Alisa is right that an existential sentence is in principle easier to prove than its negative. Just produce a specimen. I bet she filched it from Karl Popper. The negation takes another universal premise to prove it from. But God is a harder nut. If God supporters could produce the specimen, they'd still need to prove uniqueness and the requisite universal properties. God opposers try to argue they do not need that hypothesis. Thing is the supporters clearly feel that need. It's not logic, it's a eusocial insect's builtin circuit. Less stupid egomaniacs are aware of its usefulness as a mind numbing anesthesiac, opium for the masses. Fiction or fact, its a great hypothesis. It would deserve inventing if it did not come pre-installed. Alisa was a silly hag.
ellauri133.html on line 82:

There are lots of books out there. The reader has to decide quickly which one she is going to spend her time and money on. She's not going to buy something just because it might get good later on. Unless you have won a major prize or had a film made from your book, chances are your reader has never heard of you. She’s going to read a page or two and decide. If it’s on Amazon, she’s going to click “Look Inside” and read a few pages. Yep, "your reader" will do just that, being an analphabet in for mind-numbing pulp. "My reader" takes time to choose a book by its literary merits, not by its gaudy cover and advertising blurbs. And most likely from a public library on the recommendation of a friend. Preferably after reading the plot synopsis.