The God-proves or rather arguments for intelligent design/creationism are based on these premises to be true:
1. God is transcendant, meaning he is not part of our universe or our universe is a part of him
2. Our universe needs an intelligent first cause
3. Absolute/"objective" morals exist (excluding other concepts of morals)
4. Physical laws are not arbitrary or self-explanatory but still need an intelligent reason for existence
5. A perfect being is possible to exist or hypothetically exists
I fail to see how those premises are given to be true. Just because we wish them to be true, does not mean they really are. Just because we want a simple explanation for everything, does not mean there is one at hand. And blatantly postulating that you don't question the explanation of an explanation is just like negating all scientific research, which is, in fact, asking the 'why' behind our current explanations. Consequently, no scientific progress would be made, if people cease to question our current level of knowledge.
1. and 2.) The first and second premises are actually taking the existence of God, with all these attributes, for granted. You see,
it is problematic to prove something to be true with premises which already preassume that the object of prove is true. That's why there can be no viable prove made with such premises. And even if the first premise were true, we still know nothing about the origin or the cause of our world. For then we need to decide if 'God' or whatever triggered the universe into existence has an origin or a cause itself or not. So the introduction of a being like God wouldn't set a definite begin of existence or explain the meaning thereof, but just
push back the whole problem by an undefined period of time. If you foolishly think that you have solved the question of the begin of the world anyhow, then you are wrong.
3.) It is a fallacy to think that without absolute morals commanded by God, there will be no morals at all. Morals set through human consensus are open for debate, whereas morals with God as final justification are not. (You simply can't argue with God unless you are a biblical figure like Abraham.)
And I don't think there is a given necessity of absolute morals, as most of our ethical problems today need discourse to be solved and require moral compromises to be made. Take "Thou shall not kill", for example. Has this moral imperative ever been well defined or absolute? We can think of many reasons why this is right, but we still allow so many exceptions for this rule. The world won't end, if there is no absolute right or wrong. As a consequence, we just have to think more thoroughly before acting and take responsibility for the results.
It is further a fallacy to think, that so called "objective morals" are superior to "subjective morals" just because such objective morals need no other reason for justification than "God said so". This so called "objectiveness" lies therein only, that every word God utters shall become morality itsef, needless to ask further questions. But in reality, we do require mutiple subjective reasons for morals to be understood, justified and implemented, or otherwise they will not make any sense to us and we will not feel right about them. If God said "Killing everyone (I deem) inferior and invading their land is the right thing to do", it would not be perceived subjectively as the morally right thing to do, no matter how much you twist and turn the facts to give further justifications for God's decision. Both your conscience and your reason will tell you that God is wrong. Why so?
Because behind every so called "objective moral" there are in fact numerous subjective reasons as to why we support such morals or came up with them in the first place, which are not at all dependant on a Godly plan.4.) According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe should gradually reach maximal chaos (entropy). So here, an intelligent order would be the exception to the rule. I think the attempts to bend and twist our physical laws to some undefined/unidentified intelligent order or
adjusting such an intelligent order to all kinds of new scientific findings shall be the work of story-tellers, conspiracy theorists or speculators, but not scientists.
5. As to the ontological argument, there is no way to verify the possibility of the existence of an imagined perfect, maximally great being. Who knows for sure if it's possible for a perfect being to exist or not? At least we have no records of anything near perfection yet and I don't see how you can prove an imagined existence or totally deny the possibility of such a hypothetical being to exist without our certain knowledge. The term perfection, maximum of greatness, itself is vague and leaves room for speculations. The imagining of such a hypothetical existence, which is in fact possibly non-existant, is in itself not a prove of its existence.
Nor is it, if you imagine that being to exist in one imagined world, some imagined worlds or every imagined worlds. So it's not possible to verify the existence of anything with this argument anyhow. In addition, there is no logical causality in step 3: transition from the being's existence in some possible worlds to its existence in every possible world. If 'A (hypothetical being) is part of B (some possible worlds)' and B is part of C (every possible world), it does not prove that A is identical to C (hypothetical being are in every possible world). But the biggest problem comes right after, step 4 plays a dirty trick: the jump from fiction into reality. We all know that a possible imaginary world, which could exist in all kinds of fictions, is not the same as the actual world, the reality we live in.
Thus, it is impossible to say that a fictious being that could exist in a fiction story also exist in the real world. This argument is actually trying to create anything out of thin-air by forcibly transforming an imagined possibility into the definite reality. If you think about it, this simply can't be right. The reason why some people fall for this trick is because some people confuse the word "possible world" which simply means fictious world, made up out of your imagination, with some kind of alternative reality or universe on the same level as our own reality. And when it comes to our reality, we sometimes assume subcounsciously that there is a possiblity for the unkown or the unidentified to exist. Our naive imaginative mind tells us that there might be (possibly) hidden forces at work unkown to us, stuff like magic or aliens, you get the idea. But then again, the correct conclusion should be: If a perfect being possibly exists in a fictious world, it could also
possibly exist in the real world. End result of all this: The perfect being (a.k.a. whatever you find awesome)
possibly exists. And here again, we ain't any smarter than before!
(
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/ontological-argument/this-argument-is-mind-trap-and-proves-nothing-6024765.0.html)
And one last question:
Before we are born, are we being or non-being? How do we explain this transformation?
