Dawkins debunk - an intriguing question I hope you can help

[errant]

I have a - well - question about the Dawkins debunk (http://godandscience.org/apologetics/th ... sion2.html)

This section:

The disturbing thing about Dawkins' definition of God is that he doesn't seem to understand the nature of the universe. Dawkins doesn't seem to understand that space-time is in a state of continual expansion, and that the universe is neither infinite nor eternal. The cause of this expansion, whether it be natural or supernatural, exists outside the bounds of detectable space-time. So, yes, there is an "outside" the universe. The God of Judaism and Christianity does not just "perhaps" exist outside the universe, but quite explicitly cannot be contained by even the outer reaches of the universe.2

Reading the book I understand that Dawkins use of Universe here is with regards to the whole of space-time-dimension itself. I feel the point he is making is that for God to not have a creator himself he would have to exist outside of everything - which in itself presents a paradox of where that 'thing' is and why it cannot be included in the jumble of stuff that is dimensionalist physics..... I did have a funky graphic to explain what I meant but it's a bit confusing

(there are many more places which make me wholly mistrust the entire debunking - as it has very shaky unsupported stances. But this section particularly caught my eye as an interesting an for me unexplained point!)

I often feel that Dawkins' passion causes gross misinterpretation

(It should be noted that at this current time I am swayed by Dawkins and his peers texts over similar pro-god discussions.. in the sense that I see no problem with the belief in god as a moral stance but cannot see any supporting evidence for actual existence)

[Canuckster1127]

Dawkins aside, the whole issue of basing belief in God upon physical proof presupposes some things that in the end become circular.

1. It presupposes that only that which can be demonstrated by physical proof is real.
2. It presupposes that only that which can be perceived by humans by the use of their senses is real.
3. It presupposes that a God, should one exist, would wish to be seen as present by these means, assuming such a God had absolute power or control over the universe.

This is grossly simplified of course. But there's more to a question, than the question itself. There is how that question is framed and what presuppositions the questioner put into place in coming up with an answer.