Basically, your argument is better as an inductive one rather than a deductive one, CS. As an inductive one, I think it's quite strong. J.L. Mackie says something similar in his epic (in both ways... actually, it's not that big, but still...) book 'The Miracle of Theism'. He says that a being who acts immaterially is so far from our experience as to be a priori improbable.
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
