Nature and Proof of the Existence of God

The Argument From Design is one of four prominent 'proofs of the existence of God'.  The Cosmological Proof tries to prove that God exists as a necessary First Cause; the Teleological Proof tries to prove that God exists as a necessary Final Cause; and the Ontological Proof tries to prove that the existence of God is entailed in its essence.  Now, Kant is widely recognized as presenting the most formidable refutations of them.  However, Spinoza's counter to the other three is just as decisive as that to the Argument From Design, as has been previously discussed--even if they do soundly prove the existence of a deity, they fail to prove that that deity transcends Nature, i. e. is incorporeal.  Similarly failing is Kant's Practical Proof that he proposes as the replacement for the four that he has repudiated--that Pure Practical Reason requires the existence of God as a rewarder of Virtue.  For, the concept of Karma is an example of a principle of just deserts that can be conceived as immanent in Nature.  So, even granting the necessity of the existence of a rewarding deity, that it transcends Nature remains unestablished.  Thus, Spinoza's doctrine undermines all the proofs simply and decisively--by denying from the outset any Super-Natural existence.  At the same time, it exposes the limits of the scope of their relevance--dualistic Theology--whether in the Medieval Era, or in the so-called Enlightenment.