❤ Who Designed the Designer??? ❤

Video Description — If you told me that scientists had discovered a pile of technologically advanced equipment on the moon, and that they had therefore concluded that the equipment must have been designed by an intelligent designer, wouldn't that be a scientifically valid conclusion for you to present to me, given the circumstances?

If I were to counter with the statement, "Well, your claim that the equipment was designed brings up the question of who designed the designer, and therefore, there could not have been a designer for that technologically advanced equipment at all," would that be a logically coherent statement for me to make?

Dawkins has made that statement is response to the Science of Intelligent Design, and he has stated that it is the "central argument" of his silly little book.

He stated that because positing a designer brings up the question "Who designed the designer?" then the position that there is an intelligent designer must necessarily be untrue.

Dr. William Lane Craig points out the multiple levels of idiocy in Dawkins' delusional "central argument" against God's factual appearance and activities.

Although it's clear that there is no intelligence in Dawkins' assessment of the origin of the cosmos, his attempt to extrapolate his own personal lack of intelligence onto the designer of the cosmos has failed miserably.

As always, my channel is a stronghold of free speech -- anyone and everyone may post comments freely on all of the videos on my channel.

This guy is not making any sense, his word are not based on anything more than his own personal (and delusional) bias. If I posed the argument that the universe was created by 1,000s of gnome engineers—I could use the same argument that he uses (thousands of cosmic gnomes replacing God) and be just as intellectually honest. The point Dawkins makes is a great one, it shows that God is no real explanation for the universe.

This is why I dislike philosophy, it typically provides no real answers. Philosophers normally just screw with wordplay to pretend to know more than can be known.

When this guy is speaking he has that "I'm holding back an erection" look about him; you know.. that glazed look a person gets in their eyes when they are stroking their own ego. He provided nothing to the argument, and no actual argument against Richard Dawkins' argument (see any parallels?).
We as humans cannot know of the objective, as we are stuck viewing the world through the lens of subjectivity. Our subjective experience of this world is 'based on a true story', the truth we will never see.