God or Not?

Should Dawkins stop using the Ultimate 747 analogy?

Posted on November 28th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.

Right. Well, what Les doesn’t seem to get is that most atheists (all
smart atheists) _don’t_ think that something complex needs a
deliberate creator–that’s a theistic argument. Dawkins’s whole point
is “okay, well, you seem to think God is ‘complex’–therefore, by your
own premise He would need a creator”. Then those like Allan try to
“refute” this by saying, basically, “God is an exception”–not
substantiated, but the thing about all the “logical” arguments for God
is “logic applies to everything but God” comes up eventually. This
doesn’t work because it could be used to defend any indefensible
position–once you start saying logic applies to everything but _your_
argument, you aren’t making a logical argument anymore, and you’re
back to faith/delusion.

On Nov 28, 12:59 pm, Answer_42 wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2:52 pm, “ranjit_math…@yahoo.com”
>
> wrote:
> > > The ultimate 747 argument is pointless without starting from that
> > > point.
>
> > In line with your iterations argument below, why not say that the 747
> > was designed by God since that would reduce the number of iterations
> > (of causes) required to explain a 747?
>
> Have you even read the747 analogy as presented by Dawkins?
> From reading this reply of yours, it seems you have no idea what this
> is all about.
> ___________________________________
> All children are atheists — they have no idea of God.
> — Baron d’Holbach

0 comments.