Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain
For the sake of debate Dawkins needs to take a point of view on if God exists or if he doesn't. How can you debate something if both sides say you maybe right and I maybe right the debate is over right there.
God is a matter of faith and religion, it is something personal, not something empiric, not something provable. That's why Dawkins scientific approach to God is flawed, God is not a matter of science.
Is it really so hard to understand what science and religion are about and where the limits of both are?