Apologist use several tactics to attempt to show that they logically and reasonably come to the conclusion of God. They use canned arguments from various sources. Even Lee Stroble and William Lane Craig don’t come to the table with original arguments. They simply attempt to combine arguments to make it appear like a new argument. However, for anyone who is read in epistemology, understands the common rebuttals to these philosophical assumptions.
They begin with the conclusion, and then work to make the arguments lead to the priori conclusion. This is relativism, as it’s truth relies on the concept of God. Without the concept of god, the position becomes untenable. To go deeper, apologist like to claim that their position is deductively sound. However, falling to qualify the foundations of the argument. First cause, design, ontological argument, and so forth are all left unsubstantiated. Each requires major assumptions. Therefore the whole deductive process relies on assumption lain upon assumption.
When the apologist fails to convince you that they are presenting a sound argument, they fall back to elementary playground tactics, “You know the truth but you deny it because of Satan” or “You can not understand because god is the source of understanding, you deny god, therefore you deny the source of understanding.” Which begs the question, how then would anyone come to understand god who had not already decided to know and understand god? That sounds very similar to predestination. My point is to be wary of the tricks of the trade. There should be a way for a true god to be revealed without all of the mental backflips.
“Anything that can be conceived to exist, can also be conceived to not exist without contradiction.” David Hume.