All Arguments for God: Refuted

This is something that I realized that many people do not mention. What most atheists do is refute each argument for God (ontological, cosmological, teleological, transcendental, fine tuning, watchmaker, and so forth) one by one when they get it from a theist. They do not have to do that. Because every argument for God is one big logical fallacy which already self-defeats itself even before the argument is presented. Namely, every argument for God is an argument for deism not theism. Thus, the logical fallacy that the theist commits is a nonsequiter. There is a very huge gap between deism and theism. What the theist does is use an argument for deism and jump from that into theism.

Let us examine in detail the source of the fallacy. Assume that a Jew is using one of those arguments for God. First, "God" is defined to be some initial cause or some primary creator to the universe. But then once the argument is completed "God" is the master of the universe, who cares about us, who watches over us, who answers our prayers, who give afterlife, who wants a relationship with us and so forth. That is the problem right there. What the theist has done is switched the properties of "God" from before the argument to after the argument. This is why it is a fallacy.

For the sake of argument let us assume that one of the many arguments for God are correct. Say something like the cosmological or argument from fine tuning are correct (we safely ignore arguments like the transcendental and ontological because those are completely failures). All what we have demonstrated so far is that there is (or was) an initial creator responsible for the universe, let us call it "God". But whatever "God" is we do not know. We have a very long way to go before we come to theism. We need to demonstrate that "God" has/wants a relationship with people. We need to demonstrate that "God" watches over the universe. We need to demonstrate that "God" controls the universe as opposed to just having the universe operate by its own Laws of Nature. And so forth. Where are arguments for that? If all we can demonstrate that "God" exists by those arguments then we might as well live as if there is no God because that kind of a "God" is not really a God.

From my experience what Jewish (and other religious) apologists do is they use one of the arguments for God. Then from their they jump to talking about the Torah and how we can show the Torah is true. This is why all these arguments are flawed. They are nothing but nonsequitar logical fallacies.