My argument for atheism +

[Abaddon_ire]

This is basically an alternative version of "you can't see the wind" argument.

I've never heard the "you can't see the wind" argument. Is it just when people say that you can't see wind but you know it's real? 

Yup. It is the naive notion that the evidential requirement is a visual experience, completely ignoring all other senses. The simple fact is that we have our own senses (as many as 26 depending how one counts them) plus we have technology that extends our detection beyond our own innate ability.

That would be more of an analogy than an argument, I think, and I agree it wouldn't be persuasive about religious issues.

Only if one restricts it to visual comfirmation which is really a strawman argument. If there is a god of any sort which interacts with the universe in any way, it would be detectable. Not merely visually detectable, but detectable nonetheless.

At the same time I think we want to avoid a "we haven't found Bigfoot" argument, which is a label I've just made up for a kind of argument I have heard. It is where people talk about God as if it must be similar to Bigfoot (tangible, material, visible if we knew where to look), and declare that since we haven't got physical evidence it means that it doesn't exist.

That only works if one is a deist, believing in a deity which does not interact in any way with the universe. Such a deity A) is functionally the same as no deity at all and B) cannot be shown to exist.

This would be a mistake, because ever since the time of Plato no one has asserted that God is a physical object with a quantifiable body. Such an argument would be declaring a lack of evidence for something which no one has argued for in the first place. 

False. The bible claims that god has all of those attributes. Want quotes? Have not read it yourself?

1) If god isn't "knowable" through any sense apperata, what distinguishes god from nothingness?
2) Which is the same as saying god doesn't exist.

Are the laws of mathematics something or nothing?

They are descriptive, not proscriptive. The "laws of mathematics" claim that one cannot have a triangle which has more or less than 3 sides. Is that because the "laws of mathematics" simply claim so?