The God of philosophers is a far cry from the biblical God, some personal intervening force that actively takes part in human affairs.
False distinction. Many of the people who posit a "god of philosophers" follow up to describe why and how such a god personally intervenes in human affairs. Plantiga et al don't describe some impersonal force they choose to name "god" in the way Spinoza might. They argue that a "god" as traditionally understood is a necessary being. Their explanations, in fact, hinge on god's being a person with motivations, acting out of goodness, etc.
Then we're back to no proof of such a being. The world is full of pain and suffering the force you describe is either unable or unwilling to intervene in such matters.
The argument from evil is probably the weakest you can make. The book I previously mentioned makes short work of it. Whole chapter on it. In essence, Swinburne argues that evil must exist to allow even greater good; the amount of good that could exist in a world without evil is less than the amount of good that can exist in a world with evil. The laws of physics which allow brains also allow tsunamis. Free will means there must be a possibility of evil. Etc. It would be impossible to have one without the other, and apart from some radical Islamic sects, no one believes that god can do the impossible (e.g. make 1+1=3).
Like I said, I'm an atheist, but I'm pretty sick of ignorant Internet talking points. People thought of those kinds of arguments thousands of years ago. People in the past weren't stupid, although Cory Doctrow might think otherwise.
The case for atheism is simple: God isn't necessary to explain anything. Not existence itself, not consciousness, not morality. If there are things we don't understand, God might explain them, or so might any number of other things we can dream up. However, talk of "evidence" misses the point. Either everything is evidence for god or nothing is.
