Religion says God is the non-physical cause of all things.  He cannot compare to any magical creature such as a pagan God or unicorn.  We are using the magical godlike unicorn illustration here.  Religion is insistent that the God idea is not even near the unicorn idea in value.

Religious thinkers say that unlike the unicorn, God does or just might answer the following questions.
What caused the universe to come into existence from nothing?
Whether there was a universe that came into existence or always existed, what is the explanation for its existence?
Does life have an ultimate purpose?
Why are we policed by a moral conscience as if a God or reasonably moral being put it in us?
To sum up, they are arguing that "if the unicorn exists, it is no big deal. The questions cannot apply or be relevant. But if God exists, these questions apply and are relevant. Thus God is a big deal." The questions are about the effect God and faith in him can have on us.
But the fact remains that divine magic is presented as the answer to all the questions. The point is the magic so a unicorn doing magic and a God doing infinitely more magic is irrelevant.  It dwells on the quantity of magic when it should dwell on the magic itself.

All you know about spirit is that it is non-physical so who are you to say it is not a unicorn that has no parts but is still a unicorn? 
Also, the entity that caused the existence of the universe need not be the same being as who put a moral conscience in us. And the alleged morality of our conscience is controversial. The notion that God defines morality is absurd no sane or truthful Christian accepts it any more.
The argument only makes a case for the undesirability of belief in the unicorn as creator. But loads of undesirable things are true! The unicorn could still be God though we do not want him to be. 
Some say that God has meaning - you sense you must have and need a relationship with God. They go on to say that if God does not exist then life is not really worth it. God supposedly gives life a value that any other supernatural concept say the unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster cannot give it. They say God is to be the one supernatural being that should be taken seriously because it will affect how we act. It will give us somebody to love and serve.
In fact, believing your beloved granny is somehow a goddess would be more sensible. It is more human.
The effect argument should be the main or sufficient one for accepting God but it is a crock. And it does not affect the lives of believers enough to take it seriously.

Is the magical unicorn creator suggestion too weird for consideration?
The unicorn has magical powers so it could be the creator. And Christianity says God has the power to give a creature his power to create. He could give a unicorn the power to create.
What if we say the unicorn is God? Robin Le Poidevin says that we are still saying there is a God and are just engaging in a bizarre take on God and are not repudiating God in the sense of an all-powerful source of all things and the father of love. He would say that we are saying there is a God and the dragon is God incarnate just like how some people say that about Jesus.
But if God exists, is there really such a thing as a bizarre take on him? If it bizarre to you, that does not mean it really is bizarre. Who is to say what is a bizarre take on God and what isn't? A unicorn is a bizarre thing to suppose but at the end of the day it is only a magical horse with a horn growing from its head. Who is to say that the idea of a God with no parts and who is spirit is better or worse? If God being source of all is all that matters, then what you think God is does not really matter. Maybe he is a spiritual computer or frog.
If God has magical power then what do you need God for? Why not just say there is magical power? Imagine there is a superhero called Electro-Man. He uses electricity to help people. Believers in him say he exists because they see how electricity works and sometimes blasts criminals into the next world. They should say electricity exists and stop there. There is no need to say or think there is a man operating the electricity. Electricity is only a proof for electricity and not for Electro-Man.
If you think your king is an alien in disguise you are repudiating the king. In the same way, to think God is a unicorn is to repudiate God and make another God - a unicorn one.
Le Poidevin needs to think about what is meant by God. God is act - he is activity. This power, this activity, is not part of the universe but the source of all. It has no parts. It is spirit. Saying God is act is a way of understanding what is meant by saying God is spirit.
If God is act, then what kind of act?
If he can be a spirit person and sort of like man, why can't he be a spirit unicorn and sort of like a unicorn?
God being act raises the question which act out of billions is he? Take your pick.

Finally, we see that God or unicorn, what the real point is the magic of being able to command worlds to appear out of nothing.  Also spirit only means non-physical and saying spirit must be like the Christian God is like saying that if matter is non-physical then it must be granite.



No Copyright