It's true that the question of God's existence is epistemologically fairly trivial and doesn't require its own category of justifications
It's really epistemologically difficult to find out what people mean by God in the first case; how then can it be epistemologically trivial to judge the merits of such a hypothesis?
If a given hypothesis is incoherent even to its strongest proponents, then it's not very meritorious. It's in "not even wrong" territory.
Take off every 'quote'! You know what you doing. For great insight. Move 'quote'.
And if you don't: