Richard Dawkins when he was in his mid teens decided that evolution was a better explanation to him
than creation and he stopped beliving in God at that time and he has been putting forth his atheistic
arguments ever since, which is fine.
But thats his agenda.
Everyone has the same facts and since he was a teenager he has been twisting and spining the facts
to make his point.
Scientifically, however the earth and universe came into existence, I take into consideration that God is a spirit
and he is/ was outside of the universe when he made the universe.
Man doesnt know enough to prove there is no God.
We dont know enough about quantum physics, parallel universes and other dimensions to rule out the posibility
Man just recently became aware of the invisible dimension of radio waves in 1865.
To dismiss God living in another dimension as the bible says he is a spirit, seems to be putting on blinders to
a very posible reality.
I like Richard Dawkins I've read all his popular books, but he's a phd, a zooologist.
When he writes about there being no God and the big bang, do atheist hold his being a phd
zoologist who studied animal behavior against him? What does zooology have to do with the big bang?
He writes about it. I dont hear the atheist chiding him for his lack of credentials in the field.
Then why do atheist say disparaging things about a person who has a phd in hydrology which seems just as relevant regarding
creation and a global flood when he writes books about God, the bible and creation.
And if a phd in Hydrology writing books about God and creation is considered an apologist.
Why isnt a phd in zooology writing books about no God an apologist?
When did whats being good for the goose stop being good for the gander?