critical study of the capacity of the theory of epistemic distance in defending religious beliefs

One of the important issues in the philosophy of religion is to examine and respond to the doubts raised by atheists about religious beliefs. in some cases, such interpretations of suspicions are formulated so precisely that they make a logical and convincing answer to the suspicions difficult and in some cases impossible. this, in turn, has paved the way for proponents of religious beliefs to theorize that, while it may provide justification for some religious beliefs, it would call into question the rationality of many other religious beliefs. one of the theories that has been used by some advocates of religiosity is the theory of epistemic distance. according to this theory, there is an epistemological distance between man and god, which not only will not succeed in trying to eliminate it, but it is essentially impossible to eliminate such a distance. some, like john hick, have tried to answer doubts such as religious exclusivism and divine hiddenness based on this theory - and of course by adding some other premise. the question that arises is, first, does the claim made in this theory have sufficient logical justification? and secondly, can this theory answer the doubts that have been formulated to refute them? and third, does not this theory itself give rise to new doubts about religious beliefs? based on studies, the hypothesis of the present study is that the answer to the first and second questions is negative and the answer to the third question is positive.