Hey, common arguments for/against the existence of a God or Gods, I'll state the assumptions required for each, and a possible debunking of the argument afterwards if I can be bothered.
Argument from Design
1. Appearance of design in the universe suggests a designer.
2. Design is observable in the universe.
From 1,2, a designer exists.
Possible refutations.
Appearance of design in natural systems in naive. Water expanding in a circle (techincally a very thin cylinder) on the ground would hence suggest that Euclid is drawing the expansion using a protractor and rule - using the same derivation.
Statistical likelyhood of a complex designer is unlikely, as complexity and entropy increase. Complex here could mean the usual three omnis and indeed a fully sentient, transcendental mind.
Rebuttal: What can we know about the truth value of the proposition "A non-empty set of transcendental concepts exists"? - nothing, as it's a priori beyond our reckoning.
It's possible to follow the rabbithole down to "What is knowledge?", it's generally defined as "justified true belief" - but that's a crappy definition, if you're interested google "Gettier problems".
General Argument from Beauty/Love/Logic/Ziggybookydook
1. Beauty/Love/Logic can be universally experienced.
2. The origins of such are sketchy and seem to be beyond our reckoning.
3. Therefore they were created by something beyond our reckoning.
Possible refutations:
1. "Can" is iffy, any conditional statement is necessarily true. "X can be Y'd", so long as X is sufficiently related to Y - is true.
2. Appeal to ignorance, this step's intellectually bankrupt.
3. This one follows from 2.
NB: Ziggybookydook is not a real word.
But so long as something is sufficiently complex for us to not have a full understanding of it (usually a a concept, sorry to use this phrase again, which people define a priori as transcendental - which makes any statement saying " some transcendental concepts exist" a tautology within a deductive system) the argument can seem convincing.
Also - abiogenesis, evolution, all subjective concepts can be explained concordantly with scientific naturalism - positing an alternative claim, while allowed, will generally not be as justified as the empirical, scientific naturalistic approach.
For a brief run through of abiogenesis, incase you guys don't believe me.
Fatty acids form circles due to the Coulomb force (and molecular geometry), the circle is very permeable and thus allows molecules inside of it. Complex molecules inside of the fatty acid circle increase osmotic pressure and cause the fatty acid circle to expand. Fatty acids tend to attract eachother so a large fatty acid circle would attract more - getting larger and larger. So it goes on in a circle - this is the origin of competition (precursor for evolution).
It follows that molecules inside of the fatty acid membrane... if they could create more of a shift in osmotic pressure the vesicle would expand - thus making them larger, which means that inner molecules being able to form large polymer chains, maybe self replicate, form ionic lattices - things like that, would provide a competative advantage.
There, origin of life and evolution.
Concepts of love, beauty, hope and all that can be reduced to survival mechanisms, or as Neitzsche would have it WILL TO POWER.
The Ontological Argument
1. A concept of divinity exists.
2. This concept is perfect in all ways.
3. Therefore omnipotent (perfect power).
4. A divinity could not have "maximum affectuality" (be omnipotent) if it couldn't affect things.
5. A divinity must exist to affect things.
6. A divinity exists.
Rebuttal: philosophy's still in uproar about this question "Is existence a predicate/perfection?"
The ontological argument, while being able to prove - possibly, that a divinity exists - it does not prove YOUR divinity exists, and only possibly works if your divinity has no flaws (the idea of being flawed is subjective, also, that's a buttock for the argument).
It cannot be used, like the rest of these arguments, to justify a personal faith.
Historicity of Divine Claims
Too many holy books, too many messiahs to count.
Miracles are the usual example - specific instances of such cannot be attributed to a personal divinity.
Most of them are "God caused this miracle because I say so." and "God's miracle is evidence of God's existence" - which are appeal to authority and circular reasoning respectively.
Pascal's Wager
1. Assign infinite gain to going to Heaven.
2. Assign infinite loss from going to Hell.
3. Infinite gain is a good thing.
4. Therefore believe in what would give you this infinite gain.
The wager can be generalised to any divine reward/punishment system, it is NOT a justification for beginning to believe in a system of divinity, however it can be used as a justification for continued faith.
However, the assignation of infinite gain to a concept whose existence is sketchy is, at best, very flawed - Pascal's Wager provides no knowledge as to the existence of a divinity.
tl;dr - you're an apatheist.
