I'll delve into my arguments and into others here.

   Lamberth's teleonomic/atelic argument notes that science finds no divine intent behind natural causation. To superadd God would contradict instead of complementing science. To insist further on that intent pleads for the new Omphalos argument that He deceives us with ambiguity about His very existence per John Hick's epistemic argument that He doesn't want to override our free wills.

   No , no, such intent!

  Laacking that intent, He lacks referents as that Grand Miracle Monger, Creator and so forth and thus cannot exist.

  Lamberth's argument f rom pareidolia notes that people see teleolgy-divine agency-intent and design when only teleonomy- causalism-mechanism  and patterns exist as people  see the pareidolia of Marian apparitions. Scientists are investigating how and why peope see patterns and patterns as designs.

  Lamberth's reduced animism argument notes that theism is as superstitious as full animism or polytheism. No, no category mistake lies here as the point means that it's an ignoratio elenchi to make that claim ,because no intent lies behind it anymore than the other two.

  Lamberth's Malebranche Reductio notes that Nicholas Malebranche unwittingly makes a reduction to absurdity of theism when he maintains that God is the real actor behind our hitting the eight ball  as I put it. No, He's no actor period.

  How could we refine these arguments?

  Others are the Flew-Lamberth the presumption of naturalism, Lamberth's presumptions of rationalism and skepticism, Fr.Meslier's the problem of Heaven, Lamberth's covenant morality for humanity -the presumption of humanism, Angeles's infinite regress argument, Reichenbach's argument from Existence and Carneades's argument as well as Hume's dysteleological argument and his one from analogy, Schellenberg's hiddenness argument, Drange's arguments from unbelief,Lamberth's genetic argument,which includes naturalistic accounts about why the supernatural.

  Google lamberth's naturalistic arguments to see them and to see others' responses to them. And, please post at  any of my blogs noted!

  I'm @Twitter under Lord Griggs and Lord Griggs1947.

  http://carneades-georgia,.hubpages.com

  This is  not self-promotion but instead a plea for a wider understanding of naturalism against supernaturalism. We naturalists/rationalists have the arguments and the hefty books that illuminate that the supernatural is erroneous!