properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence,

properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, 

omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.…“ (Dawkins p. 78)
This reply clearly demonstrates the delusion the author suffers from in approaching the question of God. As we keep repeating over and over again: we DO NOT speak of a CREATED God! He has to understand that regress is only a property of the system and its created elements within it, just like programs running on a computer system; they may regress in amongst their inter-processes for as many levels as the system contains, but they will never include the human programmer himself anywhere within that particular chain of regress; it will only have him seated at the end of it, at the keyboard of the computer machine, where he runs the system from outside! The creator of the system is by necessity EXTERNAL to it, and is not liable to any of the processes that He created within the system, level above level, and cause above cause! Yes there will be regress, and yes every cause will have a causer affecting it in the system, but for any given system or set of systems, this will have to come to a point where the regress ends (the system closes) at the last cause within the system, and the chain terminates before a creator who is – by necessity - external to the system he created!
So claiming Him to be part of the regress is simply to turn Him into a subject of creation; just like all other elements of the chain of regress within the system that He created! This is clearly false! Its fallacy comes from the fact that He must be the one who created ALL “creatable systems”! If He himself was creatable, then he is yet another “creatable system”, another ring in the chain that will have to end at the „uncreated creator‟! The chain has to come to an end, otherwise the very meaning of causality and “system” will fail! Hence the rational necessity of “the first cause”! We are speaking of the creator of all created things in existence, the one who gives the act of creation itself its meaning and purpose, and the word cause itself its initial definition! You cannot demand of the laws of created things to apply to the creator of all created things! He created the chain of regress; he‟s not part of it!
The point it; you have no choice – rationally - but to acknowledge the existence of an uncreated creator; an uncaused case! Commonsense leads to it, reason necessitates it, language presupposes it, and mathematics demonstrates it!
33
Some philosophers would easily object to the argument of the first cause saying that there‟s no reason to believe that there‟s a first cause, stemming from the famous question: (If God created me then who created God?)… They would argue that philosophers have been questioning the very meaning of “cause” itself, and the determinism of causality. Well, philosophers have gone as far as questioning the very meaning of reality itself, to the extent of actually making a man doubt that he himself exists to begin with! Does this make such arguments reasonable or at any level: worthwhile? 2
I mean suppose a philosopher came to you one day with a book, a large volume, and told you that once you have gone through this book, you will come out doubting your very own senses and your perception as a human being; would you really bother reading it? Perhaps you would be tempted by the challenge of the idea itself and that‟s why you may go through it; a mental exercise of some twisted sort perhaps! I can think of no other motive for any sane man to go through something like that, other than of course
-------------------------------------------
2 One of the silliest arguments I ever came across against the position that the universe must‟ve been caused to exist, is the argument that causality itself did not exist or did not make sense before the origination of space-time! I ask, what is space-time? Space-time is only a mathematical means of relating two events to one another on a frame of reference for both space and time! There is no rationality in claiming that time did not “exist” before the advent of the universe as we know it, because time is only a measure of the progress of events! Yes of course our own model of it and the way we perceive it and calculate it did not exist before the advent of the universe, it did not exist before the advent of man himself, but this has nothing to do with the rational necessity of causality at every conceivable instant of time, be it within our human frame of reference of space-time that we came to establish after the advent of the universe, or before that! An argument as such – I believe – would only emerge from the mind of a scientist who doesn‟t quite comprehend the distinction between the rational necessity of a certain abstract meaning, and the human ways of applying this meaning to their own frame of existence! Yes before the universe came to be there was something else, something we have no way of knowing or imagining (we can only be told about it by its creator, if we were ever to know it at all), but we certainly have no rational argument in claiming that causality did not apply there! We cannot conceive an existence without causality in the first place! And we know it is impossible because by making this claim, we would be making a proposition of an existence that couldn‟t possibly allow for any system or any order or anything at all to emerge! We would be wondering: How was it ever possible that the very concept of „natural law‟ would emerge in such an a-causal existence? So denying causality before the advent of the universe is utterly irrational, because it destroys the very rationality of the universe itself ever coming into being (the event of its emergence) in the first place! It destroys the very meaning of an „event‟, so to speak!
