For those who aren't familiar with the legal concept of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" in regard to evidence; I'll summarize. If information is gathered through any means that is not legal then any conclusions made from that information or additional information, regardless of the validity, is also not legal and can not be used as argument. That is a very quick paraphrase of a much more complex ideal.
It does, however, apply to dogma. I regularly read discussions here on points that are moot. To illustrate: a theist and an agnostic are vehemently arguing whether Perseus held the Gorgan's head in his right hand or his left hand when he defeated the Kraken.
It doesn't matter.
A Christian and an Atheist arguing whether "the great flood" was worldwide or local. Same thing, it doesn't matter.
Back to the fruit of the poisonous tree concept — in the entire human existence there has not been one "proof" of a god. Not one. Not any. Certainly there are legions of stories, could be's, what ifs, simply poor logic and the ubiquitous "mysterious ways" but no actual evidence. Therefore it doesn't matter what the Koran, Bible or Harry Potter novel says and a discussion of the finer points is valueless.
I can offer no conclusion as to any god since there is nothing to lead me to believe that any exist and therefore a discussion that dissects the leaf on the end of a branch of the poisonous tree is also poisoned or more simply not valid.