Fundamental Arrogance in Christianity

[Angrboda]

They may be evidence of something, but just what they are evidence of is the tricky part.  That's why the default is no relation.  You've simply linked them to God because there is a convention of doing so.  And that is improper.

I can think of at least 3 peer-reviewed studies that suggest belief in God is instinctive rather than conventional:

Boston Study; Oxford Study; Skin Conductivity

Of course all of these studies are silent as to whether the instinct refers to something real or only imagined, but that does not affect my argument. It is natural for humans to believe in the divine by default.

I disagree. The question is what does it mean for it to be natural to believe in gods and the afterlife, and your argument very specifically makes the inference that one interpretation of that meaning should be the default position. That's a flawed inference. Whether that instinct refers to something real or imagined is indeed relevant to your argument. It may be natural to believe in the afterlife for reasons having nothing to do with an actual afterlife. The null hypothesis isn't about what is natural or conventional, but about the relationships between causes and effects. There is no reason why a natural concept should necessarily correspond to a veridical one. Until you demonstrate that there is a relationship, the null hypothesis is that there is none.