Dawkins’ argument against the existence of Me

Yes, I’ve been busy, so busy in fact that I’ve not had time to “god blog” (and for those of you thinking “hey, I thought You had infinite capacity!”, my answer to you is “I do infinite capacity, I’m just making up an excuse – I do that sometimes”).

Now, on to the latest doomed attempt by the non-believers to logic Me out of existence. Barney87 posted the argument popularized by that pesky Richard “Prove it to me” Dawkins:

1) Complex entities can come into existence in three ways: either by design, evolution or chance.

2) God is a complex entity.

3) God cannot have been designed.

4) God cannot have evolved.

5) Therefore, God must have come into existence by chance.

6) The probability of a being spontaneously coming into existence with the remarkable properties of God (omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence) is extremely slight.

7) Therefore, God’s existence is extremely improbable.

Improbable, Mr R Dawkins, but not impossible. That’s no winning argument – in fact it’s a blatant admission that I might exist. And I blog too, but just because it is seems highly improbable that I blog, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, yet here you are reading this post, written effortlessly (and without spellchecker turned on) by the Creator Myself.

So since Mr Dawkins is practically admitting I exist (I accept his apology), let’s state here a more graceful and infallible argument that proves My wonderful existence, quoted from the blaspheming John Allen Paulos’ new book “Irreligion“:

  1. Something – the diversity of lifeforms, the beauty of the outdoors, the stars, the fine structure constants – is much to complex (or too perfect) to have come about randomly or by sheer accident.
  2. This something must have been the handiwork of some creator (yours truly).
  3. Therefore God (er, Me), exists.

It doesn’t get much simpler or obviously correct than this. Matter settled…next!

2 Responses to Dawkins’ argument against the existence of Me

  1. Oh, I get it! You is, so I is too! – It is a shame about Dawkins. But I can understand how he would believe in an impersonal God or no God at all. Seemingly unexplainable suffering and apparent unfairness in life often makes people angry, and they turn away from God. But anger usually clouds one’s thinking.Feel free to examine the article on the Theory of Uniformatarianism that demonstrates why Dawkins is wrong and this Fake God Blogger is right, at http://www.grandfathersfamilybible.com/theory00.html where you can also sit back and relax and listen to the audio Bible and some Bible Studies.

  2. fakegod says:

    Thank you Bogus, for pointing out all that I already know and less.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: