Since nobody has made any serious points I'll put up a couple off problems:
The Ontological Argument
Kant's objection is petty decisive. Although I believe that I prefer the point that "to be is to be instantiated" (though I forget where I read it, or who said it). It makes absolutely clear the problem with Anselm's argument that it confuses the
idea of God with it's instantiation (which would be God Himself).
quote:
Reading this objection got me thinking about the property of existence. And the question I repeatedly kept asking myself was
"In order for something to exist, must it also correspond with reality?" A lot of people will say yes. However, there are examples of non-real existences. For example, if someone has a recipe they have created for the first time in their mind but have not yet tried/cooked, then that recipe exists-----non-really.
Here you have much the same confusion. You confuse the recipe proper - the instructions for creating the dish - with the dish itself. The recipe exists, at least in the mind of it's inventor. The dish does not. So there is nothing there that exists "non-really".
quote:
In this sense, a recipe that is real i.e prepared is perfect while a recipe in mind is imperfect--because it can be prepared. What do you guys think?
I would say that that is obviously false. Following a set of instructions does not make those instructions any more "perfect" in any sense. So long as we are careful to distinguish the recipe proper - the instructions - from the dish produced by following the recipe we see nothing that contradicts Kant's argument in the slightest.
quote:
If there was a perfect Being, we would see a LOT of perfect things in our world...perfect people, perfect places, perfect health, perfect wealth since we would expect that a perfect Being would create perfect things. However, we have reasons to doubt the existence of a perfect Being since we see that our world is imperfect---which means we need to account for where the imperfection came from and why is it existent?
I will note there that this is a major problem for you, and it is very likely that you do not have an adequate answer.
The Cosmological Argument
Merely arguing that our universe has a cause of some sort does little to prove that the cause is God.
Teleological Argument
Essentially what you are proposing is a fine-tuning argument.
The objection that much of the universe is NOT suitable for our existence is a problem that you acknowledge but you don't really answer. Most of the universe - virtually all of it! - is certainly not logically necessary for our existence, so you are either left proposing that the creator had some other purpose for the universe or that the creator was limited to creating universes much like ours. The first option is the better for your argument but it is certainly a bit of a blow for the stream of Christian thought that argues for the central importance of humanity.
Another objection is that we do not know precisely how the universe came to have the constants that it does now - or the probability that it would come out suitable for some sort of life, nor how often the process that produced our universe has occurred. So it is premature to insist that it must be the result of intentional design.
Thirdly, any proposed creator must be an intelligent being. Either it needs a universe like ours or it does not. Therefore, either intelligent beings do not necessarily require a universe like ours - or a universe like ours can exist without being intentionally created.
In short, the argument that the universe was created for the existence of intelligent beings simply does not hold up. A teleological argument that proposed a different purpose might, but that argument has not been made.
The Moral Argument
Your source simply assumes that morality is a set of laws imposed by a "higher" authority. Which rather begs the question of the source of that authority. It cannot be based on any moral claim to authority because that creates a vicious circularity. The obvious alternative - "might makes right" is widely rejected as a valid source of authority and is usually regarded as an immoral view! So I would question whether that argument admits that morality - as most people would understand it - even exists!
quote:
The source doesn't really talk about the concept of conscience. We all know that animals lack conscience. They steal, but do not feel guilty. They kill, but do no view it as a sin. Whereas, humans feel certain emotions that are specific to them and also closely related to their concept of morality.
While this is obviously true of some animals, is it true of ALL of them ? The evolutionary account does not expect it to be true of most animals either. Let us remember that you are talking about internal mental states which cannot be directly examined. Do you have any studies which prove that chimpanzees, say, have no conscience ?
(I will also add that even for humans you have a difficulty distinguishing between instinctive and cultural components of morality - a fact which both impacts any comparison with animals AND any view on the nature and origins of morality).