:Chapter One

Chapter One
Answering Chapter Three of the Delusion:
Arguments for GOD‟s
Existence
In this chapter, professor Dawkins approaches the arguments for the existence of the creator in a manner as though he is criticizing a theory of science! As though he is falsifying the postulates of a manmade theory! He probably imagines that there once came along a philosopher, long ago, somewhere in the world, who was contemplating in the beauty and magnificence of the universe, and after a long tiresome struggle with mathematics and philosophy; all of a sudden it struck him and he burst out saying: ―Eureka! That‘s it! The universe must have had a Creator!‖
18
As mentioned in the introduction, I have chosen to start this literature with response and thorough discussion of Chapters 3 and 4 of (The God Delusion) in particular because they represent the footing of the book, or the core argument so to speak! Once we got those two chapters out of the way, I‟d then proceed with discussion of the rest of the book, putting forth the rest of what I wish to say.
Now let me begin by maintaining that the existence of a creator is not the advent of some human postulation or presumption that just appeared or came along at some point in history, the way Dawkins believes! It is – by necessity - the only reasonable outcome of axiomatic reason based on accumulative perception in every healthy mind! So, prophets or no prophets, doctrine or no doctrine, people never need – because of the very nature of human reason - to be told that a superior creator exists or to have somebody prove it for them! The concept of the creator was always conceived of as true and perfectly rational not through a single source of perception, but through ALL income of human perception; not in a single fragment of the universe; but in the entire universe! Such is – quite simply, and as I shall come to elaborate – the natural way the human mind works! Creation – and perfection at it to say the least - never needed to be “proven” in the same sense that any theory demands proof, not because people are being brought up on it, taking it for granted among other things as „blind faith‟ without ever daring to question it, but because it is simply not possible that any reasonable man could look at this marvelous universe and find himself compelled to think otherwise! It is indeed a meaning too clear and reasonable to be questioned or to demand any particular proof for it! It is not a theory or a philosophy! It‟s basic axiomatic reason! A marvelous system that is perfectly composed, restricted, balanced and controlled necessitates an ultimately perfect composer, restrictor, balancer, and controller! This is not a statement that people make from blind faith in any given religion, it is an argument that is as axiomatic and self-evident – in terms of language and reason – as the argument – for example - that since I can think then I must have a mind!
19
Let me express it mathematically: Since system A is a set that is composed of elements {a,b,c,d,e,f} and since system A is decomposable by nature and its elements – in principle - can be made to compose system A once again, or any other system, therefore system A was composed. And since “to be composed” necessitates that there be a willful composer that causes composition of elements to be initiated, and a system to be made up, then there must be a composer for A. The same goes for any given system B, C, D, and so forth. Now, if set U is the universal set of ALL systems that have smaller components (U = set A U B U C U D …etc: the set of all systems that we see around us that are compose and decomposed), where all those systems interact, some of which decompose in due time, leaving elements that would then be made parts of new systems that come to take their place in perfect integration within this coherently stable and perfectly consistent system U, then U necessitates a superior composer and keeper, who made all those components and composed U, and then kept it running in this particular way (the way of systems and subsystems interacting, composing and decomposing).
In short: Everything around us is composed = therefore it has a composer! Because composing is a deed that demands a doer! It‟s not just the effect of a cause, it is a complex work of organized causes that demands a willful, purposeful and determined doer; a composer. We are talking about the establishment of the very meaning of the verb (to compose), which is what begets the meaning: (composed)!
Now this meaning, my reader, is rationally indisputable! This is basic reason! It is not a theory! If we did not see it as a rational necessity, then we should never trust our minds anymore! My previous statement of it is only my mathematical attempt to express a meaning that is as axiomatic to human reason as this statement: (1 + 1 + 1 = 3)! Without the willful composer and keeper there would be no order, and no natural law to keep systems and components bound to this particular path; it would be just like saying (1 + 1 + 1 = 0)! This meaning was never proposed or theorized! It emerges naturally from our observation of everything in the world around us; everything we can observe is made of components that are “put together”, so
20
there must be an initial “putter”; thus the entire universe (the sum of everything that is composed of components) necessitates a superior composer! A composer that is by necessity not composed Himself, otherwise he would be just like us: only another element of the set U (the sum of all systems that are composed of subsystems and components)!
I ask every reasonable reader now: Does this rationale demand “proof”? Do we need to prove that since something consists of perfectly functional elements, then they must be put together in this particular way by a superior maker for a particular purpose? It‟s quite obvious that we don‟t! This is the way the mind works; it cannot think of this universe as anything but a perfectly created and masterfully composed and preserved universe! Natural law in itself is proof for this! Even atheists cannot resist this meaning, and they find themselves compelled whenever they describe the universe and elements of natural life, to use a language that - despite their hardest efforts as we shall see - continues to betray their ultimately irrational belief! As we will elaborate later in this literature, they cannot escape using words like (selected: which necessitates a selector), (designed: which necessitates a designer) and so on.
