The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike. --Delos McKown
JewZoo believes that, although "proving God's existence cannot be done," we can use our human ability to "deduce God's presence." He then quickly outlines the Ontological Argument, the Cosmological Argument (see my take), Pascal's Wager, and the Teleological Argument. He also refers to "many more proofs besides the few I've outlined here."
If deduction is what he's after, he's going about it the wrong way. Deductive reasoning is the process of reaching a conclusion that is guaranteed to follow, if the evidence provided is true and the reasoning used to reach the conclusion is correct (from the wikipedia.)
None of the deductive "proofs" he mentioned meet these criteria. As JewZoo himself writes, the Ontological Argument "does not use any evidence." The Cosmological Argument contains an unsupported assertion. Pascal's Wager isn't even an argument. And the Teleological Argument is inductive. None of these "proofs" is deductive or remotely convincing to a non-believer. Some have been discredited for centuries. They are sophistry, not honest logical argument.
So why do religious people keep bringing up the same tired, discredited arguments? I think that they believe that if they throw enough arguments at you, you'll think, "Well if even one of those arguments is right, they're right. So they must be right." But none of them is! And yet they keep using them. Don't trust people who make disingenuous arguments; they're trying to convince by trickery.