The traits I gave apply to both monotheist god or polytheist gods
To some deities. Others had wholly different traits altogether and thus would require an entirely new set of definitions and traits.
You could always say "For purposes of this discussion I choose Thor, and here are his traits and he is defined as ..." and replace the ellipses with the definition of those so we could determine whether or not there was evidence of him and whether or not we are lacking knowledge of this thing.
And still, why do I have to define?
Because you are the one who is trying to make claims about knowledge. You cannot claim we lack knowledge of a thing unless you can tell us what that thing is, how we could possibly determine if we lack knowledge of it or even if it exists to determine whether or not there is a thing we lack knowledge of.
Since expressed a wish to learn, this is a good lesson and example of building your argument. When constructing an argument for a debate, anything you wish to assert you have to have developed or borrowed (with proper accreditation, of course) and state that is what you are using for the purposes of your argument and debate. You also have to have developed any underlying arguments needed to support your position and have thought through any objections you may encounter to determine if they are valid or not, all without becoming emotionally involved with your position and argument.
This is why students have to defend their thesis and why in business, we have something called a rude Q&A, where we build an argument or position in just such a way and have friendly experts in the subject attempt to tear down our argument so we can find out where it may be weak or collapse, whether or not it is even valid.