So you changed the key word. I use 'proposition' advisedly, it has a specific meaning in the context of reasoning.
And, as I say, you are missing an important point reasoning
I don't recall ever denying I knew these arguments. We have made sport of them often enough in this forum. What I said is that there is an important difference between finding the argument implausible and finding the proposition itself implausible.
To make the point, I have found many an argument in favour of Naturalism implausible, that does not imply I find Naturalism implausible.
And there you have it backwards.
If I have preconceptions about a proposition someone is making then I risk building a straw man.
We avoid making a straw man when we examine a proposition and supporting argument just as the proposer presents them and avoid assumptions that he or she means anything else than what he or she says.
A striking example is when a Theist makes a technical argument based on a bare theist concept and then someone challenges them to defend some scriptural passage.
When a Theist states a proposition and supports it with an argument I try my best to ignore any definition or concept I previously had and address myself exclusively to the proposition and argument presented.
You cannot consider a proposition implausible with independence of the arguments that support it. It is the arguments (evidence, proof, refutation or justification) that make true, false, implausible or impossible a proposition. Of course, not only one of them but the set of all arguments in favour or counter. This is why I used the definite article: "the" arguments. Universal. The entire package if possible.
What you are saying is the same that I am defending from the beginning. You have to take into account the concept and justification of the theist in order to refute him. Otherwise you risk to make a straw-man. Obviously, take into account doesn't mean to accept, but to know them.
However, you can consider implausible the existence of any god on the basis of the gods you know. At this point you can affirm that you don't believe gods exist. Of course your statement would be provisional, just as all propositions about facts are. This is not to make a straw-man, but a simple inductive generalization.(*)
I am still intrigued about how do you call your position in the context of the basic proposition "God exist".
(*) ADDED NOTE: I know different versions of the ontological argument, of the five ways, of the argument of perfection or design, of the emotional way, of intuition or faith, of moral justification, of miracles and others that I don't remember now. At this point I think I can say that none of them is convincing and that, therefore, I believe that God does not exist.
