Don't be silly, this essay is actually pretty useless. Dawkins describes how our brain can create illusions, but he doesn't mention any cause of these illusions, maybe he even believes that these visions and hallucinations are caused just somehow automatically, out of themselves...like christians believes in God. There must be found a cause behind every single  notoriously known hallucination or vision, otherwise it's a blind faith in a thing happening by itself. If he simply doesn't know, then why doesn't he stop talking about things he doesn't understand? For who the brain actually creates this image of reality? Who else is there, except of the brain?
Dawkins is just playing with words, whenever it's possible. Of course, what these 70 000 of people saw in Fatima, wasn't a movement of sun itself, but a purposely designed illusion of movement of a circular light up there. It is like he would say that people watching Godzilla in TV really believes in destruction of Manhattan and that this film doesn't exist, becuase people standing behind the TV can't see it.

Richard's comments on first three Aquinas' "proofs" are similar, he just unfairly misuses a typical christianic mess in what exactly God is. This brings the discussion to the logicalness of christianity, which is, as we know, similar thing like dryness of water, and Dawkins no longer needs to bother answering what really was the primordial cause, whatever it was. We just can know one thing for sure, that it was.
Argument 4 is alike, almost nobody really knows, what "go(o)dness" really is. Aquinas and Dawkins certainly doesn't.

In argument 5, Dawkins heavily relies upon evolution. But does evolution by "survival of the fittest" really resemble what we call evolution? I don't think so.
1) Evolution by "survival of the fittest" produces a huge amount of mistakes and by-products, from tests it appears as several thousands of mistakes per one success. These "evolution mistakes" has never been found as fossils in the necessary amount. (and the results of test were very bizarre)
2) A successful transformation of one autonomic species into another is generally impossible without a purposeful affection of the process. There are species 1 which, as it looks like, transformed into species 2. But there have never been found any species of 1.5. Both species 1 and 2 have different methods of survival, but a hypothetic species 1.5 can use neither of them, they have no chance of surviving long enough to lose traits of species 1 and (remember, randomly) develop all necessary traits of species 2.
Darwin himself knew these gaps in his theory and he never considered it as an answer for everything, unlike his theory is viewed now. The darwinistic cult as we today know it, it's power appeared as a tool of political opposition against the Church influence, not as the final truth about life.
I think, Mr. Dawkins should find some new proofproof paradigm, because this one is a bit outworn.