Dawkins presents several arguments used to argue for God’s existence:
– The Unmoved Mover
– The Uncaused Cause
– The Cosmological Argument
– The Argument from Degree
– The Argument from Design (Teleological Argument)
– The Ontological Argument
– The Argument from Beauty
– The Argument from Personal Experience
– The Argument from Scripture
– The Argument from Admired Religious Scientists
– Pascal’s Wager
– Bayesian Arguments
Does Dawkins adequately refute the arguments for God’s existence in this chapter?
I’ll also repost McCulloch’s questions:
- Does God provide a natural terminator to the infinite regresses?
- Is there any validity to Anselm’s Ontological Argument?
- Is the Argument from Beauty valid?
- Is the Argument from Personal Experience valid? Is it being used or is this Dawkins’ strawman?
- Is the Argument from Scripture valid? Is this another strawman?
- Does anyone use the Argument from Admired Religious Scientists?
- Let’s not re-do Pascal’s Wager
- Is there any validity to Bayesian Arguments promoted by people such as Stephen Unwin?
- Did Dawkins leave out or misrepresent any major argument for God’s existence?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=111178#p111178
In chapter one, Dawkins states “nor shall I don kid gloves to handle religion”. But, what we see in this chapter is that he brings out the opponents that haven’t seen any action in the ring in this generation or opponents in the strawweight division. By bringing them out, are we then supposed to marvel at his skill in knocking down these strawweights?
He brings up all these arguments (except one) that I have not really seen anyone use nowadays (and at least certainly not on this forum) to argue for God’s existence. “The argument from design is the only one still in regular use today” (page 79) If the teleological argument is the only one still in regular use today, then why does he present the others? He defers addressing the design argument until chapter 4. So, we’ll have to wait to see how well he does address it.
Also, he had stated in chapter 2 that the God hypothesis is a scientific question. But, interestingly, he doesn’t mention any of the scientific arguments for God’s existence in this chapter.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=111294#p111294
Does God provide a natural terminator to the infinite regresses?
Yes. 
But, does Dawkins mention this anywhere?
- Is there any validity to Anselm’s Ontological Argument?
- Is the Argument from Beauty valid?
- Is the Argument from Personal Experience valid? Is it being used or is this Dawkins’ strawman?
- Is the Argument from Scripture valid? Is this another strawman?
- Does anyone use the Argument from Admired Religious Scientists?
- Let’s not re-do Pascal’s Wager
- Is there any validity to Bayesian Arguments promoted by people such as Stephen Unwin?
I haven’t seen many professionals use any of these to argue for God’s existence.
Did Dawkins leave out or misrepresent any major argument for God’s existence?
Anthropic Principle, Intelligent Design, Astrobiology, and Fine-tuning are the major scientific arguments for a God used currently.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=111380#p111380
McCulloch wrote:Dawkins (p84) wrote:[T]he existence of non-existence of God is too big a question to be decided by ‘dialectical prestidigitation’.I think that all of the philosopher’s arguments for the existence of God only work to convince those who are already convinced or really wish to be.
As well as the reverse. All the philosophers’ arguments for the non-existence of God only work to convince those who are already convinced of its non-existence or really wish they do not exist.
And I would also agree with Dawkins. It is too big a question to be decided by “dialectical prestidigitation”.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=111401#p111401
Cogitoergosum wrote:otseng wrote:Does God provide a natural terminator to the infinite regresses?Yes.No a pink unicron is. My pink unicorn has always existed and does not need a designer and he created everything, and naturally he ends an infinite regress.
Please…But, does Dawkins mention this anywhere?That’s an argument easily destroyed as it is a SPECIAL PLEADING. I’m surprised osteng that you ascribe to this line of thinking.
We have covered this in: Infinite Tortoise Problem (Turtles all the way down)
He will get to these later, i suggest you read the Blind watchmaker and see why ID does not hold.
Actually, I have read The Blind Watchmaker. And it was an unimpressive book. And with how unimpressive The God Delusion is as well, it’ll be a long time before I’ll read another Dawkins book.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=111445#p111445
Cogitoergosum wrote:Sure but why did we stipulate the God hypothesis to start with? To explain how the universe was created, so if god also needs an explanation then we have solved nothing. Now we have a bigger problem trying to explain how a fantasy being came to be. We have no need for a god hypothesis.
We’ll be covering that in the next chapter.
Actually, I have read The Blind Watchmaker. And it was an unimpressive book. And with how unimpressive The God Delusion is as well, it’ll be a long time before I’ll read another Dawkins book.Well if you found that book unimpressive i wonder what impresses you. the bible perhaps?
I just got the book God – The Failed Hypothesis from the library. Browsing through it, it looks to be much better than The Blind Watchmaker or The God Delusion. This is more along the line of the types of books that would impress me.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=111644#p111644
Cogitoergosum wrote: Well i just might get that book and read it, though i have a couple other books i’m reading now.
I just completed my quick scan reading of the book. It’s better than TGD. And it at least approaches it for the most part scientifically. But several of its arguments were lacking and even fallacious. However, it’s definitely a stronger book than TGD. Perhaps we should debate this book sometime in the future? 
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=111701#p111701
BohemianBanjo wrote:Not to change the subject, but what is the intent of all these ‘proofs’ of god?
These proofs are all primarily philosophical proofs. What is the intent of them? I guess so that philosophers can have something to philosophize about.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=111886#p111886
McCulloch wrote:otseng wrote:I haven’t seen many professionals use any of these to argue for God’s existence.Google “does god exist”.
I guess that demonstrates that I don’t visit these sites too often.
BTW, 50 tokens to you for the time in putting in the research.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=112042#p112042