It baffles me how theists can anthropomorphize the vague idea of some notional causative agent into a petulant entity preoccupied with what people do with their private parts.

There are perhaps 10 such “proofs” of God. Each is at least as flawed as the two just cited. I am not inclined to analyze each and every one, for several reasons…

Well I'm having a go (in a fairly superficial manner, which is all these "proofs" merit, IMHO).

—– No theist I know seems to believe in God mainly because of these arguments. It seems highly unlikely that any of them is going to abandon belief in God merely because these arguments are definitively refuted. (Aquinas himself seems to have thought that belief in God had to precede belief in his “proofs.”)

It seems to me that most theists believe because of personal experience/inner conviction rather than cold logic. But they appreciate that the "argument from emotion" is unlikely to sway an unbeliever so they resort to apologetics and spin these various "proofs". Which is pretty insulting when I come to think of it – these so-called proofs are not what persuaded the apologists, so why do they think they would sway anyone else?

The question becomes, “Can we observe any evidence of ‘God’ anywhere or in anything around us?”

Let’s all go take a good, hard look and then come back and compare notes soon.

Okay, done that. Sorry, nothing to show.