A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?

[Angrboda]

Sorry, my numbering was off.  I meant 4.

Yes, 4 is controversial, OFC. But again, nobody is interested in pursuing a God who isn't willing to let his existence known to everyone. And if God isn't willing to let his existence known to everyone, then no one will derive an argument in favor of his existence (God is all-powerful and can prevent this from happening).

Isn't willing and isn't always willing aren't the same thing. God supposedly will reveal himself to all after death.

No, 2 isn't dependent on a controversial definition of rational belief.  A isn't the only way to rationally justify belief, so 2 doesn't follow from 1.

If you really mean this, then you're no longer an evidentialist.

If you say so.

You're also ignoring revelation, divine intervention, and sensus divinitatus, all of which can rationally justify belief prior to A.

That's kind of the point my thread: revelation and sensus divinatus are not new arguments. By contrast, all new arguments fail if my argument above is true.

Revelation and sensus divinitatus aren't arguments; they're direct experience.

And again, the teleological argument is crap, so I don't see where this is going, other than to circle round to sketchy premises and the inevitable conclusion that there are no 'successful' arguments for God.