Interesting article and even more interesting comments on the comments. I especially liked the comment on the social risk and hence responsibility of validating atheism with reference to Nietzsche and Strauss.

You're dealing with the plausibility of having a personal god or at least an anthropological one. By necessity, this has to be a plausibility :) argument and not a strictly logical one. The whole presentation fits in well with Bayesian epistemology and the extension of rules of logic into rules of (quantitative) plausibility assessment.

However, instead of focusing on a general critique of an anthropological god which you did real well, we can consider criticizing this or that particular religion. The plausibility arguments in such cases become drastically easier to judge for any but the adherents of the specific religion or even specific 'flavor' of a religion. The tenets of the various 'flavors' of Judaism, Christianity and Islam would then be considered, in the words of Feynman, 'not even wrong'. The more details you consider, the more silly any particular realization of those religions become.