Yes. I think Aquinas makes this point when he objects in ST, I, 2, 3, obj. 2: “it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence.”

In other words, it is not immediately apparent that God exists. His existence must be demonstrated.

One thing I wonder about, though. Do you consider it acceptable that the atheist gets to claim atheism as a kind of null hypothesis?

I should say that I personally reject that. I see deism, or some kind of basic theism, as the most viable candidate for the null view - and far too many theists seem to cede this point right away (along with ‘there is no evidence for theism’, which always makes me cringe.) I don’t want to flood your comment box with my reasoning unasked, but I would like to know your take on this.

Also, feel free to contact me directly in email if you choose. I know I’m just some anonymous commenter, but I also know some people prefer not to have their comment section spammed with off-topic text.