There is no reason to believe in god(s)

If you typed that argument on an iPad, YOU might be a god! Well done. Arguments refuted" Kalam P2 is an unsupported and unsupportable assertion. "Began to exist" is not defined in the context of the universe. There is no time at which the universe did not exist, so it can be argued to be infinite. "Before the universe" is a nonsensical concept, and is thus unknowable. If we accept C1, we are left with the question: What was that cause? For an answer to be useful, it has to be explanatory. "I don"t know" is always preferable to a non-explanatory answer because it leaves open the search for truth. You assert that the cause must be a personal, extremely powerful intelligence with agency, which can fairly be called a "being". You also assert that this being is timeless and immaterial. Intelligence is a product of mind, and minds consist of matter. "Immaterial mind" is self contradictory. What evidence do you have that such a thing is possible? Intelligence, agency and the ability to be personal implies consciousness, yet you assert this being is timeless. What evidence do you have that a conscious being can possibly be infinite? How do you justify excluding this being from the problem of infinite regress? Can you cite any example of a being that has no beginning? On what basis has a natural cause been ruled out? C1 is not explanatory because there is no demonstration that the proposed causal agent is possible. If possible, by what mechanism does the being create a universe? Given that C1 is not explanatory regarding the ability for the cause to actually exist or how it could create a universe, it is not reasonable to accept your assertion. Intelligent Design. You actually presented the Fine Tuning argument here, which is based on multiple false assumptions and unsupported assertions. Some constants presented in this argument are inter-dependent such that a change in one requires a change in others, which greatly reduces the probability calculation. It"s quite possible that natural laws dictate possible values, limiting or eliminating the "theoretically possible" values, which is very different from "chance". Regardless, even if your assertions are correct, how did you determine what the "most probable explanation" is? Given that we have a set of 1 universes to examine, the current data suggests a 100% likelihood of the values being what they are. What is the probability that a timeless, immaterial intelligent being is possible, and how did you factor that into your probability equation? The Pool Table Argument This is a version of the problem of infinite regress, which, even if it proves an uncaused cause, says nothing about the nature of that cause. As shown above, the best answer is that the cause is unknown. Moral Argument P1 is meaningless without a definition of "objective morality". P2 is simply false. Objective morality does not exist; morality is always subjective. Your definition of moral relativism, from apologist sources, changes the frame from morality to "truth". This is an invalid and intentionally deceptive move in order to reach the false conclusion that without god truth is relative. Morality refers to what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable in human behavior. Morality is easily shown to be fluid across cultures, time, and from individual to individual. For example, I find intentionally deceptive argumentation to be unacceptable behavior, while the author of your moral relativism definition does not. For other examples, look at the morality in the bible that would be considered reprehensible today. How closely do you follow the bible"s moral teaching when you beat your slaves? Irreducible Complexity This argument commits the fallacies of "argument from incredulity" and the "God of the gaps." The degree to which the flagellum is "breathtaking" or "mesmerizing" is irrelevant to how it came to be (argument from incredulity). The holes in our understanding of flagellum development to not justify a leap to "god did it" (God of the gaps fallacy). The "reducibility" of the flagellum motor has been demonstrated and explained for two decades.[1][2] The irreducible complexity of the eye has been thoroughly refuted. The development of the eye can be seen in small steps of increased functionality in both the fossil record and existing organisms. This argument stems from a Charles Darwin quote in Origin of Species that was taken out of context. The context of the quote actually explains how the eye may have evolved from simple structures.[3] Richard Dawkins provides a clear explanation of why your assertion that "if any of the eye"s parts were absent we would be blind" is clearly false. [4] This argument comes from Intelligent Design, which is actually my favorite example of evolution. As was shown in court, ID is simply a re-write of Creation Science in a failed attempt to get biblical creationism taught in public schools.[5] Its an example of religion starting with a thesis (creationism) and seeking to develop "facts" to support the thesis, which is the antithesis of the scientific method. Conclusion If a god existed this discussion would not be possible because such an awesome force would be self evident. Yet, no evidence of a god has been demonstrated. Philosophical arguments are not evidence. At best they are logical constructs that can indicate a likely conclusion. All philosophical arguments for god are based on fallacies, unsupported assertions and/or improperly constructed arguments. At best, philosophy might demonstrate the existence at some point in time of a deistic god that does not posses the ability to interact with our universe. If such a god could be shown, there is no reason to believe in it since it cannot be known if it still exists. Further, there is no way to know a deistic god"s will. Such a god is irrelevant to humanity. There are no reasons to believe in a god. [1] https://www.newscientist.com... [2] http://www.millerandlevine.com... [3] http://www.talkorigins.org... [4] [5] https://ncse.com...