"So all of them are illogical arguments without merit."
So can we conclude from your statement above, that if a person presents his/her argument for the existence of God(s) and it is found to be based on one of the arguments you have listed, it will be dismissed as illogical by the atheists? (I assume it would be based on the responses I see on this site and by actually reading the refutation to the arguments given at the link I provided.)
And if so, then much time would be saved by someone presenting their case for the existence of God(s) if it is indeed grounded in any of these to realize that their case has already been debated before and contains no merit in moving forward with the argument, except possibly to learn from the atheist personally why the atheist feels they are wrong. (And also by reading the actual arguments that their position might fall under and their logical dismissals, a person should be able to realize you will just be going over old ground that the atheist has already addressed before.)
A third conclusion possible then, is it that no new information is being presented that has not been heard before, and so will quickly be dismissed by the atheists involved in the discussion, and therefore it would be better to not even enter the discussion based on this realization, because you are in fact, beating a dead horse sort of speak. (Sorry to the animal lovers no disrespect intended)
The reason I am presenting these assumption/conclusions is that I see so many believers in God(s) and other subjects, and people taking other positions, falling into the old rehash trap of stating something that they feel is a new argument for their position, when in fact it really is old ground that has been debated before. If so, then anyone debating and holding the position that a God(s) exist(s), should really be looking for new material facts (if they indeed exist) to present (that the believers are relying on for their position) that might be used to establish their belief and position that a particular God(s) exist and then the debate can commence from there. (Of course I assume that the atheists already feel there is no new material facts that will be found and the matter is settled but to be accommodating to the believer(position taker if you prefer), they will entertain the inquiry just the same.)
I am hoping some future reader (who is arguing for the existence of God(s)) will read this and carefully understand both what their side of the argument should be expected to present to be taken seriously by the atheists, and what can be expected once you enter a position. As we know the burden of proof is on the offeror not the offeree when you take a particular position.