If people want to have a rational conversation about God, or religion in general, it is usually best to start by defining terms. As I used to tell my comparative religion students, God's existence is contingent upon God's definition. One example worth considering is pantheism, the notion that God is the sum of all things. If we agree with that, then if anything at all exists God must necessarily exist as well.

I like to say that God is a iiterary metaphor for that creative agency which is responsible for bringing our evolving universe into being. Although the Tanach (Hebrew Bible) assigns many different roles and attributes to God, the primary one--the one which is presumed by all others, and upon which all others are dependent--is the one that you have also affirmed: namely, God is ha-bore (the creator). The primacy of that definition is fairly clear since it is stated in the first verse of the first chapter of the first book of the Tanach, or Hebrew Bible: "B'reshit bara Elohim et ha-shmayin v'et ha-eretz." (In the beginning, God* created the heavens and the earth.)

Rather than debating God's existence, per se, it would seem more fruitful to qualify and narrow the question: if God exists, does the deity possess anthropomorphic and/or anthropopathic atrributes? In that argument, I believe that we would be on the same side.

*Literally, 'gods' ... this term might better be translated as 'the divine.'