I got A.I. to agree with me that atheists are logically wrong to compare God with santa

 Here is what I asked A.I. (Gemini). (my writing in blue, the A.I answer in green)

Hi Icke. I was just wondering, surely it's a fallacy of false equivalence if the comparison of God with Santa Claus or an invisible pink unicorn is question begged? For example, however miracles occur, however God done it, if ultimately life only exists because God created it then surely miracles can't be equivalent to magic?

The Flaw of False Equivalence

The comparison of God with Santa Claus or a unicorn is a classic example of a false equivalence because it ignores a fundamental difference between the categories being compared.

• Santa Claus and unicorns are beings that, by definition, exist within the natural universe. They are said to have physical characteristics (a corporeal body, the ability to fly, etc.), and their existence can, in theory, be tested and falsified through empirical observation. The claim "Santa Claus exists" is a claim about a physical entity that should, in principle, leave behind physical evidence in the natural world

• The objection relies on the rhetorical tactic of making a category error seem like a valid comparison. By placing God in the same category as a unicorn, the arguer attempts to force the believer to use the same type of empirical evidence to "prove" God as they would to prove a physical entity, which is a misdirection from the start

• to my mind this is misleading trickery because it is the use of words to cover over the fact that it is question-begged that God is comparable to something absurd or false and undetectable, rather than something that is potentially true but undetectable. Surely it is a choice to go with something we would usually believe false and undetectable rather than something true but undetectable.

• Your final point is the most powerful one. You have correctly identified the logical difference between something that is potentially true but undetectable and something that is false and undetectable. The comparison conflates these two very different categories

• A false and undetectable claim (like a unicorn) is one that, while undetectable, is inconsistent with the known facts of the universe (e.g., the laws of biology).

• A true but undetectable claim (like God as a non-corporeal first cause) is one that is not in contradiction with the facts of the universe, and indeed, is posited to be the cause of them.