One of the first things they teach you in high-school philosophy and reason is that it's exceedingly difficult to prove a negative. (Maybe it was a Jesuit school.)
If you can prove that God does not exist to satisfy a crowd of people, then you are indeed a powerful philosophizer. But for me to show that God does exist, all I have to do is show you all God once. It should be much easier for me, right? So why don't you get off your armchair if you know so much and find the requisite one example to show, since you say that none of his work is original it should be easy.
If you can prove that God does not exist to satisfy a crowd of people, then you are indeed a powerful philosophizer. But for me to show that God does exist, all I have to do is show you all God once. It should be much easier for me, right? So why don't you get off your armchair if you know so much and find the requisite one example to show, since you say that none of his work is original it should be easy.