Inventing gods

A popular atheist argument online; "it's easy to invent god, as long as he's invisible, undetectable, etc..."

Correct. It is easy to create a false god.

Two points that are logically sound;

1. That doesn't mean this is how God originated.

2. If it's easy to invent false gods then why is that?

It's possible to make a false god up because invisibility yields the same appearance as non-existence.

If I create a false god right now called, "zug", I can do that because invisibility hides the fact he does not exist. We know that he is invisible because he doesn't exist. But the reason you can't say God is the same as zug is for the very same reason. (The invisibility problem)

Think about it, we still don't know if God's invisibility is because of His non-existence or because He can't be seen or detected in the natural. Therefore it's fallacious to presume God is unreal because zug is. Even if you think it's "probable", that doesn't prove equivalence. 

Also, "if" God did create life and the universe then GRANTING zug omnipotence can't mean zug has it. 

In other words the reason God may be there is because of the intelligibility and design we find in the universe rather than the mess you would expect from materialism (if anything at all)

In other words, WHAT DOES EXIST AND IS VISIBLE gives us a reason to believe God does exist and may be omnipotent whereas we simply imbued zug with omnipotence. If zug's omnipotence is fictional then he cannot be equivalent to God unless you assume atheism. (atheism is question-begged with this argument)

To prove this argument you have to show something invisible and unverifiable can only be fictional. If you can have such a thing be either factual or fictional then it could be either one so there is no reason to choose, "fictional" just because atheists say so. 

It is only ABUSING HINDSIGHT to PRETEND a prediction of atheism would be an intelligible universe with design. That is the prediction for a creation. The design of your eyeball is not a religious creed.