The best answer to most of these is just that even if they were correct, they wouldn't prove the existence of god. Most of them are variations on the 'uncaused cause' argument, which doesn't necessarily point directly to god.
That being said, every single one of these is still wrong.
Argument from Change
Argument from Efficient Causality
Argument from Time and Contingency
All of these are variations on the Uncaused Cause argument. It gives no reason why there would have to be a first cause at all, it just says "there is one, therefore god."
- Argument from Degrees of Perfection
This is the ontological argument. A really weak version of it, if you ask me.
The world is pretty and it works fairly well, therefore god. Right.
The universe had a beginning, therefore god.
We don't even know for sure that the universe HAD a beginning. All we know is that the big bang happened and there was wonky shit going on in those 10-43 seconds that really prevents us from knowing what happened before that.
No explanation as to why the prerequisite for the existence of space and time have to be anything at all, let alone why you'd call that prerequisite "god"
Starting point. This world is given to us as a dynamic, ordered system of many active component elements. Their natures (natural properties) are ordered to interact with each other in stable, reciprocal relationships which we call physical laws. For example, every hydrogen atom in our universe is ordered to combine with every oxygen atom in the proportion of 2:1 (which implies that every oxygen atom is reciprocally ordered to combine with every hydrogen atom in the proportion of 1:2). So it is with the chemical valences of all the basic elements. So too all particles with mass are ordered to move toward every other according to the fixed proportions of the law of gravity.
This is dumb. Hydrogen doesn't stop being hydrogen just because there's no oxygen around. The parts can and do explain their own existence.
“Well attested miracles.” Funny, miracles don't seem to happen that often when cameras are around.
For a really really good counter to this argument in particular, check out Why Won't God Heal Amputees by Marshall Brain. Instrumental in my personal journey out of theism and ignorance.
2.Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.
3.Not blind chance.
Oh come on, he's not even trying anymore.
Truth and Reality are not identical. Reality is that which exists, and Truth is a proper understanding of that reality. An eternal (infinite) reality exists, as far as we can tell, but that doesn't require an infinite mind to contain knowledge about it.
This argument assumes that humans are incapable of saying "what if there were something with no flaws?" unless there is a flawless being giving us that idea. But we can come up with that idea-- we have a grasp of what a "flaw" is, and we can imagine an object that lacks that concept. Now make that idea of flawlessness and make it the biggest thing ever. Congratulations, you just invented god, and you didn't need god to tell you how.
This is making wordplay define reality. I can play this game too:
Lets see if leprechauns exist. Well, it's quite a bit easier to prove an existing object exists than to say that a non-existent one does, so lets try to prove an existing leprechaun exists. Since an existing object exists by definition, an existing leprechaun exists. Therefore, leprechauns exist.
Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil.
No we aren't. We have moral obligation because moral actions make it so other humans will work together with us, and we will die if they don't. Morality follows from self-preservation and group-preservation.
Of course you can't make moral decisions apart from your conscience, your conscience is what tells you what moral decisions are in the first place. This is the same argument as above, except internalized.
"Clap your hands if you believe in fairies"
Pretty things are pretty, therefore god.
It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience.
This is, again, absurd. Most people are wrong about most things, most of the time. Myself included.
"Clap your hands if you believe in fairies" times 7 billion
This has been debunked so many times I don't think it's even worth it to rehash here. Go read this.
There you go. 20 debunked arguments.