Is It Possible To Argue For The Existence Of God Without Using Logical Fallacies?

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?

Doesn't Complexity Disprove God?

The argument for god often comes in the form of an appeal to complexity. Usually a theist will reference the complexity of the cell and it multitude of functions, The intricacy of DNA or the "fine tuning" of the universe when making their case for the existence of god. But doesn't complexity make a better case against the existence of a "designer" or a god?

If we think about what "god" would ultimately be, It would be an entity that created everything. He devised the laws of the universe, He decided what our tolerance to radiation should be, How much water we need to drink. He would be consciously responsible for everything, Every last aspect of every system would be made by him. There is no law, No force, No energy, No substance and no part of any organism that wouldn't be consciously devised.

If that is the case and we assume god can do anything, Why make things so complex? Simplicity would be the best route and god should be able to make things infinitely simple. Why have cells, or even atoms.

If god was in charge of everything why not make the cell as Darwin and his contemporaries envisioned it. A blob of goo. If god is capable of doing anything why is the cell so complex and prone to failure when it could be a simple blob of goo? In fact, Forget the cell, If god can do anything why are animals and plants not just one animated conscious blob of goo, Why do we have so many intricate components when god could have made it so simple?

To me the answer is simple. The cell, And humans, have evolved to function in a set environment. The universe appeared, laws were set and now it's up to organisms and cells to evolve to work within those laws. No god was involved at any point, because if he was, Everything would be a lot simpler.