I am trying to demonstrate that the constructs we use to accept the existence of a God is the same as the constructs we could use to accept or deny the existence of fantasy creatures we know to be fiction. Let me attempt to demonstrate specifically. Unicorns exist. I say so. How do I know they exist? Can I prove they exist? No I cannot. But I can say that unicorns are magical creatures that work outside the laws of science as we understand our reality. As such you simply have to accept on faith that I know what I am talking about. Most modern people would consider that a silly argument because we know unicorns are fantasy. But if we take out unicorn and put God in its place, suddenly the exact same argument that we rejected a moment ago is now perfectly acceptable to prove the reality of a God. Thomas suggests that my example is not valid because 'God' is not the same order of thing as 'unicorn'. To which I have to ask why? What raises a God so far above any and every other mythological being other than telling me it is so. The answer as I see it is that if one presupposes that God exists, and also presupposes all the might and majesty we have given a God, well then yes a God is far more realistic than a unicorn. BUT If someone, like me, does not accept the basic premise that a God exists; from that position of thought, the decision process to prove either is the same. If one can say they can prove that a God exists. The argument they use to prove that is the same logic that I used to prove the unicorn.