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

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

3 doesn’t follow from 2, nor can it be called a ‘restatement’ of 2. One can be ‘rationally justified’ in believing in God without God making his existence known. 

Boru

Easy proof: 

4. God made his existence known to someone before T.
5. (From 4.) At least one person is justified in believing in God before T.

The contraposition of the conditional statement (4.->5.) is (non-5. -> non-4.), which is exactly (2.->3.). QED.

I saw you palm that card. God making his existence known is not conditional on the argument for God’s existence. And vice versa.

Boru