"Proofs of Unknowables. The Proof is Pudding." -any thoughts?

[S_V7]

I found this which claims to refute some of the most common arguments for the existance of God( Summa Theologica, Pascal’s Wager). I havn’t had a chance to read it in its entirety but I thought I’d still post them here and see what others thought.

Here are some of the author’s statements on the arguments for God:

All of these arguments for a god have common faults, and once that fact is exposed, any further examination of the arguments is unnecessary, pointless, and a waste of time.

The arguments assume that logic can tell us about an entity that may not be limited by logic.

The arguments assume that laws and principles we know to operate “within” the universe also apply broadly even “outside” of the universe (whatever that might mean), to entities imagined to exist independently from the universe.

The arguments assume that we can deduce something about an entity postulated to be greater than the universe and greater than any human being, using the limited resources of our imperfect and finite minds and our limited experiences.

All of the arguments claim to establish the existence of a supernatural being or entity, then equate it to the traditional “god” entity, without independently defining that entity or proving it to be the same thing as “god”.

lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/pudding.htm