An exact parallel to the argument that the evidence of god is everywhere would be:
Two old men are talking about floog. The young man is familiar with floog. Floog has been said to have created everything, and takes the form of an invisible, intangible and generally insensible being. The young man asks the two old men where the evidence of Floog is, and they state that everything is evidence of Floog. The young man looks around, and sees no evidence for Floog, then notifies the old man that he does not see Floog. The old man gives him a book called the Iruf. The Iruf states that Floog exists, and the old man uses the Iruf to argue. The young man then points out why that is a fallacy, and the old man realizes this. For some reason, the adamant old man still believes in Floog to this day, despite his argument being easily refuted.
Two old men are talking about floog. The young man is familiar with floog. Floog has been said to have created everything, and takes the form of an invisible, intangible and generally insensible being. The young man asks the two old men where the evidence of Floog is, and they state that everything is evidence of Floog. The young man looks around, and sees no evidence for Floog, then notifies the old man that he does not see Floog. The old man gives him a book called the Iruf. The Iruf states that Floog exists, and the old man uses the Iruf to argue. The young man then points out why that is a fallacy, and the old man realizes this. For some reason, the adamant old man still believes in Floog to this day, despite his argument being easily refuted.
¨I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.¨