Hello folks. I'm a newbie here and just thought I'd introduce a subject in perhaps a way that I hadn't noticed use before. I'm a thiest and don't apologize for it, despite the fact that some believe theism is evil. But my topic isn't evil at the moment. My topic is more in the realm of how do we know this or that?

So I wondered if I could prove Dawkins exists. The parallel is obvious. I've never seen him, so if seeing is believing, then I suppose I should think he doesn't exist, or at least that I have no proof of his existence. But I do believe he exists, so obviously I think that I don't have to have direct observation to reasonably believe he exists. One reason I believe he exists is I read a book called The Blind Watch Maker. Based on an intelligent design type argument, I think Dawkins exists. My personal opinion is if I can believe Dawkins exist based on indirect evidence, what could stop me from believing there is a creator of the universe? My opinion at the moment is that proving Dawkins exists, is in the same boat as proving a creator of the universe exists. so if I believe one, why would it be unreasonable to believe the other?