I am going to have to come back to this discussion a little later on when I'm more mentally awake. This is exactly the sort of argument I was hoping for when I posted this topic. Thank you both.
Well, it helps when I'm not arguing with the kinds of closed-minded scientifically illiterate bigots I've run into in other debates on the argument from design. (Yes, that's my idea of a compliment.
)Theists who claim or require absolute proof for God's existence as a foundation for their faith are actually quite rare. It's hypocritical to claim proof for the foundation of one's faith. Faith by definition is unmeasured acceptance of something as true, without evidence, and is the framework upon which Christianity is built. Proof would kick the legs out from under faith in God in more ways than one; for starters, arguments such as kalam tend to lend more credence to competing religious points of view. Either way, we're right back to the babelfish conundrum.
