The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[Esquilax]

Alternatively, it may be that theists deploy a cluster of arguments (Kalam, Teleological, Moral, Ontological, etc.) knowing that the net effect is to persuade that the existence of a supreme being is more likely than not to be true.

*sigh*

That's what we always get told. Theists seem to mistake quantity as being the key component here, as if they just need to round up lots and lots of arguments for god, and then suddenly they'll be able to logic him into existence. Not only is that not how it works, as you need evidence to demonstrate a thing, not just arguments about how it must totally exist, but the success or failure of a "cluster of arguments," is predicated on those arguments being successful, which none of the ones for god are. You don't build a cumulative case out of sheer numbers, each one of the arguments within it must actually be cogent in some respect for the case to accumulate, which is where theistic rambling falls down every time.

You can have a million bad arguments and still not have a case that the focus of those arguments is probabilistically likely.

IOW, Cato, theists have quite a few arrows in their quiver, and it only takes one to strike the target. Atheists, on the other hand, must successfully dodge them all as they rain down...

Are you kidding me? You're going to ramble on about argumentation and then, at the very end, completely fuck it up by committing one of the most obvious logical fallacies of them all, in shifting the burden of proof? No, we don't actually need to refute every single argument or else you're right, you need to demonstrate the accuracy of your argument's claims, which no theist ever actually does. Instead of just getting simple evidence that god does exist, we instead get all these vague, philosophical, poorly defined weasel arguments about how he must exist, because the actual burden of proof is one theists can't shoulder, and so they seek to swap it out with a different criterion more amenable to allowing their predrawn conclusion.

Arguments are not evidence. For an argument to be rationally justified, it must rely on evidence that is demonstrably accurate, and nothing in these hand wringing, pathetic little wheedling pleas about how god is logically possible do that. It's all just heavily curated rhetoric, delivered in a vacuum, with no regard to the idea that the real world is what demonstrates what's real, not how far you can twist logic to come to a conclusion you had before you even started thinking about it.