion #2. Hence, Conclusion #1 is not possible, so no god can exist.

Response: Infinite regression cannot be disproved or proved because it cannot be tested, right? So this claim either way would be more of an opinion then fact without proof, right? Now logic and reason would say and I agree that no, this cannot happen. But you are putting upon an infinite God finite restrictions. Apply the rules that we live under as finite beings to a infinite God who lives in a infinite time dimension.

So the question is a fallacy because you forgot that it does not apply to a eternal infinite Heaven where there is no death or aging.

This is also why, in your 100% physical belief of we just evolved, we die and that’s it. That you must also believe that something comes from nothing. You know infinite regression does not work in the physical universe where the laws of thermal dynamics would exist. But God solves this problem by living in a realm where these things do not exist. So how would the infinite regression problem apply to an eternal – infinite God?

So where you claim a problem exists, becomes an answer that fits better than the one you give for what you believe.

To better understand this I think a little about creation needs to be explained.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

3 things are needed to create a universe. Time, Space, and Matter.

1) In the beginning = Time.
2) God created the heaven = our physical heaven aka space.
3) And the earth = matter.

If time was not always then there was a time where time did not exist. Which means what did exist did not require time in order to exist. Which also, by the way, eliminates infinite regression. Because how can you have infinity of anything where time itself is infinite and already solves the problem just by being so?