If it weren't for the criterial argument, which I generalized from it's moral corollary, the moral criteria argument, which in turn is derived from Kai Nielsen's Independent Criterion Argument, I probably would not believe in God.
I would instead be an atheist who believes in some kind of quantum naturalistically transcendent reality in the logically prior system of general reason, formal logic and and a necessary hierarchy of values in view of motives, goals, and the necessary value assumptions of thought.
So I have Nielsen to thank for issuing the challenge that forces a clarification of the case for personhood in an ultimate being, even though it never challenged the fact of this personhood in the criterial argument, only its exact nature. But the criterial argument bypasses that. It's important that the concept of personhood be developed and it's fascinating, but it's not a problem for the existence of God by any means. Personhood is already assumed in any discussion of it, as well as the criteria for it.
After several years of being stuck, tonight I finally figured out what will crush Nielsen's argument for the incoherence of the concept of God. I mean, he begs some questions, but it's still a great and powerful argument and causes conniption fits in most all believers, who will gladly commit T. S. Eliot's Greatest Treason if it will mean not having to read anything or have to come to grips with opposing arguments.