You are attacking the stock rationale for dissmissing theists Epi. A positive claim shoulders the burden of proof. A negative claim has no burden to shoulder. If I say "I know that that God does not exist" then all onlookers can reasonably demand evidence of such, as the claim must be based on such and should presumably be testable. If I say "I don't know if that God exists or not and I assume that he doesn't" then there is no positive claim erge no burden to shoulder.
I only rationalise one God. All others are unproven to me that I've investigated (I find Allah to be internally contradictory, for example). Because I can positively know of one, then there is no room for others in that rationale. The God question is answered satisfactorily. Therefore there is indeed especial evidence for my God.
I only rationalise one God. All others are unproven to me that I've investigated (I find Allah to be internally contradictory, for example). Because I can positively know of one, then there is no room for others in that rationale. The God question is answered satisfactorily. Therefore there is indeed especial evidence for my God.
