If you believe in god, you have to believe in leprechauns.

Leprechaun;Word History: Nothing seems more Irish than the leprechaun; yet hiding within the word leprechaun is a word from another language entirely. If we look back beyond Modern Irish Gaelic luprachn and Middle Irish luchrupn to Old Irish luchorpn, we can see the connection. Luchorpn is a compound of Old Irish l, meaning small, and the Old Irish word corp, body. Corp is borrowed from Latin corpusGod;A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. The Supreme Being; the eternal and infinite Spirit, the Creator, and the Sovereign of the universe; Jehovah.

​

God is a Spirit; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. --John iv.A being conceived of as possessing supernatural powerThe differemce in trying to define God, is that there are so many ways to define him. Some describe him as a supernatural, or a power and/or ruler of [this] universe. Whereas a Leprechaun is a simple defined concept.It seems Leprecahun and God, are two very different concepts. (For arguments sake, I'll say God is a concept, though obviously this is an agreed premise only for the sake of argument).I disagree with 4a. " Therefore, the existence a divine being or beings and the existence of leprechauns are equally unprovable. "Because God is eternal by definition, and ruler of the universe, and transcends it and is supernatural, whereas a supposed leprechaun is not defined this way. Since God is defined as ruler of this universe, creator OF IT, all things prove God. He is defined as making everything, everything testifies of him.4b says " It is illogical and inconsistent to accept one while dismissing the other when both are equally unprovable. "(Let's assume your argument is correct for a moment)It isn't illogical or inconsistent, because one must assume that the unprovability of a concept - if equal, renders two concepts equal.Example;1. I killed my grandmother - there's no way to prove it now.
2.I ate lunch four months ago - there's no way to prove it now.Most people would accept number 2, with being logical and consistent.One gives more credibility to the one which is more likely, despite them being both equally unprovable.Just like my example, There are many scriptures, and hundreds of authors and witnesses to God, and he is a concept of the origin of all things, the meaning of life, which is far more important than a mgical Leprechaun.Even Christ didn't make magic signs to please unbelieving people. And God is more important to people than Leprechauns. I hope you understand.PS. I think your argument is well ordered though, and logical. I don't accept it - but I still think you done a cohesive job. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-03-2004 10:24 AM

You big strawmanning ass-hat. (I borrowed your fave phrase Dan).