It's the same annoying substitution of ontological arguments. "God" suddenly becomes a hot-swappable concept for your particular deity.
"Well, everyone knows God exists" is about as compelling as "Well, everyone knows unicorns exist, or "Well, everyone knows God exists but Unicorns don't exist."
No. It's just an unsupported assertion that isn't backed up, because nobody is able to back it up.
So people rely on faith, or claiming there is evidence, and then claiming you have to believe before you can even discern the evidence.
I'm sure people who believe in Unicorns believe they have rational reasons for their beliefs, too.
"Well, everyone knows God exists" is about as compelling as "Well, everyone knows unicorns exist, or "Well, everyone knows God exists but Unicorns don't exist."
No. It's just an unsupported assertion that isn't backed up, because nobody is able to back it up.
So people rely on faith, or claiming there is evidence, and then claiming you have to believe before you can even discern the evidence.
I'm sure people who believe in Unicorns believe they have rational reasons for their beliefs, too.