Four arguments against the existence of God

[Esquilax]

I stopped because I feel that is all the further someone needs to go to show that belief in a generic god is rational. The Christian conception of God conforms to the “unmoved mover”, although it is more.

The trouble is that this isn't true. Even just ignoring the very pertinent fact that the unmoved mover has never been demonstrated to exist, and thus lacks any form of justification, it in itself could not ever show that belief in any form of god, generic or otherwise, to be rational, because it doesn't speak to any form of god. It merely speaks to a cause, which is a necessary precondition for a generic, universe creating god, but not the only one, nor is it a fact that is specific to god claims.

To say that the unmoved mover argument demonstrates that belief in god is rational is roughly the same as saying that the presence of air demonstrates that it is rational to believe that you are standing in the middle of a tornado. The observation is required for the conclusion to be true, but it doesn't even directly point toward the conclusion itself.