I read Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion recently and despite a convincing scientific argument in favour of atheism I still don't know that I don't know. Does that make me an agnostic agnostic I wonder or does two agnostics make an atheist? Mind you,I'm not totally convinced by his argument and believe me I'm not religious. I feel he uses the laws ofscience convincingly enough especially concerning natural selection, improbablity and the laws of physics to a certain extent to demonstrate that our existence can be explained without having to resort to religion. But religion was never a problem with me as I don't have any anyway. However, does he prove that there is no God? Maybe he might have shown that the Gods such as Yahweh and even the present day Gods were/are unlikely but when you go back to the Big Bang and there seems to be reasonable proof that this happened, how can he explain the unexplainable? Hesays that there are gaps in our scientific knowledge at present which in time will be filled in and all explained. But maybe science can't explain everthing down to the last detail, after all the laws of physics collapse at singularities, such as black holes and the big bang. Why does he feel science can explain maybe what is the unexplainable?