The problem with this argument is that God is held to be the Ultimate and Necessary Reality which is responsible for all contingent (non-necessary) reality, including our entire observable universe. Leprechauns--by contrast, and apart from the question of whether they actually exist--are held to be contingent beings. That is, Leprechauns do not need to exist; they are contingent and whether or not they exist is significant only to the extent that they might make their existence known.There is no more empirical evidence for believing in God than there is for believing in Leprechauns (or fairies, or Santa, or the Great Pumkin, or what have you). Since you Christians generally don't find belief in those things to be rational, you must therefore understand why we non-theists do not find it rational to believe in God.
Now we know that there is some non-contingent reality. The only question is, "Is this necessary, non-contingent reality 'God,' or is it not?" We cannot avoid the question, and yet we cannot even in principle obtain empirical scientific evidence for such matters, since the "Ultimate Reality" (whatever it is) lies beyond our empirically observable universe.
So to argue that believing in God is no more rational than believing in Leprechauns is to mistake a necessary being ("God" or some other "Ultimate and Necessary Reality") with a non-necessary being.
Now the point of this thread is not so much to debate or discuss this fallacy; rather, the purpose of this thread is to maintain links to any thread in the main forum sections where this particular fallacy is raised and rebutted. By keeping links to the posts on this subject, we will be able to utilize our prior work any time a non-theist might attempt to raise this particular fallacy.
