The Kalam cosmological argument, the transcendental argument for the existence of god, Fine tuning argument, Pascal's wager etc etc etc. Whatever argument is used by a theist to prove a god automatically fails, and now I want to explain why.
If you hold the position that there is a god, then you also hold the position (usually) that it is a specific god that you believe in. Now here lies the conundrum, if you use any of the multitude of arguments for the existence of god then even if I say ok you proved a god (which I will not) you now need to show me your god is the god you just proved.
If you are a christian, I will take the Allah standpoint.
If you are a Muslim, I will take the God standpoint.
If you are a whatever god y theist, I will take the whatever god x standpoint.
Your argument has now failed, as there is no way you can prove to me that this argument presented refers to your god. If you then say that is not the point the argument proves that a god does exist, you are been dishonest. You have a god which you believe in and think you have proof for. If you do not at least try present this evidence for your god, then you are lying about your faith. So I do not accept your evidence for a god, especially when you are trying to prove that a specific god is real.
On a sidenote, if you are a deist that believes a god created the universe and then left the universe to be, a god that has no influence on anything we do. Well, I can't debate that and well done you proved a god that is useless and I will call your god the singularity. After all this god is as helpful as the singularity, so honestly this whole point is mute.