[semaj]

"If you want a fairly good partial enumeration of the many proofs out there. Pick up Josh McDowell's "Evidence that demands a verdict". Or "Evidence that demands a verdict II".

Don't bother, most atheists would not deign to soil them selves with such an "erudite" suggestion.

[Dimensio]

Don't bother, most atheists would not deign to soil them selves with such an "erudite" suggestion.

Or perhaps many of us have already seen it and realised that it's not quite as sound as you think that it is.

Why do you always asume that your proofs are "infallable" and that people who don't agree with them just haven't read them?