Kam
The problem is that this is about existence. It's either yes or no. There either is or isn't. The other problem is that this is about a thing for which there is no single definition.
Any thread about the existence of any god(s) needs to first define them. That definition, of course, is the premise of only that single claim.
Next, a person needs to cite their reasons why the existence of that defined god(s) is or is not possible.
Finally, the resulting syllogism isn't proof of anything. It's an inference.
An inference is "a conclusion on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation."
inference - Definitions from Dictionary.com Definition of inference - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary WordNet Search - 3.0
There are many ways to look at the result of such a syllogism.
You can believe it because you accept the premise definitions as true.
You can reject it because you either reject the premise definitions.
Or you can reject it because you have not directly observed the conclusion.
There is a word for accepting an ideal or belief which is not demonstrable through experimentation. That word is faith.
Terms and Definitions used in Atheism faith - Definitions from Dictionary.com Definition of faith - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
The problem with the word "faith" is that it is associated with religion but it's not limited to religion. You can have faith in a person. You can have faith in an ideal.
The topic of this thread is critically flawed. "How we
know there is no god."
What is the only true way to know something?