This Is Why I'm Not Swayed

Courtesy of Sandwalk I read the "rational" arguments for the existence of God from the Christianity Today magazine written by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig.

I fully admit my education in philosophy is not very deep, but I am familiar with formal logic which is the basis of these arguments.

The cosmological argument

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God.

The kalam cosmological argument

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The teleological argument

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

The moral argument

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The ontological argument

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
7. Therefore, God exists.

Really? Those are the best they have? The number of assumptions and leaps of faiths in those arguments is astounding and I'll have to read that article just to see his defences to the objections, but at first glance none of them are new and all have been discussed and discredited in my opinion.

I am not swayed.