I don't believe the positive claim that 'God(s) exist' because, in my opinion, there is not enough evidence to support that claim.
How do you know that there is not enough evidence?
How do you know it is not self-evident?
Yes is it reasonable because I am using reason to come to it
a tautological argument?
What is your proof that you are using reason?
How do you know that using reason proves an argument is reasonable?
Do you claim that reasonable means true?
If so, what is the proof of that?
and in reason the default position is dis-believe of both claims until they meet their burden.
How do you know that is true?
My standard of evidence is reasonable because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
What is your proof that
1) these are extraordianary claims and not ordinary?
2) extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?
You would need to demonstrate this
infinite mind is at least possible before we can drew conclusions from it.
How do you know that that statement is true?
If something is a brute fact like a nose on a face, does that require a demonstration of its possibility?
How do you know that a demo of possibility is essential to drawing conclusions?
How do you know that demos of possibility are possible?
What is your standard by which you judge things to be true or false? Through evidence, and by making and testing predictions.
How do you know that evidence enables you to judge truth?
How do you know that testing predictions enables you to judge truth?
my standard of evidence would be very high for a supernatural claim
How do you know that your standard should be very high?
Do you have a way to prove the highness of a proof?
How do you know it should be very high instead of moderately high?
causation is very hard to prove.
How do you know that proof is possible?
How do you know that causation is very hard to prove?
Can you prove that all causations are very hard to prove and not merely moderately hard to prove?