Any particular thoughts on these arguments? Here's my two cents.
Personally, I thought a lot of these had little substance to them. Maybe Goldstein was running out of steam.
Pascal's Wager's no match for Occam's Razor, in that - yes the point of probability is completely ignored by the argument, and furthermore, what kind of person are you if you're just believing in god "just in case".
To quote Mark Twain, "faith is believing what you know ain't so," in other words, "you don't believe what you believe you believe."
The William James's "leap of faith" argument is talking about a completely different God entirely - and the end goal isn't "do this and go to heaven," it's "do this and feel better."
My question to that is - again, if you were to take a leap of faith - and assuming that believing in some all powerful governing and judgmental force over the universe exists makes you feel better about yourself, and enriches your life - what kind of a person are you? The Epicurean paradox shows that god is either powerful enough to stop evil but unwilling to stop evil, powerless to stop evil but willing, or both powerless AND unwilling to stop evil - or does not exist.
So how does believing in a malevolent god, a weak god, or a malevolent AND weak god, enrich your life in any way?
The unreasonableness of reason argument was completely nonsensical, and by the time I had reached premise 3, I had decided that it was best to come back and read the argument again later, because Goldstein had officially "gotten my goat," the clever shrew!
The point of that is, if you're going to deliberately make an attack against reason itself, and dilute it with the uncertainty of faith, what is the point in trying to make a logical argument against it? It would be like trying to make a vinyl record that made such an abhorrent sound when played on a gramophone that it destroyed both itself and the player through the residual sound vibrations.
The argument from sublimity is flawed because it assumes that everyone witnesses the same beauty in everything. Instantiate ONE ENTITY who finds beauty in nothing, and the entire argument falls apart.
Spinoza's god argument, I don't actually see as much of a flaw in premise 1, as I do in premise 8. That which exists and explains itself does not have to be God. That was a completely arbitrary insertion of a divine into what is really just a logical grey area.
The final argument from the abundance of arguments was a total cop out.
Any number of invalid arguments are still invalid. Probability does not factor into deductive logic.