[Mike Doolittle]

You're still ignoring the main point: that it's a question of interpretation of what we know. The difference between God and the invisible pink unicorn is that we logically infer the existence of God when we interpret the world as designed, created and purposeful, which is based upon what we can observably know. What we begin to define as God's characteristics is the result of said interpretations, but it's a theological interpretive perspective, not a falsifiable naturalistic claim.

The IPU is a non sequitur. What exactly do we believe the IPU did, and how did we arrive at that conclusion? What are we basing its existence on? We base the existence of God on an interpretation of known truths. Your denial of God amounts to saying that since you can't observe God within the boundaries of your existential bubble, God must not exist. You ignore that many aspects of our universe may be logically interpreted to be signs of the existence of God. Instead, you have chosen to interpret the world in a manner congruent with your faith in the naturalistic axiom. And hey, that's fine. I can only tell you how I interpret what I see. Likewise, you can only tell me how you interpret what you see.