So in short: while the rational argument goes this way: without causality, there couldn‟t have ever emerged any matter or anything at all that we may conceive by measures of space or time, some atheists would put it in the exact inverse order saying: without (or before) „time‟ there couldn‟t be any causality!
34
debunking it and proving its sheer corruption! But if we, humans, have come to a point where we need to prove the very basics of our reason and cognition, or to prove that we actually exist in the first place; then we really no longer deserve to call ourselves rational beings!
A mind that is so disturbed as to doubt its own senses is one that needs cure, not recognition as an intellect of philosophy that is worth listening to and arguing with! Yet, those poor guys are philosophers whose works do cover library shelves everywhere and are viewed with respect and veneration by millions of people! It‟s a pity indeed!
Not everything that was ever questioned is indeed questionable! The mere fact that philosophers questioned this and questioned that doesn‟t render a given fact of human reason and perception: questionable! It rather renders those philosophers – most of the time - mentally challenged!
If you have something against causality that is expressible in the form of a rational argument, then bring it forth and we will examine it! But to carry the sum of all futile claims and debates of philosophers questioning everything, and come up with the conclusion that this “sum” leaves those facts lacking for rational evidence; this is just like dumping yourself in a big trash can and complaining about the offensive smell that is everywhere around you, concluding that there is no evidence for the existence of clean air itself! Just get your head out of there and you will smell fresh air; that much I guarantee!
So again, this is simple reason and language at work here! The creator of all that is created COULDN‟T be Himself created! Otherwise, he would not be the creator of everything, but would only be another part of the chain which will still have to end at a first creator that is not just another part of it! We do not claim the creator to be part of the chain of causes; atheists ought to understand this meaning! We reason Him to be the source; the maker of that chain itself, from its very top all the way down to its very bottom, with all levels of causes layered in between! We humans find it only reasonable to think of Him as an external being to everything that is caused and created!
If the meaning of “being created” is to be applied to X, along with those things that X created, then it follows that X is not the rationally necessary end source beyond that chain of created creators, and we will still have to think of yet another external source from whence the very meaning of cause and creation itself emerged, and from nowhere else! And then again, wherever that external source beyond X will be, it can only be GOD! There
35
at the point where nothing further can be counted! Keep wiggling around it for as long as you wish; you will never find a way out of it! It‟s just the way the human mind works!
Now, imagine a man who would ask: “Did the creator create the uncreated (or the un-creatable)?” This is nonsense! It‟s like asking: “Have you ever gone beyond existence?” Or “Are you not what you are?” Or “Can you give me something that does not exist?” Or: “Can you be you and me both at the same time?” Or: “Can a single being be both here and there at the same time?” The answer to all such nonsense is not just a simple “NO!” Those people have to be dragged back to common sense and correct reason, if they wish for our debate with them to take us anywhere!
It wouldn‟t be “un-creatable” if the creator could create it, would it?! It would be “creatable”! To go beyond existence is to not exist, so nobody can go there, or do you think otherwise?! Can anybody (who does exist); “not exist”? This is the problem with claiming that the chain doesn‟t have to end this way!
The uncreated creator or the uncaused cause is an inevitability of reason! It‟s only a pity there are those who would really acquire “proof” for its rational validity!
Another misconception is tailored in this commentary by the author as he claims that even if we admitted the rational necessity of a terminal source at the end of the chain, there is no reason to believe him to have those attributes that he mentions! I have to comment on Dawkins‟ proclaimed certainty here as he states in amazing confidence: “there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God‖! I take it that Professor Dawkins may come to accept the concept of god one day but only provided that we accept the possibility of His being a pathetic, incomplete being that does not enjoy any attributes of perfectness as such! Yes indeed! He may only be comfortable – as we shall come to see clearly throughout this book - with a poor negligent god that does not control a man‟s life or demand his submission!
This is by the way a questionable shift by the author from the argument at hand! Nothing but „white noise‟! You still have not answered to the regress problem professor, and have not founded your objection on sound reasons! So to jump – in this context - to the examination of certain attributes ascribed to the creator by certain religions, on the claim that even if there was a creator then there‟s no reason to view him to be so and so … this is a
36
clear escape from the groundless refutation of the previous argument! It‟s a statement of stubborn denial! It‟s like saying: ―Ok, maybe I can‘t really determine why your argument is false; but even if it were true, you people are talking nonsense anyway!‖
Is this all you‟ve got, professor?
