The religious debates here need to be cleared up with a very important point: What exactly the word "God" means. "God exists" is a poorly defined statement. Spinoza's Deus and the Hindu Brahman are at times referred to as "God", yet they are conceptually completely different from the Abrahamic deity, and in fact no Atheist would really object to them, since they are more of a philosophical opinion than an assertion of existence of a superpowered fairy that watches you in your sleep.
Thus, I propose an essential concept to bringing these debates anywhere: The Brahman-Yahweh distinction. The entity that is being debated on this board and that everyone takes issue with is Yahweh, and any argument is only meaningful when it addresses Yahweh as opposed to Brahman. For example:
-The problem of evil is relevant to Yahweh, but irrelevant to Brahman.
-The Kalam cosmological argument is not relevant to Yahweh, because it does not specify any attribute of Yahweh as opposed to those of Brahman, and thus is a meaningless argument.
-The teleological argument(lol) is relevant to Yahweh and irrelevant to Brahman, because it supposes an active personality rather than an impersonal force.
Other examples of Yahweh-type deities: Allah, Tengri, etc.
Other examples of Brahman-type deities: Neoplatonic One, Tao, etc.
Classification of the Gnostic Monad is unclear and likely depends on particular interpretation.
The existence of a Brahman-type concept is fundamentally not controversial, and an atheist can accept it without becoming a theist because it is highly distinct from the common understanding of the word "God", which is virtually exclusively used with the sense of a Yahweh-type being. I recommend that the word "God" not be used for Brahman-type concepts to avoid grossly misleading people.