You must have a very different idea of what a valid argument is.
Hmm. Maybe I'm wrong, this is how I see it.
I believe in unicorns.
They fly all over the place. I can see them and experience them.
How do they fly, they have wings.
How do I experience them, because they give me delight of looking a their beautiful colors.
Why do I believe them, because they make me smile and make my day
It's a valid belief.
Usually, animal with wings can fly. So, that's logical.
If we see beautiful colors, that gives delight in a psychological point of view too, that's logical.
As a result this, it makes my day wonderful; why would it not? That's logical to assume it would.
This is a valid/logical belief that unicorns exist and my explanation why. There is no problem with this unless I use this logical and valid belief and impose it on others and kill people who dont agree with me.
Is it wrong/not factual, yes.
It's it logical/valid/agreeable belief, yes.
Is there a problem in either of these two cases, I dont see one.
I'd think the god of the gaps is the same.