The burden of proof remains with you.

A lack of belief that god exists is not a belief that no god exists. A lack of belief that ‘x exists’ simply means that the neural network structures which would allow me to say that ‘x exists’ (is true) are not weighted such that I would say that.

The necessary brain structures that would make me say that god exists, are not present. There are structures – vast numbers of interconnections – but the sum of this vast neural network means I must say that I have no belief that god exists (just as the network also means I say that I don’t accept that there is no god as I have not seen any suitable proof. There probably is no god but there is no certainty.

The problem with the fallacy of the argument from authority of using “epistemologists” is that they haven’t a clue how knowledge is expressed in a human brain. Words are not even close to being a map of the terrain of a human mind. There is a flaw of assuming that the syntax of language readily maps into the evolved brains of humans to be able to use language as a proxy for our human brain’s understanding of reality. Reasonably confident that this is not the case.