It is illogical for someone to disbelieve in God.

I love debating God's existence a lot! But in this debate I am going to make away with the premise that it is totally illogical for someone to be an atheist or rather, for someone to believe in atheism. It is totally illogical to believe in atheism; all emotion aside, this is an emotion free zone, I want brutality here. To know of God's existence philosophically, is it easier to start by assuming that God does or doesn't exists and then relate either one of those premises to empirical data, or is it easier by assuming that we can decipher whether or not God does exist by relating our beliefs about God's existence to empirical data? My premise is quite simple, atheism is totally illogical! We hear all the time about mythical beasts and creatures being used to bring out God's existence. I have heard a thousand times, "Do you believe in unicorns?" Given that I do not, I am then told that if I do really believe in God, I would be contradicting myself due to my seemingly inconsistent form of logical use. That the premise of God existing would have the existence of unicorn, fairs, dragons and hob goblins following along side with my presumption that...God exists But if they who question my belief in God had any sense, they would realise that such creatures could exist, in that it is possible for such creature to exist, there is no evidence against them existing. So the smart among the atheist community will take a mythical creature and mould the concept into an analogy with a place or situation in which we are all most familiar with, say a bedroom or a back garden. Such places in correlation with the analogy used by atheists is of course our knowledge about the universe. But we do not assume that if God does exist, He would be hiding but rather God is directly undetectable in this analogy. However God is indirectly detectable, by that I mean God can be logically discovered, not empirically embraced. So I have heard it used that God is like an invincible creature in and among somewhere familiar. Lets take a bedroom, I know almost everything there is about a bedroom, personally I sleep in one. If I were to abruptly make a claim to another saying that there are fairies which live in my bed room, the person probably wouldn't believe me. But for the sake of the argument, if the person asked for me to allow the fairies to be seen by him, then they would be clearly as darft as me. Being sincere about wanting to see something as absurd as fairies would mean you are some what either uneducated or perhaps insane. Assuming however that as I showed them my bedroom and there were no fairies in sight, I would then, according to the analogy, state that the fairies are invincible, soundless, untouchable and simply undetectable in every physical way imaginable. Notice that earlier I made the premise that the familiarity of where such mythical creatures are based in, is in the real world the known universe. We know things about the universe, due to our observations, I know glass shatters when dropped on hard surfaces or that gravity pulls things inwards instead of outwards. In those things alone, abstractly God is not to be found. Yet I could show you that glass shatters, in the same way, you could show me a bedroom, but you couldn't show me that there were fairies in there which are invincible, soundless, untouchable and simply undetectable in every physical way imaginable. This is because we are familiar with our observations, yet we are not familiar with what we do not know. How the universe came about is unknown in the sense that we do not know how it was created. Yet to say there is no God, after pulling the mythical creature analogy out of the hat is quite a foolish thing to commit. It is far more reasonable and logical to make this analogy; to say there is no God is like saying an unknown object has an outer structure yet no inner structure. We can perceive this object from the out side, and because we cannot from the in side, we assume it has no inner structure. For if you were to get in side the object, it would seem as though there was no object at all. This is contradicting of course, and even more of course, illogical. We know that if something has an out side it will have an in side without having to observe the in side. It makes far more sense in abiding by this analogy. For we know that we will never see inside of the object, thus we can only use logic to ensure that it does have an inside. Although we maybe some what familiar with the concept or experience of being in side something like a house, this only backs up my claim that it does have an in side. The atheist here in this analogy is saying there is no inner structure, which is like saying there is a universe which is empirical, just like the object, yet it does not have a creator, just like the object does not have a inner structure. Playing back on the previous analogy that atheists love to make about the non-existence of God, it is illogical to recall God as a mythical creature, with all it's undetectable qualities. It is illogical because we do not look to discover God in known facts, but we look for God indirectly of these facts and observations. In the analogy God in there directly, you just cannot detect Him. God is everywhere of course, but not based on the fact that He is invincible, but based on that He is God. In the analogy the mythical creature of which is undetectable is located in one place only. Due to the creatures undetectable qualities, it might be anywhere, but just because you cannot locate it, it does mean logically that it is everywhere - that would make no sense. Going by logic, not necessarily truth, it is logical to presume that God does exist. I believe this because like with my analogy which is for my argument, if there is a universe, there is a creator. In the same way, if there is an out side of something, there is logically an in side of something. Yet it is illogical to relate God to knowledge we know off first hand, or directly. This is because the whole debate, the whole deal about whether God exists or not is indirect to empirical data. If I believed God was direct to empirical data, that God could be seen like other empirical data can, but I've just decided that God is undetectable, then the atheistic analogy would be logical. Since that is not God's nature conceptually, to be physical like His creation since He is spirit, it is illogical in any case. The two analogies cannot make sense if both are true, only one can be true and not the other. If the mythical creature analogy is a true perception, then logic doesn't exist. And the whole thing about the mythical creature analogy seemingly making logical sense, is contradicting to what it is trying to give evidence for. However that problem would be a problem at all, since logic wouldn't exist. In the other analogy, if it is a true perception, then logic exists, and it would have to for the analogy to make sense. If logic does not exist, there is nothing wrong with contradiction. I hope I have made my argument clear, look forward to sussing out what my opponent has to say in reply.