Book Recommendations

[Belacqua]

Is it atheists fault that the arguments and evidence for the existence of gods provided by theists, does not require more sophisticated refutations than those provided by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al, ?

It's atheists' fault if they think that Dawkins, et.al., are providing "sophisticated" refutations. 

Seriously. Please provide an argument for the existence of gods more sophisticated or convincing than: Kalam, Ontological, Teleological, TAG, etc, that have not been refuted by any of the above people? I was able to detect the flaws in these arguments after 2 semesters of basic logic courses, and I am not at the level of intellect as those mentioned. 

And just to show that I can be just as guilty of  fallacies as the 'best' apologists (I'm looking at you, William Lane Craig), here's an appeal to authority fallacy;

Dawkins, Hitchens, and William Lane Craig are media figures. Getting your theology from them is like getting your political philosophy from CNN or Fox. People who do that think that Tucker Carlson is sophisticated, but have never heard of Benjamin Constant, Locke, or Mill. Not to mention Rawls. 

For example, you mention the Kalam argument. This was explicitly rejected by theologians in the 13th century, for reasons that still pertain. Unfortunately, Dawkins-type people consistently confuse it with what Thomists actually say. That doesn't mean that Thomism is correct, but it means that Dawkins doesn't know what he's talking about. His smug takedown of Thomas Aquinas doesn't address anything that Thomas actually wrote. 

You would benefit from reading the two books I mentioned.