The Universe Must Have A Creator

Shaykh Saalih Al-Fawzaan mentiones:

“It is neither possible for the universe to come into existence by itself, nor is it possible for this universe to come into existence accidentally. Before it was created it was non-existent. Whatever is non-existent cannot come into existence by itself.

Furthermore, it is not possible for this universe to have accidentally formed, because it has a unique and well-ordered system. This system does not change or deviate from its pre-ordained course.

Allaah says:

“You can see not fault in the creation of the Most Gracious. Then look again, can you see any rift? Then look again and yet again; your sight will return to you in a state of humiliation and worn out.” [67:3-4]

The fact that this universe has a unique structure prohibits its existence from being coincidental. If something exists coincidentally, then it will be haphazard.”

[Taken from “Min Mushkilaat Ash-Shabaab Wa Kayfa ‘Aaleejuha Islaam” by Shaykh Saalih Al-Fawzaan, Pp. 24-25]

Reasoning The Existence Of God, By Abdur Rahim Green

Reasoning The Existence Of God

By Abdur Rahim Green

The Dawkins Delusion: A Response to Richard Dawkins, By Hamza Tzortzis

The Dawkins Delusion: A Response to Richard Dawkins

By Hamza Tzortzis

Draft 0.2

When I picked up “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, I was expecting to encounter new reasons put forward to form a positive case for the Atheist worldview, but I have to say that I was disappointed. What I read were rehashed, incoherent arguments that made me realize that Richard Dawkins is not very well read in philosophy. In light of this I thought it would be useful to respond to his main arguments in the following way:

1. Respond to what Dawkins considers his central argument;
2. Respond to what Philosophers consider his best argument.

Responding to what Dawkins considers his central argument

On pages 157-158 of “The God Delusion,” Dawkins summarises what he calls “the central argument of my book”:

1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinism evolution by natural selection and we don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics.
5. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.

God almost certainly does not exist.

Preliminary Note

Before I go into Dawkins’ main points, I would like to address his conclusion “God almost certainly does not exist.” My main issue is – how does he conclude that God doesn’t exist from the above statements? It seems to me that his conclusion just jumps out of thin air, to infer that God does not exist just shows how invalid his argument is. It seems to me that the only delusion is Dawkins’ conviction that his argument is “a very serious argument against God’s existence.”

If we could conclude anything from Dawkins’ argument it would be that we should not infer that God exists based on the design of the universe. However, even if that is true, it doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist; we can believe in God’s existence from other arguments, which include:

• The argument from morality;
• The miracle of the Qur’an;
• The cosmological argument;
• The argument from personal experience;
• The argument from consciousness.