![]() Now if Richard Dawkins wrote a book called The Created God’s Delusion, I doubt any theists would have any problem with that, because they’re typically called idols. Richard Dawkins dedicated an entire book, The God Delusion, on answering the question: “If you believe God created the universe, then who created God?” There is an immediate problem in the wording of that question that must be addressed before trying to answer it: It postulates that God is “created,” thus ruling out an explanation which is most plausible–that God wasn’t created. Truly, the worst of all creatures in the sight of Allah are the deaf, the dumb, those who do not use their reason/think. Although some traditionalist scholars like Malik Ibn Anas, the fourth jurisprudential leader, observed the attitude of having blind faith and not asking questions when challenged with difficulty, the holy Qur’an has repeatedly told mankind to ask questions and reflect. Unfortunately for Dawkins, we theists don’t need to take a leap of faith when it comes to this question. Many often accept His existence and other religious beliefs without question, blindly following ancient interpretations which have been passed down for generations. To many, the existence of God is a given, even a default. There is some merit to that claim as the earthly religious distribution testifies greatly to it. Theists are often stereotyped to inheriting their religious beliefs or being indoctrinated from childhood to believing in God. ![]() Contemporary intellectuals by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have constantly used the following premises as arguments against the cosmological proof for God’s existence:Īs appealing as their argument may seem at face value, upon brief critical thinking, it is easily refutable. ![]() The question of who created God, a rather simple question, is often reiterated by neo-Atheists in order to disprove God’s existence. ![]() Two very general questions guided this work: (1) How are infinite regresses generated in infinite regress arguments? (2) How do infinite regresses logically function as premises in an argument? In answering these questions I clarify the notion of an infinite regress identify different logical forms of infinite regresses describe different kinds of infinite regress arguments distinguish the rhetoric from the logic in infinite regress arguments and suggest ways of improving our discussion and our practice of constructing and evaluating these arguments.Problem of Infinite Regression: Who Created God? My general approach to contribute to such a theory, consists of collecting and evaluating as many infinite regress arguments as possible, comparing and contrasting many of the formal and non-formal properties, looking for recurring patterns, and identifying the properties that appeared essential to those patterns. These consequences of our customary way of using this tool indicate that there is a need for a theory to re-orient our practice. But how sharp or strong is this tool? How effectively is it used? The typical presentation of infinite regress arguments throughout history is so succinct and has so many gaps that it is often unclear how an infinite regress is derived, and why an infinite regress is logically problematic, and as a result, it is often difficult to evaluate infinite regress arguments. Infinite regress arguments are part of a philosopher's tool kit of argumentation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |