Do apprise me of the specious aspect of my argument.

My argument against the existence of God has several aspects. But all I ever do is take the believer viewpoint and tease out what's wrong with it. I have no personal concept of God at all. I wouldn't have really, would I? Of course, like all good atheists, I harbour the tiniest scintilla of doubt that I may be wrong. As with Dawkins, I'm at 6.9 on the seven-point scale, where 7.0 means that God certainly does not exist. 1. No-one has ever had a meeting with God that he can corroborate. 2. The only claims for God arise from ancient stories written by advocates of Jesus, or, going back a bit further, of God himself, or by uncorroborated witnesses, or from tradition, or from edicts, or from ceremony. 3. There is not a single reference to Jesus in any contemporary secular source, even though such potential sources are abundant. All we have are early Christian writings from people who dearly wanted a Jesus. 4. Believers (not me, Keith) place God entirely at odds with every law of nature and, more suspiciously, beyond the reach of scientific scrutiny, by making him eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing and the creator of everything. As a rational sort of chap (at least, that's my aspiration), I tend to adhere slightly better to concepts that work within those laws. I'm aware that our understanding of nature is imperfect, but at least we do know something about the kinds of things that will never fit. 6. Much of what God is supposed to have achieved puts him at odds with the overwhelming evidence provided by honest science. For example, the myth of creation is completely incompatible with evolution, which we know to be true.