That metaphor doesn’t support your contention anymore than the previous argument did.
I mean, I could apply your metaphor to anything unobservable, for example:
“Since I can assume a tall building has a deep foundation without directly observing it, I can also assume that God exists without observing Him.”
“Since I can assume a tall building has a deep foundation without directly observing it, I can also assume that there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow without observing it.”
et cetera...
The problem lies in the fact that, unlike higher dimensions, God, or pots of gold at the end of the rainbow, with buildings, we actually design them. We discovered the principles required for their design through experimentation, and so we have those principles to rely on when we make our assumptions. Thus our assumptions are quite solid, being based on known and tested principles. Comparing assumptions based on known and tested principles to assumptions based only on theoretical constructs is not a proper comparison.
You’re conflating my metaphor with illogical arguments that I did not make.
I said nothing about God.
I said nothing about ‘deep’ foundations.
But nice try Mr. Alinsky.
And then you go on to make an illogical assumption about foundations that I would never make because there is evidence that disproves your notion:
“The problem lies in the fact that, unlike higher dimensions, God, or pots of gold at the end of the rainbow, with buildings, we actually design them. We discovered the principles required for their design through experimentation, and so we have those principles to rely on when we make our assumptions. Thus our assumptions are quite solid, being based on known and tested principles.”
Really? If those assumptions are so solid then what’s this...