In my countless attempts at trying to have reasonable conversations with the religious it has become apparent that every line of argument they take essentially boils down to a logical fallacy. A mode of reasoning that is entirely flawed.
It has drawn me to the conclusion that no argument for the existence of god can ever be logically sound, And as such any argument for the existence of god can be dismissed.
The most popular fallacy used is the argument from ignorance. The theist will assume that your inability to answer a question they pose or give an explanation of something is in fact evidence for their explanation. They will ask how the big bang came about, As if our current lack of an explanation gives credibility to their "magic man done it" theory. This is some times referred to as the "god of gaps". They wait for a gap and shove their god in to fill it.
The second most popular fallacy is the argument from design. The theist assumes that because the laws of physics appear to be fine tuned that they must have been fine tuned, And because no explanation can be given as to how this may occur naturally they invoke the god of gaps and say "magic man done it".
The third most popular has got to be their good old straw man argument where the theist will say "Scientists believe we evolved from rocks.. So how long does it take a rock to evolve in to a cat?". They completely misrepresent the claim made by science and turn it in to something they feel equipped to counter and ask you a question based on their misrepresentation.
Last but not least, A fallacy that all religious people are guilty of, And a fallacy which name escapes me at the moment, Is when a conclusion is reached and then evidence is gathered to support that conclusion. The theist will already be of the opinion that a god exists and after the conclusion is reached they go off looking for evidence to support than conclusion. They have the scientific process back to front.
So are there any arguments for the existence of god that are at least logically sound? are there any arguments that can't be dismissed straight away as being abominations in logic?