You say everyone agrees that the teleological proof is not a proof, an easily refutable assertion. Also, why no Jewish reference (e.g. the Chovos Halevavos amongst others has a pretty nice version). Speaking of which, his version is a good example of why it is a proof - unless you think there is also no proof (to the online reader) that you composed this answer as opposed to a group of hyperactive gibbons...

@loewian Can you prove the latter claim to me?

@DoubleAA That you're not a group of hyperactive gibbons? Statistically speaking the odds are not significant by any criterion used in science. More so the case with more sophisticated systems such as the universe.

@loewian "Statistically speaking the odds are not significant by any criterion used in science." Ok. So what? BTW how do you know that? Rational belief and logical truth are different. While the former may be epistemically viable, the latter is the sense I used "proof" in, keeping with the previous categories of "proof". The latter is also the only sense which is epistemically coercive. I think my description of the teleological "proof" is actually more than sufficient. Any early record of it pales in comparison to options brought by modern science anyhow.

@DoubleAA When scientists talk of "proofs", they are talking of statistical proofs (usually, sadly, with poorly applied statistics). In fact, the methods they use of hypothesis testing generally require a fairly low threshold to be considered a positive finding. As far as how I know - I've read a lot of scientific articles. Also, I'm a scientist.

@loewian And I am a philosopher. You are welcome to use whatever epistemic standards you find appropriate for warranting your rational beliefs. Don't yell at me though for using terms differently than you. If you can forgive me for sounding overly Charedi: modern science doesn't have a monopoly on intelligent discourse.

@DoubleAA People who are perplexed by whether there is a proof of G-d's existence are not similarly perplexed by whether or not this post was generated randomly. Thus they're not really interested in whether or not there is what you're calling a philosophical proof (though I would argue with you on that point as well). So, bringing other, at best weaker proofs and than dismissing the "obvious proof" in the same breath is, I think, fairly misleading. (No one in the real world cares about "philosophical absolute proofs".)

@loewian WADR that may be true in your circles (and in those of most Kiruv organizations), but it is not universally true by any means. Academic rigorous philosophy has long studied the epistemology of religious belief, particularly as a realistic reductio ad absurdum for belief with minimal or no evidence. Allow me to recommend the works of Wettstein, Russel, van Inwagen, Flew and of course Kierkegaard and Plantinga.

@DoubleAA WADR I'm afraid it does sound like you're relying heavily on appeals to authority without directly responding to my argument.

@loewian Huh? Appeal to authority for what claim? What have I not responded to?

I said that the general usage of "proof" encompasses statistically induction with even far lower criteria for acceptance. You (WADR) threw around some names and declared what amounts to a claim that there has never been a scientific proof of anything. Most peple looking for proof of G-d's existence are not interested in refutations of the entire rational endeavor.

@loewian "You (WADR) threw around some names and declared what amounts to a claim that there has never been a scientific proof of anything." That doesn't describe my remarks in the slightest. Try reading my comments again.

I also don't understand how I appealed to authority. A list of recommended readings is not a claim that they all support a specific thesis and that you should believe it because they said so. Russel and van Inwagen certainly don't come to the same conclusion at all. How can I be committing an appeal to authority when citing works with drastically different claims?