But, pete, Dawkins didn't "demolish" the creationist woman on the chat show - that's the point! It was she who used the same dishonest tactics that you do. She demanded 'evidence' and then when Dawkins (calmly and rationally) provided her with the evidence she ignored it and changed the subject. All of the evidence that you could need is readily available in countless books - including the book by Dawkins that I recommended above ('GUEST' has recently provided you with the 'Beak of the Finch' title - go out and read that too). Now I could make the effort of summarising these books for you but (a) why should I do the work for you? And (b) you would only bleat about not believing the evidence anyway ... or change the subject, as the woman in the chat show did.

"your error is the insistence that he [God] has to be made, and consist of some kind of material."

I am not making any sort of "error" by asking a LOGICAL question!

"leaving aside whether his existence can be proved or not, I venture that a deity who is spirit and greater in power, creating all else that is , is at least a logical concept ,if not opposed by fanatical unbelief."

pete, it is NOT a "logical concept" - it is your PREFERRED EXPLANATION! There is a major difference!

"Fanatical unbelief" (!) - now there's a phrase to conjure with!