Dawkins and logic as tags on the same clip is funny. Dawkins knows nothing about logic. He has embarrassed himself in this regard. The above excerpt is good example.

Notice how he uses the phrase "positive reason" to place a qualification on a belief as if all reasons for believing in God are not "positive reasons". Yet, he places no such requirement on his own theories born out of infinite regression. What are the positive beliefs here? Clearly, no rational person would disavow Dawkins' belief because there were no "positive reasons". We simply argue using logic that infinite regression (using one example) is illogical because an infinite number of points of time stretching to the past wo...

Dawkins and logic as tags on the same clip is funny. Dawkins knows nothing about logic. He has embarrassed himself in this regard. The above excerpt is good example.

Notice how he uses the phrase "positive reason" to place a qualification on a belief as if all reasons for believing in God are not "positive reasons". Yet, he places no such requirement on his own theories born out of infinite regression. What are the positive beliefs here? Clearly, no rational person would disavow Dawkins' belief because there were no "positive reasons". We simply argue using logic that infinite regression (using one example) is illogical because an infinite number of points of time stretching to the past would never bring us to the current moment.

We do not even have to get into the fact that reasons do not have to be "positive". They simply must be reasons and that is all. Good grief!