I already replied to your comment below, but this one is interesting too.

> The main issue with most of these philosophical arguments is that they don't prove anything even worth refuting. Almost all of them simply attempt to prove the existence of a deistic God that does not meaningfully interact with the world (beyond creating it or sustaining it).

I don't think any good philosopher would admit to the embarrassment of actually having "proved" something!

Jokes aside, you wouldn't consider "sustaining the world" to be a fairly meaningful ongoing interaction?

> Believing that there was a creator doesn't provide any useful information

Very pragmatic! Assume there is a God - what kind of things would he consider "useful"?