Please think about this.
I heard this the other day:
"To even ask the question "does God exist" requires one to make the a priori assumption that God probably does exist, otherwise the question doesn't make any sense to ask."
Um.... no. That's not how it works, sorry to say.
The assumption God exists is the theistic assumption. The assumption God doesn't exist is the atheistic assumption.
The question simply is, which assumption (of the two) is right?
If the theistic assumption was right, then God would be verified, validated, and belief vindicated by the evidence.
Lacking all trustworthy evidence, as the case seems to be, it rather aligns with the atheist assumption of no God.
No God therefore no real evidence.
So the burden of the proof to substantiate the claim "God exists" is always upon the theist to provide a proper demonstration of the evidence that can be checked by skeptics and non-believers of said God.
If anything, the question "does God exist?" is weighted in favor of the atheist, because no amount of "belief conviction" or "religious tradition" has ever provided convincing and reliable evidence in the way moderns have come to expect of questions of empirical value.