Ultimately, it comes down to what OP means by "God". If "God" is that which is defined as the ground of existence, then it's no question that its existence is at the least plausible. The problem for the OP (based on his posts) is that they're not really arguing for that, even if they see it as an initial starting point for what they actually believe.
God = ground of existence is not the same thing as standard Muslim take of God (or even standard Christian for that matter). As soon as you argue for a more limited (or less simple) God (whether it's the Trinity or some superhuman kind of God), you lose the "right" to say you're arguing for God in the former sense.
God = ground of existence is not the same thing as standard Muslim take of God (or even standard Christian for that matter). As soon as you argue for a more limited (or less simple) God (whether it's the Trinity or some superhuman kind of God), you lose the "right" to say you're arguing for God in the former sense.