I don't think it's a perfect analogy.
Off course it is.
Both undetectable unicorns and undetectable gods are equally testable, verifiable, falsifiable and supportable.
The "evidence" both have going for them is identical in nature.
As such, they are indistinguishable from each other and other non-existing things.
You are comparing a potential deity that matters to things that don't matter at all if existent.
Nope. A thing would have to have some sort of detectable manifestation if it would matter at all in
anything.
But since both gods and unicorns are undetectable, they "matter" equally in anything. Which is to say: not at all. You can assert all you want that your god matters to things. I can assert the same about the unicorns. In fact, I could even assert that your god works for the unicorns.
And I'ld have the exact same evidence as you to support that claim.
I just don't care about things that don't matter. That's all.
Neither do I. That's one of the many reasons why I am an atheist.
God shows up nowhere, except between people's ears. Just like unicorns.
You don't get to make me think about useless stuff such as unicorns, fairies and whatever things you invent in the first place.
1. not my inventions
2. Seems like you miss the point of the analogy. It's not about the unicorns or fairies. It's about
the nature of those claims, and the evidence in support of it. In terms of the nature of the claims and the evidence in support of it, they are perfectly analogous to gods. All of them are undetectable entities without demonstrable manifestation whatsoever, unfalsifiable and thereby indistinguishable from things that don't exist.
They don't matter to me, even if they exist.
End of debate.
Ostrich defense, it is.
not generalizing you say ?
You said I purportedly ignored everything inconvenient for my faith.
That's not a generalization. That's a matter of observation.
Every inconvenient fact, you actively try to explain away with ad hoc inventions, strange trails of thoughts, false equivocations, simple ignoring (like with the analogy above) or as last resort - claims of magical undetectable intervention (cfr "god planted fossils in the ground").
You are very consistent in this behavior.
I don't refuse logic.
I said, God uses fossils for third reasons. Just to bring messages accross.
He wants to teach us a message about our own bodies how they are intended to be.
That's at least my interpretation of the fossil record.
Exactly as I said. You claim that god planted fossils in the ground, instead of fossils being the natural remains of creatures that lived a long time ago. From this follows that he specifically ordered them so that their apparent age and location would make sense in context of an evolutionary history which supposedly never happened. He also apparently went out of his way to make the nested hierarchical structure of DNA match with the anatomy of the creatures in the "fake" fossil record and have it all make sense in terms of age and location. So indeed exactly as I said: planting fake evidence and thereby tricking us into believing in a false history.
Excellent example of your post hoc attempts at marrying reality with your scientifically illiterate beliefs.
Now: what does this have to do with the subject at hand?
Nothing.
Everything. It is the root of the problem.
You write an OP and ask the question if some what-if unlikely thing would make us believe in gods.
The problem is that the very question reveals the disconnect you have with reality and rational reasoning.
And this disconnect manifests in pretty much everything you say when it comes to discussing your religious beliefs.
It all centers around a basic thought, which is the primary difference between you and me, and that thought it:
"
When the evidence of reality contradicts your a priori beliefs, it's not reality that is incorrect..."
But you have taken on the dogmatic beliefs that it is impossible for your a priori beliefs to be incorrect. So when reality contradicts it, or is otherwise not really compatible with it, you just assume that reality isn't real (cfr god planted fossils) or something else, other then your belief off course, is wrong.
And you likely don't even see the problem with such a mentality.
May I ask you: Don't divert from the topic at hand any further please.
Let's focus on the topic of the thread.
This isn't about my person and what I purportedly do or don't do.
So lets keep it on topic, please.
I consider it very much on topic. It's also not about you, as in "your person". It rather is about the reasoning errors you make which underline everything, including the OP.