Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" has embarrassing logical errors

Thanks to Pro for his opening arguments; allow me to respond.Before I continue, however, allow me to make a point. I am taking this debate on the pretext that logical errors in "The God Delusion" are only considered "embarrassing" if Dawkins himself proposed them. Otherwise, I will instantly consent the debate to Pro, as he [Dawkins] puts forward a lot of ID (intelligent design) arguments within the book, and thus Pro could semantically argue that:"Within the pages of The God Delusion we find a fallacious ontological argument. Therefore, The God Delusion has a logical error." If Pro wishes to go down that route, I consent. So far, he has not, and I should hope we shall not! Similarly, any counter argument that isn't Dawkins' own, I will consider to be invalid for the purpose of this debate. That is to say, if Kant's objection is fallacious, I should hope this doesn't help fulfill Pro's burden, because it isn't Dawkins' own counter. Again, if Pro wishes to do so, I consent here and now. Let us hope that we don't traverse down the semantics route.I think my opponent means what I think he means, though, because my opponent consistently uses "Dawkins' argument". We'll see. Anyway, allez! With that out of the way, onto my opponent's contentions.Opponent's Contention One: The counter given for Anselm's Ontological Argument. Well, I agree entirely with my opponent here. This argument is fallacious, although (as my opponent pointed out); it is just a parody. A parody that is not Dawkins' own, I should add. The refute given in The God Delusion is not Dawkins' own counter, merely it is para-phrased from Douglas Gasking, who proposed the argument[1]. If my opponent wishes to keep this contention open, then I consent it. Although since it is not Dawkins' counter, I will consider it "refuted" until either:a) My opponent proves that this objection is Dawkins' original work. Or:b) My opponent clarifies that by "has", it meant within the book's pages and not (as I assume) an argument that Dawkins himself proposed. Opponent's Contention 2: Dawkins' "central argument". I'm going to go through this in a random order, so please bear with me. We do open the world of interpretation here, because books are all read differently, of course. What I believe Dawkins' conclusion meant is that "from all that I have given, here, in my book, we can safely reach a conclusion that God almost certainly doesn't exist." As in, following all of the refutes or para-phrased refutes that Dawkins provided in his book, the conclusion he proposes is backed up by a host of objections. Dawkins tried to set out, throughout the book, many counters. If he actually, explicitly stated that: This is my argument set out formally, xyz. Then I would be quite moronic to try and defend it. the conclusion would indeed be non-sequiter. However, I never saw it as such. Indeed, I even think he tried to (albeit rather ineffectively) suggest this:"I shall summarize it as a series of six numbered points." These are summaries and this is not a formal, complete argument. These are points and not premises. Here are lots of points that summarise what I have already been through in this book. Point 1Point 2 etc...I see these points to defend my assertion that "God almost certainly does not exist." I don't think he meant it as a conclusion. This is a quotation: "5. We don’t yet have an equivalent [theory] for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology… 6. We should not give up hope of a better [theory] arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology… God almost certainly does not exist."Notice how there is no "Therefore" or "From these premises I conclude". Indeed, he calls them "points", instead of premises.If Dawkins meant what I think he meant, then it cannot be fallacious, just poorly presented, begging to be misinterpreted. Of course, I could be completely wrong, but I fear we are in the world of interpretation. This is, after all, a book and not a case study, scientific review, or paper. On the "who designed the designer?" area:It is, of course, true that we cannot allow explanations to become infinite regresses. We would not be able to explain anything then! But something as complex as a designer needs an explanation. Laws of nature "just are". Dark matter "just is". True, we're working on it. However, the laws of nature or dark matter never designed anything. There are mindless with no conscious. A designer would have to be. And a mind or conscious has to be explained, otherwise we see a case of special pleading fallacy, which is the take on:"Well yes everything that can intelligently design has an explanation, but God is some kind of exception of this rule" Why is God an exception? Unless a reason is presented why God (the IDer) is the exception, we must ask who designed the designer, otherwise we enter special pleading, which is a fallacy. Well, I hope I have addressed my opponent's contentions to an acceptable level. I sincerely hope we won't ensue into semantics of "well this writing is technically within the book", because so far at least, this debate has been engaging and (for me at the least) thought provoking. See y'all next round!Source(s):[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...