For example, one may rely on the advice of a friend who has a reputation of good judgment and make a wrong choice (rational, but wrong)...
That's not a good example. It relies on a "wrong decision", which is subjective. I'm saying that a thought process can be rational but still be objectively wrong. For example, geocentrism is rational but wrong, phlogiston is rational but wrong, etc.
To say that, despite the evidence it's not solar radiation and the Coriolis effect but Poseidon who brings the great storms, is not logical.
We have not been talking about "despite the evidence" at all. But evidence has nothing to do with it anyway. Logic does not require evidence.
There is no evidence that James Bond exists but the idea of James Bond is not illogical. There is no evidence that Holden Caulfield exists but the idea of Holden Caulfield is not illogical. There is no evidence that Tom Joad exists but the idea of Tom Joad is not illogical. There is no evidence that Long John Silver exists but the idea of Long John Silver is not illogical. There is no evidence that Lemuel Gulliver exists but the idea of Lemuel Gulliver is not illogical. There is no evidence that Jesus exists but the idea of Jesus is not illogical.
There is no evidence that God exists but the idea of God is not illogical.
But not following up, simply leaving it at "there can be sound reasoning behind the concept of deities" without giving us some whys is leaving the answer incomplete (ducking).
You're the one making the claim that the concept of deities is illogical. i am simply challenging your claim. I am in no way obligated to prove that you are wrong. You are the one who is obligated to back up your claim.
But the existence of rational arguments for something doesn't make that something true
But the point is that the arguments aren't rational, they are all pure wish-fulfillment or a vague sort of "How could all this wondrous etc. etc. etc. without a designer?" It's emotional, not logical.
Are you talking about actual real arguments here or what? I really don't know what you're talking about although maybe I just haven't been following the thread well enough. In my own case I wasn't argued into belief, I came to understand that I had to believe what witnesses told us about phenomena that could only be attributed to a universal intelligence or personal God. I wasn't inclined to dismiss witness evidence out of hand as so many are, however, simply because I myself never experienced what they claimed to experience. Of course I expected it would need to be put to a test but I don't think of people as that crazy or stupid that they just go around making stuff up although so many here seem to think that about their fellow human beings.
Is believing what people tell you about what they claim to have experienced irrational? Perhaps so, I'd need to think about it more, but we arrive at many of our convictions by irrational processes. Not everything can be substantiated rationally or scientifically.
Witnesses to miracles are reported abundantly in both the Old and New Testaments, all kinds of miracles including people brought back to life through faith in the Creator God who made us all. If I hadn't believed in the credibility of those witnesses I guess I couldn't have become a Christian, and if you just dismiss it all as delusional you cut yourself off from that belief. is this argument? There is certainly great wondrousness to someone who has always thought only in terms of this physical universe as all there is and all there ever will be; and there may certainly be an element of wish fulfillment involved, but you might keep in mind that giving up sin is required of us and that is not easy and a lot of us fail at it many times. It costs to be a believer in other words. Not like "going to heaven on beds of flowery ease" as it's been put, but giving up some things that in some cases may cost us a lot of happiness. I lost many friends. It's hard to lose friends. I know Christians who went back to marriages they'd ended by divorce, understanding that God hates divorce. I know people who confessed to crimes and took punishment for them, certainly made restitution where possible. Not the simple thing you seem to be imagining.