I have been debating with myself one specific point which essentially stems from the fallacy that a lack of evidence is not an evidence of lack. (Note that this a purely a thought experiment, not a claim, and that, on balance, the whole set of arguments against theism outweigh one possible philosophical issue which only relates to intellectual decency.)
Essentially, the fact that there is a lack of evidence to support theistic views does not mean that it's evidence of a lack of God. Imagine God to be something similar to our 21st century minds and technology like the continent of America was to 15th century Europe.
(Side note: To avoid potential nitpicking about this specific premise, I know that America was discovered and rediscovered, but the "official" discovery was an accident as the goal of the expedition was to find India. That some in the 15th century Europe might even have been aware that America existed is a bit irrelevant as society as a whole certainly did not believe it was there, and it's the mindset of those who did not believe which is interesting.)
Now, try to enter this mindset and think that God is in a similar situation. Just like the 15th century mindset and technology could not comprehend the continent of America, the mindsets and technology today is not capable of providing the evidence required to detect or understand a divinity.
Therefore, a God may exist (but it doesn't matter).
Edit: The title was erroneous in it's use of the word "for". This is not an argument for theisim, it's an argument not against theism. Thanks to Kasu for this insight.
I'm not sure I have good answer for you. This is the way I see it. Doug Stanhope has a great bit about if you have never heard of Christianity and you found the Bible in an old book store and read it. Would you buy up the whole Christianity religion? Most likely not. So if no one had ever heard of God or religion and one day someone told you that there was a being that they couldn't prove to you was there (insert the rest of your favorite God argument). Could you or would you believe it?
This by the way is the same reason that I HATE it when someone says that no matter where they were born they would be a Christian.
I don't think we can completely rule out some sort of extension of our consciousness into something else, but that something else really can't be thought of as anything more than 'something else' without some sort of evidence.
In the same way, I can't rule out the creation and 'governance' of the universe as being in the realm of 'something else'. We've already disproved 'god' so we know it isn't that, and science has given us a few good ideas that we can at least investigate, but until we know, it just remains in the realm of 'something else', as in not that which we already know to be impossible.
Just to be clear, I don't endorse everything I was saying. But I usually like to play devils advocate. I'm not sure what the atheist version of that is though. Kirk Cameron's advocate, I guess.