This is why I don‟t know whether to laugh or cry when I listen to atheists saying that the burden of proof is upon the rest of humanity to “prove” creation! This is nonsense! It is exclusively upon atheists, to prove that such a - very clearly - magnificent universe, such a perfectly conserved and controlled system, is – and against what all humans hold by necessity of reason – NOT the outcome of the work – both the initial and ongoing work - of what is clearly a masterfully wise and purposeful maker-sustainer, but the outcome of the contrary to that! There‟s no proving this nonsense of a meaning no matter how hard they try! Their very tongues cannot allow them! When the meaning is so audaciously FALSE, no mathematical argument, observation or scientific discovery could ever qualify as evidence or proof for it! We cannot prove that all humans are deluded to take creation for an axiomatic rational necessity, because then it will mean that they could easily be deluded – just the same - on all other rational axioms that they take for granted; meanings without which reason itself cannot work! If I cannot
21
trust that I exist (for example), and I need to search for proof of this very meaning; then I am indeed a sick man that is in a desperate need for help! How can a man trust his own senses and his own judgment when he forces himself to believe that his senses delude him, and that they fool him into seeing purposeful creation where there is actually none? And if the very meaning of the word (true) or (real) is open to questioning, then what could any (search for the truth) ever lead to, and what then would be the very function of reason itself? There‟s no point arguing with such a mindset!
Atheism is indeed a mental sickness as I shall come to prove by tens of different arguments in this literature! So I ask of my reader to be patient and read this large volume all the way through to the end.
Dawkins is trying in this chapter – against everything that humans hold dear in their heads and in their hearts - to prove that we ‗no longer‘ have any reason to take creation for granted! He is out to tell the world that we now finally have a theory, or a body of theorization that leaves no room for that creator! And since he deliberately denies this rational necessity to which all healthy humans are bound, he embarks on a futile attempt to disprove the existence of God by examining the writings of a few theologians or philosophers from here or there, as though this is everything that theists rely upon to hold their fundamental rationale of the creator!
Atheists have got to understand that unlike atheism, “theism” was never “theorized”! There never came along a monk or a figure of authority in a human nation who proposed this concept and called upon others to follow him on it! It is, as I shall elaborate in this section, a necessity of reason, and a deep call of innate bright-right from deep within every human being! Prophets only teach us who God is and what purpose He has assigned to us, but nobody teaches us that there has to be a creator who made us the way we are, and made the world around us the way it is! We see it with our own eyes ever since we start making sense of the world! Heading this chapter professor Dawkins states:
22
―Arguments for the existence of God have been codified for centuries by theologians, and supplemented by others, including purveyors of misconceived 'common sense'.‖
Now I have to wonder, what does he make of this “codification” and how does he really think of it? Is it to him; the “innovation” of the concept itself, as was the case with every philosophy or theory put forth by an individual human mind? If this is what he means by applying the term “codification” here, regarding the existence of a creator, then I should say that he is making in advance a proposition that cannot be accepted, much less built upon, without being in itself proven!
I may be asking him now to prove to us that there once was a time in history when humans never imagined this marvelous world to have a creator, and the thought never even crossed their minds, until all of a sudden an individual mind started “codifying” this “claim” and hence calling unto them to follow it! It is clear to me that this is the underlying belief that Dawkins holds concerning what he calls the arguments for the existence of God! This will be revealed in detail later on when he discusses the origins of religion, and we shall attend to it in „Volume 2‟. The point is; this is nothing but a statement of blind Darwinian faith from his part.
And of course when professor Dawkins speaks of a “misconceived common sense” one has no choice but to wonder, what “kind” of a common sense is he speaking of, and according to what authority of reason does he give himself the right to accuse a figure that may go somewhere around 99.99 percent of all humans that ever set foot on this earth of misconception in the way they accepted their common sense in regards to this basically reasonable question?
So it turns out that I – along with the rest of humanity - am a misconceived fool to let myself think that I and everything around me was created masterfully, now that someone has finally succeeded – according to Dawkins – in forging a “magnificent” explanation to “the origins of life” that just might be good enough to be a replace “God” and save me from
23
following this natural reasoning and this common meaning that all humans find within themselves as soon as they start making sense of things!
I am supposed to let go of pure reason and very clear common sense regarding the origins of everything that I see around me, for the sake of a clearly un-provable and – as we will demonstrate later on – clearly flawed theory on the origin of species! Those are the grounds of reasoning upon which he accuses the human race – save for atheists like himself – of suffering from misconception of their very own common sense!
Oh what a miserable race we are indeed!
Now make no mistake my reader; I‟m not taking support for my argument in the multitude of its holders across human history, no! My position of knowledge is entirely against this kind of reasoning, as I will be demonstrating throughout this literature! The truth remains to be the truth, and a fallacy remains to be a fallacy, no matter how many people believe it! I‟m simply expressing my astonishment at how a man can so easily accuse almost all humanity all along its history of “misconceiving” its “common sense”! What meaning would remain in the word “commonsense” itself (as opposed to nonsense) if all humans have been misconceiving it? Or in clearer words, are you trying, Dr. Dawkins, to shout in the face of all humanity saying: “You people have all been fooled by your commonsense and the very tool in your minds and in your cognition that made you the elite species that you obviously are”?
What an outrage!