It would seem to apply equally to proofs of non-existence.

On the other hand, I do not require the existence of a blind woman carrying a pair of scales in order to believe in justice. God is love, and I believe in love.

It becomes difficult to see the point of a proof of God's existence when it is construed as a proof of an individual's existence. Does one use arguments to become acquainted with an individual? Either that individual exists or it doesn't, and experience alone can tell us which. The project of a proof of God's existence thus ironically comes to appear meaningless to contemporary philosophers of religion.
— Theism and Atheism: Opposing Arguments In Philosophy (2019)
Joseph Koterski
Graham Oppy — jorndoe

Fictional characters are figures with whom one can feel a strong acquaintance and with whom one can have an intensive experience, but it does little to prove they exist outside of the frame work of fiction in which they play a role.

Oddly enough, I'm fairly certain to the point of 'absolute certainty' that a good number of people exist (both famous or infamous folks) with whom I've never been acquainted and my experience with them is very limited.

It seems to me that there's a flaw in the midst of the quote (or is it a clever dodging of the issue?).

It kind of reminds me of folks who in the midst of being questioned regarding their unfounded certain assumptions who reply...

"I'm entitled to my opinion".

Indeed they are entitled, but entitlement alone does nothing to prove they are correct.

Experience alone can be deceptive without investigations (flat earth, sun revolves around the earth , how Superconductivity and Magnetic Flux Pinning functions or is magic...), so without some sort of evidence backing a claim.

Now if the point of the quote is to illustrate religious faith is all that's needed and with fact such faith is redundant, then that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Meow!

G

Seems nonsensical that a Shaivist would convert a Sunni with a cosmological argument, for example. Cosmological (and other popular apologist) arguments largely cater to existing religious believers as confirmation (bias) anyway, as indicated by the gap from typical apologist arguments to the common elaborate religions. — jorndoe

I think these arguments serve two purposes:

1. reinforcing the beliefs of the already initiated, and
2. planting the idea of belief in those who are not

From the perspective of the faithful, these are positive. In a crisis of faith, having that rational justification can be reassuring. And while these arguments may not convert by themselves, they may at least lend credibility to the faith, which can later blossom into a conversion.

From the perspective of the skeptical, they are negative. These arguments are ad hoc justifications for positions that are otherwise indefensible, akin to someone desperately clutching to whatever makeshift device that keeps them afloat. And they are dangerous too; otherwise level-headed people get hoodwinked into believing nonsense by a pretense of reason.

I have read many arguments for and against the existence of god. Each one of them seemed to me laborious, and driven by ulterior/subconscious motives. I have yet to read one that did not seem to be an expression of the person articulating it. I do not think that the question of god is something that can be answered definitely, one way or another, though I find myself leaning towards the skeptical end.