The "one god further" objection is fallacious

Again, in reference to your opening statement, I just think that because there is no evidence for either type of "God" then they should be classified as the same thing. i.e. one shouldn't be placed on a higher podium over the other. "I have knowledge of one because I think there are good arguments for one." Don't tell me that there is good arguments for the existence of one God over another, you most likely only believe because either you want to believe or that is the way in which you were brought up. "there is no difference between the God of certain religions, like Christian and Muslim." The identity of God is extremely different for a Muslim versus a Christian. According to the principle of non-contradiction, Jesus Christ is either God, or He isn't. He cannot be both. Since Muslims and Christians differ on this most fundamental theological point, they do not believe in the same God. As well, both the Muslim and Christian theology demonstrate that their believers follow a different God, as the divine natures, as set forth by each religion's believers, are different. At most, one can say both religion are monotheistic in belief, but that is all. YOU may accept the God of Islam but Christianity doesn't. This disproves that the OGF objection is fallacious because people then are indeed going one God further. However even if it was fallacious(which it isn't) then you still discredit roughly 99% of "Gods" that have ever existed which would mean that atheists are going 2 gods further, which is the same principle. No matter what way you look at it you are still discrediting about a thousand Gods, which is the point of the OGF objection. In relation to your preternatural paragraph, you keep saying that the non-existence of some does not necessarily imply the non-existence of another. If there is equally no evidence for The Christian God or Thor then why should I believe in the Christian God over Thor? You say that Its like saying that unicorns don't exist, therefore other solar systems don't but on the contrary it's like you are saying that out of unicorns or fairies, unicorns exist. There is no logical reason to assume that unicorns (pagan Gods) exist over fairies (Modern theistic Gods) therefore why wouldn't they be in the same category? You say that God is the ultimate explanation of beings, yet this explanation stems from mans want to fill scientific gaps. Just because the Ancient Greek Gods didn't have an elaborate story attached to them doesn't mean that they are any less likely to exist than lets say the Christian God. You can't say that just because more effort went in to the idea of the Christian God than Zeus, that that God is any more likely to be real. You're right the one god further objection attempts to show the FACT that everyone at some level is an atheist with respect to some gods and I feel it greatly succeeds. It does not attempt to disprove God's existence, it shows that the likeliness of one God's existence over thousands is very very slim. It is not comparing apples to oranges it is comparing lack of evidence to lack of evidence and proposes the notion that such existence is unlikely, and it draws this proposal from facts. Thank you for the debate.