Didn’t want to keep on with the piling on, Thermal; but since you posted that detailed response, maybe just one more post from me won’t hurt:
It is an obvious and glaring error in reasoning. Just not the one you think it is, nor is it on my part. We'll flesh it out below.
No, because you are making the same obvious, glaring error of reasoning the others are.
I have said, and repeatedly, that I think a god would be incomprehensible. Why do you add on undetectable to that? I mean, seriously. You genuinely can't conceive of detecting something you don't/can't comprehend?
But you’re the one who specifically spoke of the creator not leaving “breadcrumbs”, in the post that I’d quoted and responded to. Surely “breadcrumbs” refers directly to a trail of evidence --- or, in this case, its lack, and which is specifically what Carl Sagan’s dragon is about? (And which is why I posted that response of mine.) At least in that post, the one about not leaving breadcrumbs, the one I’d quoted, you’d clearly been speaking specifically of the creator’s undetectability, rather than its incomprehensibility, isn’t it?
So the question logically extends to "why don't we see any evidence?", which is countered with "where would you reasonably look?" A creator of time and space (phrased that way for the sake of argument), would not be...inside...that time and space, to my reasoning. And that's the only way we currently know how to detect things.
We are hanging out on a rock orbiting a medium sized star in the unfashionable Western arm of a typical galaxy. You would expect to find a god hanging out here with us? He would even fit anywhere within our current observational abilities? Serious question: why would you expect a universal creating thing to be even visible inside our observable universe? You think, as one of our colleagues does, that he should be expected to be just like a beer can in the fridge?
But, and to repeat what I’d said, if some thing does not impact the universe at all, and leaves zero evidence, then what it does it even mean to say that it exists? Isn’t that the exact same thing, from our perspective, as the thing not existing at all?
And, in any case, what about about the creator of that creator, which following your reasoning would need to exist beyond that creator’s universe? And what of the creator-of-the-creator-of-the-creator, than would, again, necessarily need exist, following your reasoning, in a universe-beyond-the-universe-of-the-creator-of-the-creator-of-our-universe? And so on, ad infinitum? That’s, like, exactly “turtles all the way down”!
I mean, sure, we can speculate. We can speculate about all kinds of things, why not? But when it comes to arriving at an actual worldview, an actual model of reality as we best understand it, then that’s a bit different than wild speculations, isn’t it?
Of course I meant it in the "How" sense, not that there is much important difference.
What kind of bread crumbs would you expect (say) a creator of time and space to leave laying around as evidence? A celestial hammer or screwdriver floating in the cosmos? Maybe a coffee cup and a couple cigarette butts? Again, dead serious question: what would you expect to find, that a creator would leave hanging around for eons? Maybe an Instagram page?
Why would you expect a creator of time and space to be doing hanging around that time and space, of course also conveniently in our current comfortable viewing area and within the confines of our current technology?
Remember, incomprehensible =/= undetectable or any of the other weird add-ons. Also, whatever interactions with such a thing that you guys are trying to pile on are not the question, either. And most importantly, this doesn't have anything to do with how you live your life. It's just the simple musing of whether there could or couldn't be something out there we would call a god. How we would or should proceed from there is a separate question. Don't be like the doorstops posting here who try to lump 8 or 9 entirely different issues all into one.
The rest of this portion of your post I think I’ve already addressed. But as far as the highlighted:
Again, simply
musing, simply speculating, that’s fine, obviously. I could speculate about us living in a simulated universe. Speaking of dragons, I could muse about maybe homo-something-or-the-other perhaps overlapping with and existing together for awhile with dinosaurs, and us facing meteors raining fire down from the sky along with those huge creatures, some of them capable of flight; which is why these legends of enormous fire-belching dragons from cultures all over the world; and it’s a pretty cool speculation, too. For that matter we could speculate about aliens having come down and fiddled around with us humans at key intervention points, like teaching us about fire, and teaching us language, and teaching us about making and using tools, and so on, and including placing into Einstein’s mind the wisps of the Relativity business, and so on; and that’s an even cooler speculation, and with enough imagination can bulk up a super cool sci fi story --- as in fact it has. If all you’re doing is simply speculating, and musing, well then that’s fine, and that can be done without a whole arsenal of evidence supporting it, sure.
But is that actually what you’re doing, simply raising random speculations and simply musing, without claiming that you’re seriously suggesting that any of this might speak to reality? If the answer is Yes, then as far as I’m concerned that’s perfectly cool, and nothing more need be said. So, is the answer a Yes, and is that all you’re doing here?
Of course you might think that because it is evident you have no idea what science is nor what scientific consensus is nor what scientific peer review is... as I have shown 
What's wrong with what I'd said? Isn't that how the scientific consensus gets changed? Or am I wrong? I can't imagine that you think that building a body of peer reviewed work isn't important in overturning an established consensus.