Yes, this one still comes up from time to time in one form or another. Somehow, some people seem to think this argument still has the ability to sway opinion even though it’s both incorrect and fallacious. The argument usually runs something like this…
Air is invisible, but it exists even though you can’t see it. God is also invisible and you can’t see him but you should believe he exists, because you believe in air.
Balderdash, nonsense and piffle.
You CAN see air. You can see it in its effects – swaying trees, heat haze etc. You can see it through thermographic imaging as it flows. You can freeze it to a liquid or a solid (oxygen, nitrogen, CO2) and then you can see it. You can feel it, weigh it, confirm its existence by experimentation. You can even see it due to the diffraction of sunlight through nitrogen molecules – blue skies.
We don’t even need to get that far to show that this is a bloody stupid way to think though as it could be used to argue for anything, including things we’re just making up on the spot.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn is also invisible and you can’t see her but you should believe she exists, because you believe in air.
Substitute your own invisible ‘X’ for the unicorn as you wish and the problem with the argument holds true.
Apples are green. Orcs are also green. You should believe in orcs because you believe in apples.
This also amounts to the same thing.
There is no evidence for god, no reason to believe in it any more than there is orcs. Grow up.