[beavus]

since it is generally agreed that you cannot prove a negative, in this case the negative being "there is no God" those who say "God exists and has revealed himself to me" would seem to have the stronger claim.

Not "have the stronger claim", but "be making the stronger claim". It is not so much that one cannot prove a negative as the burden of evidence is on those making a claim. I might say that 3-headed Elvi dance figure-8's on my toilet seat. The burden is on me to demonstrate it, not on my skeptics to prove me wrong.

This must be the case lest we find we must accept as true all the absurd rantings of madmen until they are proven false.

[Ronin]

If a person is proselytizing to you in an effort to get you to accept their beliefs you most certainly have a right to demand they present evidence that you can accept.

That is, and always has been, my position.

But if you read my sentence I said would seem to have the stronger claim. The credibility of the witness and the claim itself are obviously major factors in whether or not any claim is, or should be, accepted.

Thus, based on my own experience and knowledge (which is the only thing I have to base anything on) I am forced to stipulate that those who do believe in divine providence have a greater weight of evidence on their side than those who do not.

But that weight of accepted evidence does not reach a level in me personally that allows me to classify it as belief, so I remain agnostic in the most general sense.