“It Must Have Been Simple” (Like the Argument?)

²²Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (Romans 1:22, King James Version)

I came across a rather odd Richard Dawkins quote:

Time and again, my theologian friends returned to the point that there had to be a reason why there is something rather than nothing. There must have been a first cause of everything, and we might as well give it the name God. Yes, I said, but it must have been simple and therefore, whatever else we call it, God is not an appropriate name…

~ Dawkins, Richard. Retrieved from The God Delusion, p 155.

He simply states, “It must have been simple” and no reason given for why. All he does is compare it to dealings oneself the perfect bridge hand.

Previous in the chapter, he states that a God capable of designing a universe much be “complex and statistically improbable.” Is that it? Is that all the world renown atheist has to offer as way of an argument? In that case, the theory of ID must be valid because much of it rests upon the extreme improbability that the universe just happened.

Yet, push that argument forward, and what do you get? “Well, the math doesn’t prove anything!” Well, that cuts both ways then.

I haven’t read the entire book. Frankly, if this is all he has to offer, I don’t see the point.