Sorry, i'd love to be able to comment because your point sounds interesting, but I am not philosophically educated. I am only capable of understanding in words.

With Russels teapot and that whole line of argument that atheists do as part of claiming non belief, I say I am happy to believe there is not a teapot orbiting in space. I believe it isn't true on the basis that the teapot wouldn't be a good explanation for anything, and it's entirely arbitrarily imagined. We can arbitrarily imagine an infinite number of things while reality is finite, and so such a teapot is unlikely. I ask this atheist if he is capable of believing that there are not sentient cucumbers on the planet Zog that worship his every move, or that he does not have an invisible pink dragon that sings him sweet lullabies each night. Because of how atheists try and justify their non belief, they must also have no belief about anything plainly ludicrous so long as there is no "evidence" (meaning, evidence they would accept, as in natural) against it, and so their position is irrational.

I don't know what you mean by G and ~G. God and about God? I've not been through formal philosophy education.

RIght, surely it would be! He is arguing that his argument is true (it is not proven) with no argument other than it hasn't been proven that there aren't any alternatives but those three. Is that what you had in mind?

So, with your responses in mind I am thinking that I could just hack through the issue by seperating the questions.

Do you believe it's more likely than not that God/s exists?
Do you believe it's more likely than not that no God/s exist?

This way, I cannot be seen to be limiting their choice or assuming they have one belief, as there is no implication that i've presupposed there are only two options. The real issue is that "or".

Right?

I really struggle to see that. As far as I know, a loaded question is a question containing a presupposition that isn't justified. "When did you stop hitting your wife?". I don't see how it's an unjustified presupposition to assume someone believes something is more likely, less likely, or equally likely. AFAIK objections must have grounds and you'd demonstrate the grounds by showing how there could be another answer, not just claiming there could be. You'd have to show how it's biased. If not, then anyone can forever avoid answering anything or accepting any conclusion either by saying it's biased or unproven, but not caring to describe how.

The person in question refused to accept that you must either believe God/s exist is more likely, or no God/s exist is more likely, or you believe that the likelihood of Gods existence is perfectly balanced.

He refused to tell me which he believed on the claim of false dichotomy, but refused to offer any reason why there should be another option. He just said it's a false dichotomy and he doesn't have to respond because I can't prove there are only 3 options.