If God is a spiritual creator of all then he can be a spiritual anything even a unicorn - or a chatbot.
God is supposed to be spirit with no body. Since God, understood as a spirit—an intelligence and will without a body—has no observable or measurable properties, such a being exists only as a conceptual construct, much like a supernatural spirit unicorn. Calling God a “person” is merely an approximation, an attempt to say something rather than nothing, and for all we know, “spirit unicorn” or “spirit wizard” might serve just as well. Or better.
And what does person mean? What if an alien in a form similar to a horse with a horn was as functional as you if not more?
We actually have a clearer mental picture of a magical unicorn than of an abstract concept of God. A God-unicorn that created everything would be easier for us to comprehend than God as traditionally described. Our idea of God can never be greater than the limits of our own minds, and the divine remains mostly a mystery. Whatever we imagine God to be is ultimately just a guess. We’ve been conditioned to treat the unicorn as a fictional creature and God as real, which leads us to believe that the two aren’t comparable—yet, in terms of how clearly we can imagine them, the unicorn is far more understandable.
We often think we’re experiencing “spirit”. We "visualize" a space that seems to have some kind of presence. We think spirit is trying to tell us something about itself when we get "spiritual" feelings. Since no one can detect, measure, or weigh what we see internally we extend that to spirit. It cannot be detected, measured or weighed either.
If God is spirit, and the unicorn is spirit, the real issue isn’t either of them but the very concept of “spirit” itself. There’s no evidence that spirit exists or is even possible; it appears to be a purely human invention. To honor spirits is essentially to honor the minds that created the idea.
Some say that God as the source of morality is a more sensible thing to believe in than God-unicorn which is just a magical animal. But why can't God-unicorn do that too?
There is no way to tell if you are an incarnation of a spirit unicorn, etc. The body might compensate for having a soul that is not typically human. Just like how a person can thrive because of brain damage.
The notion of disembodied beings needs ignoring. It is concerning how faith is based on a self-serving selective use of language.
I've argued elsewhere that you may as well say a unicorn with divine power, given to it by God, made all things as say God.
This argument is different. It is about defining God as a spirit unicorn etc. For the purpose of this argument, we have set aside the fact like an abstract God, a creator unicorn cannot be shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt. On that level, that God and the God-unicorn are in the same boat. It is only our thinking habit, our conditioning that makes us lean towards the abstract God idea.
FINALLY
Belief in an invisible magical unicorn-God is as bad as belief in an abstract God - if not better. Suppose creation really needs a creator. Then what matters is not what creates but that something creates. So a creator could be anything. When you say there is a creator you are in fact saying that. To assert it is the Christian God is just your opinion and one opinion in this case is as good as another.
Even if you can prove there is a creator, what if you suggest the creator is a God-unicorn?
Robin Le Poidevin says that we are still saying there is a God and are just engaging in a bizarre take on God and are not repudiating God in the sense of an all-powerful source of all things and the father of love.
Really?
If you think your king is an alien in disguise, you are repudiating the real king. For the same way, to think God is a unicorn is to repudiate God and make another God - a unicorn one.
APPENDIX:
Some say, “I am an atheist in the same way I am an atoothfairyist.”
IT IS CLAIMED: The two are not the same. Being an atheist commits you to create good for there is no God to do it. It is about denying God in that particular way. An atheist who is not doing good is still an atheist in the way a doctor who will not work is still a doctor. While it is true that it is as silly to say there is a God as it is to say there is a toothfairy, different moral consequences happen. The atheist has to be the good good to others but there is no reason to believe that the non-existence of the toothfairy means the atoothfairyist must do good.
REPLY:
The atheist declares herself the one who must help others in the absence of a God to do it.
The toothfairy even if not an almighty being, is supernatural and she should be able to avoid restrictions by space and time to help the people you meet.
They are the same.
APPENDIX: WHY STOP WITH THE UNIVERSE?
You say you have a pet unicorn that works miracles in your garage.
When no camera sees it, you say it is invisible.
When nothing can record its sound you say it does not do audible sound but sends messages to you telepathically.
When putting flour over the floor fails to pick up its prints, you say it has no weight or hovers.
When nobody sees its miracles you say that it swears recipients to secrecy or does them in secret so that say the cures of Lourdes are actually its doing.
Or you may say it does not do them any more. Is that really any better than an excuse for why you can't leave traps for it? How do they know what it is not doing now? Arrogant!
You have an excuse for every possible test.
This unicorn is really the same as one that does not exist at all. And so it is with abstract God and unicorn God.
Moral 1 is that our being unable to prove non-existence - of abstract God or unicorn-God - does not make it reasonable to assume or believe that they exist.
Moral 2 is that our being unable to prove their non-existence - does not make it unreasonable to assume or believe that they don't exist.
Moral 3 is that we cannot prove the non existence of either but it does not mean that it is equally likely that they exist or do not exist
Moral 4 their non-existence cannot be proven with absolute certainty but the chance of their existing is very small
Moral 5 we must assume their non-existence until suitable evidence for their existence comes along. This assumption is reasonable and needs no defence.
To assert the existence of the unicorn or God is really about your contrarianism and wish to pretend you know more than you do - not about the unicorn or God! For that reason, to argue that you are doing this to have faith in a god of love is worse than suggesting a unicorn!