Hi there... I think you are probably right in saying that its unlikely that anyone's mind is going to be changed by arguments presented here. However, it should be possible for most people here to consider these arguments for the existence of God critically. I warn you though, I am a pretty ignorant son of the soil, so don't take what I say too seriously.
There are two big problems for me with the Cosmological argument that I have never seen adequately answered. Firstly, as someone already said, how can God escape your rule that everything has a cause? Secondly, the argument totally fails to describe the nature of the first cause. It doesn't have to be the Christian god. It could be something without intelligence... it could be anything.
The anrthopological argument you present is just an assertion, isn't it? Do you think that this argument in itself has any worth?
Your Ontalogical argument doesn't sound like the one that I've heard before. I think Voltaire(?) had something to say that contradicts what you had to say... I paraphrase... God is such a good idea that if he didn't exist we would have to invent him. I think it is very easy indeed to posit imaginary, unknowable beings. Why do you think this would be so hard?
Live Long And Prosper
™ Version 4.2