Your prospective syllogism only survives within the realm of extreme (ie. unreasonable) skepticism, in which (it is argued that) NOTHING is ever conclusively certain (by mens of objective validation/confirmation) or even acceptably "knowable" (as purported and reasonably conclusive fact).
Is that REALLY the identically removed perspective held by most religions/faiths? In effect, is "trust nothing...doubt everything" the penultimate hallmark and guidepost of faith based claims and beliefs?
Your "equality" syllogism fails within the very same parameters that you suggest either/both perspectives must [logically] be flawed...or otherwise "become" equally valid/plausible; yet (somehow serve) at the same time to subsequently validate concurrently fallacious conclusions. It's poor defense to argue that your rationale is "no worse (nor any better) than" evidence-based estimations/conclusions as otherwise presented/delivered/derived acceptable fact.
"I can't prove it, but I believe it anyway" is not an argument supported by any reasoned logic.
C'mon.
If anything and everything that appears to be concrete and substantial (by means of tactile interactions, measures, and qualifications of consistency by means of independent observation), is but a construct/figment of a (any) human consciousness that may or may not even exist...then why even bother to debate the concept itself?
If we, as rational and self-aware human beings can at least agree (beyond the absurdly imposed realm of absolute skepticism) that our perceived existence is indeed "real", then at least a valid comparison of qualafiable/quantifiable claims can be assessed.
"There is a ball", vs. "There is a God."
A ball can be touched. measured, and qualified within discernible boundaries. What is the texture, measure, or qualifiable boundary attributed to any given deity?
"There is gravity.", vs. "God is loving."
Gravity offers predictive qualities, and it's effect can be objectively measured and observed. Is any of "God's love" subject to similar qualifications/measures?
"Gravity causes objects to come down.", vs. "Loving beings care about their children."
Gravity is measured as a relative constant. Is there any measurable or observable constant regarding love and/or care of offspring? Is there any available data to suggest that love is perhaps both inconsistent and unpredictable?
"If I throw the ball up, gravity will cause it to come down.", vs. "We are God's children. Therefore, God cares about us."
Gravity seems to exert reliably repeatable aspects of predictability. Such manifestations/effects can be observed, measured, and objectively tested. How does one begin to measure (much less prospectively falsify) any [claimed] existent deity, much less hope to accurately account of it's (their) conscience, "feelings", or behavior? Does gravity evoke any apparent conscious aspects of anger, vengeance, or compassion? If you or I express disdain or unbelief regarding gravity, should we expect it to affect us differently from those that "believe" in gravity?
Hey. I'm a "skeptic", and I remain dubious about most claims of "authenticity", whether they be based upon preliminary evidences, or merely borne of wishful thinking/faith. But even most ardent skeptics are compelled to operate within realms of the tangible, the tactile, and the observable. Sure, there might be an entire universe contained within one atom of my thumb...but is that fanciful notion likely, or plausibly suggested by even one whit of empirically evaluative evidences?
If a person claims to be interactively conversant with their God on a daily basis...is that person delusional, crazy, or "divinely touched/inspired" in some way? Who is qualified to validate or discredit such a claim, or ascertain the "truth" of a claimant's sanity/status?? What concrete/objective evidence is to be presented as to verify or invalidate such a claim/state?
Kierkegaardian existentialism is reproved bunk, especially as even ole' Soren himself acknowledged that the individual might (perhaps) "know" a "God", but only in a "leap of faith" above/beyond either established creedal doctrines, or available empirical evidences.
Allow me to revise your syllogism to more comparable application/comparison.
If gravity exists, and if: "What goes up, must come down" is "true", then...
"If God exists, then His effect is universally applicable, and affects us all equally" should also be "true".
It appears that gravity is the measurable constant, but neither "belief", nor "faith" can ever (supposedly) exceed the measure or understanding resident within the individual himself (being that self-realization or divine "revelation" . This may lead to rationalized "beliefs" in literally thousands (millions?) of different deities, but gravity effects everyone equally...without bias, favor, or prejudice...whether they "believe" in gravity or not.
Gravity is utterly ambivalent to our existence; not some omnisciently existent entity that serves to define (or perpetrate) existence.
Can the cosmos exist without a god (or gods)?
Can a god (or gods) exist in the absence of any "believing" sentient beings?
As you are a self-acknowledged Christian, I advance this:
"Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests.
Faith is the result of teaching (Rom. 10:14-17). Knowledge is an essential element in all faith, and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith (John 10:38; 1 John 2:3). Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith, and the ultimate ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of God.
This assent to or belief in the truth received upon the divine testimony has always associated with it a deep sense of sin, a distinct view of Christ, a consenting will, and a loving heart, together with a reliance on, a trusting in, or resting in Christ... Faith is necessary to our salvation (Mark 16:16), not because there is any merit in it, but simply because it is the sinner's taking the place assigned him by God, his falling in with what God is doing...
...The warrant or ground of faith is the divine testimony, not the reasonableness of what God says, but the simple fact that he says it. Faith rests immediately on, "Thus saith the Lord." But in order to this faith the veracity, sincerity, and truth of God must be owned and appreciated, together with his unchangeableness. God's word encourages and emboldens the sinner personally to transact with Christ as God's gift, to close with him, embrace him, give himself to Christ, and take Christ as his. That word comes with power, for it is the word of God who has revealed himself in his works, and especially in the cross. God is to be believed for his word's sake, but also for his name's sake."
--Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
Or this thought, just for fun...
"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love."
--Albert Einstein
