challenge to Kant?s moral argument for the existence of God ..

8. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming The Need For A First Cause. As best as we can determine, time and space began with the Big Bang. Prior to the Big Bang, there was no time or space in which sequential causation could have occurred. So, we cannot speak of the universe’s coming into existence as needing a “cause” in the same sense that a tall building in the middle of a city needed a cause.

We can either bet on the existence of God or we can bet on the non-existence of God.
Photo provided by Flickr

It is also true that a mere barren intellectual assent to the truth of God's existence -- and such an assent is conceivable -- falls very far short of what religious assent ought to be; that what is taught in revealed religion about the worthlessness of faith uninformed by charity has its counterpart in natural religion; and that practical Theism, if it pretends to be adequate, must appeal not merely to the intellect but to the heart and conscience of mankind and be capable of winning the total allegiance of rational creatures.

Ontological arguments are based on the concept of God as proof ..

However, this is also a problem in the discussion of the existence of god.
Photo provided by Flickr

9. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That Life Is So Improbable That It Could Only Come About If The Universe Were Fine Tuned By A Supernatural Force. Believers claim that the constants in the Universe that made it possible for life to emerge are so unlikely that the stage could not have been set by other than a divine being. However, we have nothing to compare our universe to. We cannot point to a million universes and note that they are lifeless and thus affirm that the appearance of life in our universe was so unlikely that a supernatural force had to jump start it.

Logic & Fallacies: Constructing a Logical Argument - …

A Priori, or Ontological, ArgumentThis argument undertakes to deduce the existence of God from the idea of Him as the Infinite which is present to the human mind; but as already stated, theistic philosophers are not agreed as to the logical validity of this deduction.

There is a lot of debate on the net

Substantially the same arguments as are used today were employed by old-time sceptical Atheists in the effort to overthrow man's belief in the existence of the Divine, and the fact that this belief has withstood repeated assaults during so many ages in the past is the best guarantee of its permanency in the future.

Natural Theology | Appeared-to-Blogly

(d) The argument from universal consent The confirmatory argument based on the consent of mankind may be stated briefly as follows: mankind as a whole has at all times and everywhere believed and continues to believe in the existence of some superior being or beings on whom the material world and man himself are dependent, and this fact cannot be accounted for except by admitting that this belief is true or at least contains a germ of truth.

PROOF! the "God" of Islam is actually SATAN! | …

And just as the argument from design brings out prominently the attribute of intelligence, so the argument from science brings out the attribute of holiness in the First Cause and self-existent Personal Being with whom we must ultimately identify the Designer and the Lawgiver.