Galileo: Yeah, that's one of my favorite rationalizations for believing whatever the hell you want without evidence. It sounds good, but really only the first half is true in the general sense. Most of us that try to think rationally have a specific threshold of evidence in order to believe anything. If that threshold were met, we would believe.
But what if those for whom no evidence will suffice somehow came to be the preeminent portion of the entity which label all of creation and the all the evidence of a Creator? What if they went about "thingifying" every concept to the degree that rational thought about the non-REALITY of gravity devolved ever into a philosophical discussion of what is really real?
Gravity is not a person, place, or thing. But we have it listed as a noun and we label it a force, even though we have no real evidence it exists. We have evidence that it happens, but none that it exists. Hadrons and leptons are held together by gluons, who made up the labels for these fundamental building blocks of all matter? What are 'bosons', really? Who says where one stops and the other starts?
If a buckyball is a wave and a particle, depending on your perspective, is all matter similarly a wave and a particle? Oh. Brilliant. What, exactly, is a 'wave'? Oh, well, AuldSoul, that is something we discovered we could measure so we slapped a name on it . . . beyond that we don't really know.
In our "genius" and our infatuation with our own ability to discover and utilize the reality we are surrounded by, we have hastily labeled the superabundant evidence of a Creator as anything but. The Creator is not a God of the Gaps, but is the God of the Forces of nature (and so very much more) many elements and aspects of which which we have grossly misidentified as being our various labels and definitions.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul