Griggsy

Thanks, Jon Day!
Aquinas' ontological argument from degrees of qualities of perfections his fourth way- reifies God as that continuum of those degrees. Michael Scriven in " Primary Philosophy" states for the reader to state why the silly argument fails!
Aquinas' fifth way- to design- is unlike Paley's no analogy but instead an argument claiming purpose for things such as the archer's purpose for the arrow to land at a specific place.Behold, the archer Aquinas puts the bulls-eye around the arrow after its landing: he twists the result to favor purpose but as the teleonomic argument notes, no purposes exists for any sentient being or any other aspect of the Cosmos or the Cosmos itself!
Therefore, no divine archer exists as He would lack any intent to design or be an explanation for any matter at all!
His first way- the Prime Mover argument- fails due to the inherent motion in Nature! Edward Feser cannot answer that without commiting some logical fallacy!
His second way- the etiological- the Primary Cause [ He didn't use the term the First Cause.] fails, because it cannot overcome the Flew-Lamberth the presumption of naturalism and the Lamberth argument from inherency:he illicitly takes away the awesome powers of natural causes and explanations with the God that great obscurantism. He begs the question of God's being the Primary, Efficient Cause when he declares that to take away the Primary Cause takes away all the intermediate ones as Howard Jordan Soble notes in" Logic and Theism." This is not a chronicological argument but instead a hierarchical one of explanations as Feser notes in his essay @ his blog about what the argument entails, which he himself knows well, but which some atheists mishandle.George Smith, atheist, knows well this argument, as evinced in " Atheism: the Case against God," a classic!
William Lane Craig's Kalam cosmological one is chronological. He begs the question of a starting point with his red herrings of the hotel and the library. He conflates infinite math with infinite math.to find non-existent contradictions. He caanot fathom that successive addition means that infinity exists, because it never completes itself! Every day arrives on time forever!
This is the very short refutation of that argument from personal incredulity to the one from ignorance that underline most theistic arguments!
His third way- the argument from contingency fails, because ultimately no contingency exists as the quantum fields, whence comes our Metaverse as the description the law of conservation notes to be eternal. And as God the Sustainer He thus has no job!