I realize that this will probably never see the eyes of Mr. Dawkins. I realize that this may anger his supporters so much, may further lead them to dislike religion, religious people, that they may, having read this, explode in rage or frustration, or may laugh at my insolence. I realize that Richard may never read this, and probably will never respond and will never change his ideas just because of some internet comment. However, I have to try. I saw your (meaning Mr. Dawkins) interview with Stephen Colbert tonight, and, although I have never read any of your books that might have addressed this, I have one simple question for you. If you do believe in what you say--which, I assume, you do--you believe that all things may be explained by scientific analysis and observations. You proved this when you asked where God came from. Well, if you do not believe in God, then you must believe that through scientific processes the universe, earth, and all humans have been created, and as such, the happening that occurred was likened to that of the Big Bang(as a perfect example that is so readily used by people of your understanding). But tell me this, what created the Big Bang? Either you must tell me that Elements were constructed from nothing, which is scientifically impossible, or that the Universe or the elements that created the Big Bang were forever in existence, or both. Or, you must tell me that you cannot know this, or that it is unknown, or that by some means your knowledge does not extend thus far. By choosing the former options, you are putting yourself in the same category as "religious bible thumpers" or zealots by saying that something which is proved scientifically impossible by our laws which you use as your pulpit for everything else is something that you believe in. Therefore, it is once again taken down to the level of pure speculation. Or, your can choose the latter of the two options and say that it cannot be known. Although I doubt that anyone of your calabur would want to admit this, this is truly the most sane answer because it does not limit things that we don't entirely understand to rules which apply only to the studies which we do understand and pursue. However, in stating this, it would disproving and killing the entire premise for your last book in which I assume you attempt to disprove the existence of God. It would do this because it would be admitting that truly you do not know how or why or what, and, therefore, it is mere speculation and the existence of God can therefore not be disproved because no scientific explanation that is in form of every earthly scientific explanation can explain the event(overly wordy, I know). In short, it is speculation, a mere hypothesis either way. In truth, we cannot go back in time and see what exactly went on--and clearly we cannot explain it using the laws which guide us on earth or in space (attempting to do so in anyway, as was said before, would be ludicrous because the event had so much [speculation] energy and was such an anomaly that we cannot really test using the same variables and constants). So, in short, we must ultimately accept that there are things that we do not understand. Religion tries to explain it one way, and they adopt God. It's a pity though, that so many rules a regulations and arbitrary ideologies have accompanied such a belief, because those things turn rational people like you against it. Thank you for reading this.