A simple challenge for atheists

[Esquilax]

Through reasoning, we discover that the existence of God is logically possible (ontological, cosmological, teleological).

But we've already established that the cosmological argument doesn't get you to god, the ontological argument is nothing but assertions attempting to sneak god in by just defining god as "a thing that exists," and the teleological argument just asserts design without demonstrating it.

As usual, you're privileging assertions you already agree with based on no evidence, while dismissing those that you don't. None of the arguments you say proves god "logically possible" have any justification to them, and if we're throwing out the need for real world justifications for arguments, then anything is logically possible. Besides, as you've been told in the past, "logically possible" is not the same as "physically possible:" the former is the first step to the latter, but the latter needs to be demonstrated before anything attains the label of possible. It's another one of those things you simply refuse to justify.

Tell me what is wrong with this syllogism:

1. If God possible, miracles are possible,
2. God is possible
3. Therefore Miracles are possible

Easy: premise one doesn't follow at all, premise two is simply asserted and not demonstrated, and therefore the conclusion is based on nothing at all.

The definition of miracles is an event that occurs beyond the explanation of natural things.

Which you haven't demonstrated is even a thing that's possible. Why do you keep just ignoring this point?