I think arguments are fine for it having personhood, intellect, will, etc.

Anything that stands out? These seem to be some of the problem areas for me.

As an atheist, I can accept something Tao-like (although, I don't like to speak much on the subject, I suppose for Wittgensteinian-type reasons that are reflected in eastern philosophy); and I would have no problem ascribing [via negativa] traits like omnipotence, "omniscience," eternality, and infinitude to this first principle- with some catches of course:

Omnipotence is not known in the theistic-personalism sense: rather, it strictly just means lacking all potentialities; being pure act. Infinitude should be self-explanatory, as should eternality.

As for "omniscience," it's scare-quoted for a reason. [I'm a materialist when it comes to philosophy of mind, but I'll admit I'm still learning a lot in this arena]. Omniscience, in the sense that hammie would seem to describe it, would mean to contain the form of anything and everything in some sense (classical theism would probably say something more along the lines of "containing all forms in ones' mind"). I think this [not the parenthesized] could be ascribed to the Tao, as a first principle, in some sense. I could see something like the Tao as Being itself, that it just "is," and that it is the non-circular "explanans" of existence.

I think this conception also takes away from any problems that non-non-dualistic "philosophies" suffer. The Tao would equally reflect the non-dual existence of good and evil, amongst other things.

Funnily enough, I think the weakest parts of the arguments for God are for his "intellect," his having a "will," his "personhood," and his timeless, spaceless, immaterial "mind."