"Dawkins makes a very strong well, reasoned case for there not being a god and certainly not a christian god."
May I suggest, assuming you sill have your copy, that you re-read what Dawkins calls his "God Hypothesis", on page 52 (Black Swan edition).
He defines "God" as "a superhuman, supernaturalintelligence who deliberately designed a\nd created the universe a\nd everything in it, including us."
He then provides his alleged reson for the title of his book, which I will come to in a moment. But let me first point two absolutely basic flaws in his first "definition":
1. Since Dawkins claims that his book is mainly about Christianity, why has he not used the authentic Christian description of Bod? For reasons which will become clear in a moment, it is important to recognize that God is categorically NOT "superhuman".
This definition implies that God belongs in the cateory of beings who cha\nge their clothes in phoneboxes in order to go off and fight the villians. A completely daft analogy.
2. God did not create US, though this does seem to be a remarksbly widespread misunderstanding. God made the universe and everything in it *at the beginning*. Nowadays babies need a father and a mother, even if they never subsequently fulfil those roles.
And now - back to the plot:
Having given his supposedly authentic description, Dawkins then offers what he calls "an alternative view", which is code for "I don't agree and here's my reason why". He goes on to claim that "intelligence" can only come about through evolution, so it must have arisin some timeafter the universe turned up.
What he apparently fails to recognise is that if the definition of God includes the notion that he designed and created the universe then he must have existed BEFORE the universe. Only I don't think Dawkins is daft, and I don't thinkhe would overlook such an obvious point. I do, however, think that this second part of the "hypothesis" is pure horsefeathers. Because at this point Dawkins switches "horses", leaving the original definition behind and claiming that:
"God, in the sense defined, is a delusion"
And so say all of us. Bercause the "God" that Dawkins is now talking about has nothing to do with the God described in Christianity (i.e. in the Bible) and is simply a figment of Dawkins' imagination, based on his longtime involvement with evolution and natural selection.
So right on, squire, from a Christian perspective an evolved God would definitely be a delusion, which is why that isn't a being who/which can be found in the Bible. Who ever thought it was?