Sadly, it ain’t so. This is a classic case of Kantian antinomies and the outcome is an antinomial contradiction, which perhaps has a resolution in a version of ‘transcendental idealism’ which apparently means (the word transcendental is not what it sounds like) our perceptions are fretted in our mind’s apparatus, a view not dissimilar from Indic Advaita.
But what does it mean? To claim this situation as proof of the existence of ‘god’ is simply a distortion based on the failure to define ‘god’. The antinomy simply progresses backward to an antinomy about god. These conservative apologists would justify the whole monotheistic belief system here when in reality it explodes.
The same it seems would be true of atheism, too bad, nice try.
Let us note that ‘god’ can have no existence if ‘it/he/she’ is beyond existence, by definition.
The whole thing is nonsense. But the Kantian perspective remains a challenge.
Perhaps this kind of situation is what drove Marx to slam the door shut on idealism of any kind,
but the gesture is futile. Trying to force atheism is as futile as trying to force theism.