Why all "Logical Proofs Of God" fail ...

[Angrboda]

That said, a self-evident premise of the OP is that reason serves as a means for gaining knowledge of reality. ... All experiences have two distinct features: a sensible object and a knowing subject. As such, by reasoning from experience someone can gain knowledge about a sensible object by observation and about himself as a knowing subject by introspection. For example, someone can know that water refracts light and he can know that he likes to swim. The general revelations found in nature come from the most basic types of experience, like knowing that things maintain their existence despite change (the Aristotle’s unmoved mover) or that each of the plurality of things owes its particular being to a universal ground of being (Aquinas’s 2nd Way). This rest on self-evidences like the reliablity of our senses, the validity of logic, and personal identity.

This speaks to the so-called lack of evidence touted by most atheists. The Christian God, in the person of the Father, is not just another being like any other being, but rather something that pervades all of reality. As such most Christian apologists don’t point to a unique or specific bit of reality as evidence of God. Instead the whole of nature is the evidence, evidence that is only recognized as evidence by applying reason to experience, as shown above.