Well, do you disbelief that I could without any breathing apparatus of course, live completely underwater like Aquaman?
Or that Aquaman really exists I suppose?
Yes, I dis-believe those things.
I'm not talking about whether God exists or not, non-existence is only one possible attribute. I can imagine at least a dozen more possible attributes. Like is God physical or non-physical. Does God even feel emotions like love. Does God know we exist. Perhaps was an accidental byproduct of the creation of the universe. Perhaps God simply enjoys watching things suffer. That is why God created the universe in the first place. Everything you would assume about God could be wrong even if they do exist.
Yes. Unless you correct me, we're talking about the dis-belief that anyone anywhere knows anything correct about God/god/gods. In other words, were talking about the proposition: "anything anyone anywhere says about God/god/gods is false."
From what you're saying, it sounds to me like the propostion: "anything anyone anywhere says about God/god/gods is completely unreliable" is 100% justified. But I still don't see why it's being taken to the the next step from "is completely unreliable" to "is false".
I've been thinking about a lot of things. That doesn't mean anyone of them exist. Maybe one does but why should I believe that if I have no way of verifying it?
To me, it depends on the thoughts, it depends on the implications. Some people, when they think about the divine, it's literally irrelevant. The implications are not valuable or useful at all. For that person and those thoughts, there is no reason to spend a single second on them.
I don't know how you would test it when if come to God since there is no physical evidence. Just claims. Sure I suppose I've read of a few experiences like mine but just as many, more really unlike mine.
I would be testing the implications. I accept that anything I'm told and anything that I come up with on my own about God is going to be incomplete and just a model. So I'm not testing for God. I'm testing to see if the model works. If it doesn't work, then, I would assume that the model is faulty.
You would I assume, trust your own experiences. I've found reasons, supported by science, not to trust mine.
Is it possible that "God" actually spoke to me? Sure, I can't prove otherwise.
It is also as possible that "God" was a persona created by my subconscious mind. That I had no conscious control over and certainly seemed a lot smarter than me about life. Certainly that is the most convincing part. To be told things you couldn't even imagine to be true but made perfect sense to explain the truth behind the reality you experience.
If you start to question that, it is pretty difficult not to question what others have claimed to experienced.
There are objective ways to test the implications. For example. I would be a terrible manager. I managed very small teams twice in my life, and it did not go well. I did OK, the second go-round, but the first time was not good. But! I'm a great adviser. Generally speaking, I'm a worker-bee. But what I understand about human nature, comes from my model of God. And from this model, I'm really good at predicting how teams and individuals will react to management decisions. And also rapid root cause analysis of HR type problems. I need very little info to figure out what's underlying the issue. I often hear, "Wow, that is exactly what they said, word for word." It just happened yesterday, TBH. It happens often. How often? I don't know. A lot. And the converse happens too. I'll ignore what matches the model, and when I do, I regret it.
It's not perfect, and I'm saying not it's proof of anything other than the model works for me. And other people have models that work for them.
So it's similar to what you're saying, but taken in a totally differen direction. I'm not expecting nor looking for proof of God/god/gods. I'm just looking for models that work, and listening to people who have models that work for them. One of the reasons religions are popular is because they contain popular models that have worked for many people.
The problem is, the bigger you are, the harder you fall. Delving into the divine has great potential for both getting big, and falling big. So, in a way it's almost better to avoid it. People
use religion to subjegate and oppress and seize power. That cannot be denied. But that doesn't mean there aren't people out there who aren't subjegating, oppressing, and seizing power. The fact religion
can be used for those things, is evidence that it
does have power behind it. Not that this is evidence of God/god/gods, but it's evidence of something. Divinity? Spirit? I like these words, but, they're just place-holders. It could be anything. I could call it, quimby. Doesn't matter. The name doesn't matter at all.
Anyway, hopefully that answers your question for how to test whether a God/god/gods belief has merit. It's making a model, then testing the implications of the model.
Regarding justifying the stronger dis-belief of people's knowledge compared to the non-belief of God/god/gods, I'm still just guessing about what that is. I mean, well. I have a model that predicts what I think is happening. But I also feel like launching into that prediction would be rude.
I love that stuff. 
