The "one god further" objection is fallacious

Con, The point of my argument is that the one god further objection is not an objection at all because there is no such thing as going one god further. You have to understand that just because something is termed "god" does not make it the same type of being. Now, this does not mean one version of the thing called god is better than another, it just means they are different in category and therefore cannot be compared and the existence of one does not effect the other. Now, to your points: 1) "dismissing other Gods because they have knowledge of their own" -This isn't about knowledge in the sense you seem to be using it. IF I come to the conclusion via say philosophy that some ultimate being exists with certain traits, but certain other beings I have not concluded exist, there is no flaw in this reasoning. I have knowledge of one because I think there are good arguments for one. Its like I think that humans exist but not bigfoot. Same basic idea 2) The one god further objection involves one revelation further as I have tried to point out because there is no difference between the God of certain religions, like Christian and Muslim. Sure they have different traits (e.g. Trinity vs no Trinity) but the essential "God" of each religion is exactly the same being, namely the God of classical theism. Therefore, if I dismiss Islam, I am not dismissing the God of Islam, rather, I accept the God of Islam but REJECT the revelation of the Koran because I do not think that God has revealed Himself in that manner. That is how revelation is relevant to the debate. It also shows that the OGF objection is fallacious because no one is going a God further but only choosing between revelations 3) The preternatural point is this: There are many possible beings that exist with certain "powers" and things that are above human nature. For example, aliens, the gods of ancient religions, possibly monsters or ghosts, angels, and the like. Not that these exist, but they are logically coherent entities. The non-existence of some does not necessarily imply the non-existence of another. The reason is that they are different beings. Further, with respect to the God of classical theism, they are in an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CATEGORY. Its like saying "well unicorns don't exist, therefore other solar systems don't" its totally irrelevant and a non-sequiter. You ask what the difference is. I have said that I do not have a ton of space to explain this and defend it but only summarize. I think my summary proves that there is enough substantial and relevant difference to show that God of classical theism is not just in the same category as say the gods of Egypt. The God classical theism is described as the ultimate reality of existence. God is pure spirit, eternal, infinite, powerful, personal, simple, perfect, etc. This being is not a being that just happens to exist, but one that is the ultimate explanation of existence. It has no potencies that need to be actualized because it is pure act, it has no essence that needs to be joined to an act of existence because its very essence is existence. This being is not composed of parts therefore does not need to be assembled. This being has something analogous to intellect and will that are in us. This being is the foundation of being and the definition of goodness. It is the source of all reality at every instance. This type of being is the ultimate explanation and can be demonstrated using sound metaphysical proofs. On the other hand, ancient pagan gods are just elevated humans. Contrary to being ultimate explanations, they need an explanation. They are not necessary beings, they can be both good and evil, they have certain abilities and not others, their essence is not the same as their existence, they are limited by their natures. You see, these beings have a lot more in common with humans than with the God of classical theism 4) The OGF objection attempts to show how everyone at some level is an atheist with respect to some gods. But the problem with this idea is that some people are not atheists with respect to God. They may disbelieve in gods of ancient Greece, but this has no bearing on the question of God's existence or which revelation He has given. It is comparing apples to oranges and fails to show anything meaningful