One can‟t help sensing the FEAR in this man‟s heart as he writes down those literary “escapades” of his! Yes; FEAR! He is obviously doing everything he possibly can to mutilate the image of the creator that is described as such in the three religions (Islam, Judaism and Christianity) in particular, probably out of fear that he may one day find himself compelled – by force of rational evidence - to choose to submit to Him! It‟s as though he‟s saying: ―Even if I one day accepted the argument of a god eventually, I will not accept that god to be so powerful, so knowledgeable, and so ―judgmental‖! I refuse to surrender myself to any celestial being in such a way!‖
This is obviously where this “absolutely” gesture is coming from here!
In fact as we will see in coming sections of his book, Dawkins almost declares that he may be okay with a deist god like the one that Einstein spoke of in the few occasions that he expressed his views of God, but a “personal”3 God who “reads your thoughts”, listens to your prayers, commands you to submit to Him, and eventually judges you in the afterlife? No way! We will see by the end of this literature that all that atheism goes down to is a personal attitude of rejection against the particular idea of submission, not a rational objection against the existence of the creator! This is why Islam – in particular - always comes at the very top of their list of enemies, and always takes the greatest share of their hate and contempt! Because Muslims – by the very name of their religion - do take the meaning of submission seriously! Only those Muslims who are “lax” in this respect and are willing to take some of the religion and leave the rest of it out, are
3 The idea of claiming an impersonal god is every bit as irrational and vacuous as believing in no god at all. In fact, it is only an atheist’s attempt to put some sense into his faith. This is because by necessity of reason and language, the creator has to possess the intent and the will to compose this system the way He chose for the purpose He chose, freely and capably! This is the very definition of “GOD”! He should possess all attributes that define a wise and capable “doer”/”creator” who gives purpose and determinate order to everything we see in this universe! Ergo, it has to be what atheists call a “Personal god” (in meaning and attributes, not in nature or properties)! It follows then that you either believe in a true God (by the true definition), or you don’t! So the “deist god” is clearly nothing but the miserable position of an atheist who sees that he cannot escape the rational necessity of there being a masterful creator; yet he hates to submit to any religion that claims to express the will of that creator! So miserable indeed!
37
partially accepted in their view as “reasonable people”! And of course if they were to let go of it entirely and join the atheist camp as “ex-Muslims”, they will be their heroes!
Well, I‟m not into analyzing the motives of the author! Yet I shall not discard certain keys and signs that will help the reader go as deep as possible within an atheist‟s mind! I remind my reader that I‟m not merely in the business of refuting a number of feeble philosophical arguments here! Those meanings – however - are further revealed in later sections that are yet to come near the end of Dawkins‟ book (discussed mostly in Volume 2).
So as for this broad claim he makes here, let‟s examine those attributes he finds “absolutely no reason” to ascribe to the creator!
In order to answer to this claim let me assume for now – for the sake of the argument - that he is already standing with me on the platform that there has to be an uncreated creator at the end of the chain. He‟s then claiming that there‟s no reason to ascribe those attributes to that creator:
omnipotence,
Omnipotence simply means complete and perfect power and ability! How can any sane mind imagine a creator of a system who does not have total power upon – at least – everything within it? And if the very notion of power and ability in human understanding is a making of that creator Himself, and it is necessary for the sake of reverence, respect, and submission by the worshipper – the very things that give the word god itself its meaning! – that he sees His creator in no less a position than that of perfectness in this respect; how can any sane man expect from the creator of everything – man included - anything less than being perfect on all accounts and in all attributes? It was He who made man to think of an attribute like “weakness” as a negative attribute that demises its holder! So if I can – as a man – think of a creature within this universe that is more powerful than my god, more powerful than the creator of the universe Himself, then how can I revere and respect – hence take for a god – that creator that I worship when I know that it is not at the reasonably necessary rank of total power and control of everything? How can I reason an „incomplete being‟ to be the creator of everything that is created? This is not possible!