> Refuting Richard Dawkin's "Who Designed the Designer" Argument

[Qatada]

:

When we argue that this universe is clearly designed because of the order in it, stubborn atheists like Richard Dawkins reply back saying (paraphrasing) "Well if you believe that the complexity of this universe cries out for a designer, then surely the one who designed this universe is more complex and cries out for a designer as well".

Dr. William Lane Craig refutes this by saying:

This rejoinder is flawed on at least two counts. First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extra-terrestrial agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extra-terrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.

Secondly, Dawkins thinks that in the case of a divine designer of the universe, the designer is just as complex as the thing to be explained, so that no explanatory advance is made. This objection raises all sorts of questions about the role played by simplicity in assessing competing explanations; for example, how simplicity is to be weighted in comparison with other criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, and so forth. But leave those questions aside. Dawkins' fundamental mistake lies in his assumption that a divine designer is an entity comparable in complexity to the universe. As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas, which may, indeed, be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity, for whatever that is worth.

Other steps in Dawkins' argument are also problematic; but I think enough has been said to show that his argument does nothing to undermine a design inference based on the universe's complexity, not to speak of its serving as a justification of atheism.

By Bassam Zawadi;
Refuting Richard Dawkin's "Who Designed the Designer" Argument - Multaqa Ahl al-Hadeeth

[Aayah]

I think for people like Dawkin...they need first to explain and understand each tiny bit of this world and find out every single reason behind it, and after they find out the truth behind every single creature. they can move on to their ultimate topic in who create the creator.
because by that time, and find all the hidden facts of this universe "which is impossible for such people to reach" they will know that the one who create every single bit in this universe cant be created by anything else

but to be more reasonable, this will not work, because they will need billions of years to find out the secrets behind creating everything

Say: Though the sea became ink for the Words of my Lord, verily the sea would be used up before the words of my Lord were exhausted, even though We brought the like thereof to help. (18:109)

And horses and mules and asses (hath He created) that ye may ride them, and for ornament. And He createth that which ye know not.(16:8)

So lets just leave them in their blindness if they insist to stay on it

[Assad]

^ That's a good point sister. Richard is still stubborn on his same point which although is now refuted. They just go into deep philosophies, completely meaningless and and...boring.